Reglas excepcionales de prelación de los pagos a cargo del Fondo

Privilege is related to power in important and disturbing ways. As reviewed in our earlier work (Fisher, Butryn & Roper, 2003), power is a concept frequently discussed in cultural studies but not so much in sport psychology. While researchers within sport sociology have acknowledged (and continue to acknowledge) the importance of interrogating power in sport, the field of sport psychology has yet to devote serious attention to the role power and power dynamics play within the research and practice of applied sport psychology. Within the past five years, only a handful of sport psychology scholars have incorporated discussion of power and power dynamics into their work (Fasting, Brackenridge, & Walseth, 2007; Roper, 2008a; Schinke & Hanrahan, 2009; Schinke, Hanrahan, Eys, Blodgett, Peltier, Ritchie, Pheasant, & Enosse, 2009). Recently, applied sport psychology professionals were challenged by Celia Brackenridge (2008) to incorporate such an analysis. This type of analysis could provide a more meaningful and deeper interrogation of relations of power and the impact they have on athletes.

Celia Brackenridge, a sport science researcher, educator, and activist, was selected as the Distinguished International Scholar to present at the 2008 annual Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP) conference in St. Louis, Missouri. The title of her presentation was “Sex, lies, shock, and role: Sport psychologists as agents of athlete welfare.” It is notable that Brackenridge’s interdisciplinary work, also published in her book– Spoilsports: Understanding and preventing sexual exploitation in sport (2001)- was selected as an invited presentation at the annual conference. However, despite the significance of Brackenridge’s inclusion in the conference program, attendance was low1. The low attendance at Brackenridge’s presentation, while disturbing, was not surprising as many of the CSP presentations and symposia at AASP have been, and continue to be poorly attended. This pattern is especially interesting as many of the conference attendees wore “diversity” ribbons that were distributed by the AASP Diversity Committee.

In her presentation, Brackenridge discussed the prevalence and incidence of sexual exploitation and abuse in sport, noting the over 600 cases she has personally recorded. Considerable attention was devoted to the unique aspects of the sport domain which make it a setting where sexual exploitation can (and does) easily occur. Specifically, Brackenridge suggested that the male-dominated nature of sport, prevalence of high-ranking sport positions populated by men, adherence to hegemonic masculinity, and emphasis on the physical body are all significant contributors to the development and maintenance of a culture of violence and objectification of sport women and men (Brackenridge, 2001).

While many perceive sexual abuse and exploitation to be “personally perpetrated” and “personally experienced” (Brackenridge, 2001, p. 44), Brackenridge proposed that there exists a network of stakeholders in any sexual exploitative situation including coaches, parents, sport organizations, media, teachers, team managers, athletic trainers, peer athletes, and sport scientists. Brackenridge suggested further that as sport psychology professionals, we play an integral role in the “instigation, continuation, and termination of sexually transgressive behavior in sport…all bear[ing] some shared responsibility” (p. 44).

1

As our editor pointed out – and we concur – many of the CSP presentations and symposia have low attendance at AASP conferences. This is ironic considering the pride that attendees have in wearing cultural diversity badges.

Within applied sport psychology, many practitioners espouse an athlete-centered approach. However, little scholarly attention has been devoted to the specific tenets of such a philosophy of practice. As cultural studies informed practitioners we must focus not only on the individual athlete’s welfare, but also the sport environment. Brackenridge contended (2008) that this is a setting that is organized and structured in ways that allows sexual exploitation to easily occur. As sport psychology professionals, we believe that a cultural sport psychology-infused practice makes it our responsibility to focus on the aftermath of such incidents and to monitor and promote a safe sport environment. Furthermore, due to the unique relationship formed between a practitioner and athlete, it is possible that we could find ourselves in a position to uncover incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse before others and assist athletes – and parents and other coaches - in developing the skills necessary to confront a perpetrator (Brackenridge, 2001; 2008).

The power dynamic does not only impact athletes in sport contexts. We noted in our previous work (Fisher et al., 2003) that issues of race, gender, class, and sexuality should be “…viewed not as simple categories, but as relations of power, as spaces where individuals negotiate for greater agency within the existing power structure” (p. 396) and that includes sport psychology professionals. We argued for the need for a cultural studies informed professional to do the following:

…acknowledge gender-biased and homophobic behaviors within the hyper-masculine structure of many sports, as well as to confront ways that consultants, whether male or female, have the potential to be both perpetrators and victims of discriminatory practices themselves (p. 393).

Following up on this charge, Roper (2008a) qualitatively examined the career experiences and perceptions of female practitioners working in applied sport psychology. In line with her previous research examining women’s career experiences in academic sport psychology (Roper, Fisher, & Wrisberg, 2005), the participants in Roper’s (2008a) study suggested that women working in applied sport psychology face unique obstacles and barriers to gaining access, respect and support.

For example, all eight of the participants acknowledged that the majority of high-profile, “recognized” practitioners were men. As a result, many of the participants perceived that their applied work was often ignored or deemed “less valid.” In pushing women’s experiences to the margins, greater emphasis and value is placed on the experiences of those in power. Similar to research findings within the coaching profession which have found that male coaches are perceived as more knowledgeable and better suited to coach (Staurowsky, 1990; www.gogirlworld.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/coach/article.html?record=3), male sport psychology practitioners are viewed as representing the authority on knowledge in applied sport psychology. Therefore, those who are not seen as the authority are not taken as seriously or as legitimate representatives of the field. It is critical to consider what forms of knowledge are being utilized in sport psychology and whose voice is represented and whose is not? In order to develop a more valid and comprehensive representation of the field, incorporation of women’s experiences and ways of knowing as well as the voices of other marginalized individuals, is necessary.

In line with the work of Brackenridge (2001, 2008), a particularly disturbing experience was detailed by one of the participants in Roper’s (2008a) study which a group of male

athletes began to undress while she remained in the locker room; she described this behavior as the male athletes’ ways of “testing” or “playing with” her (p. 420). Sport sociologists have argued that the men’s locker room is a site in which men work to maintain their control and power, especially due to the increasing visibility of women in sport (Curry, 1991; Kane & Disch, 1993). As a result, women who occupy this space (e.g., trainers, journalists, sport psychology practitioners) are often “displaced from [their] role as authoritative critic” and “reassigned to [their] appropriate role of sexual object” (Kane & Disch, 1993, p. 331). Discussion of this scenario among sport psychology practitioners is especially important considering the locker room is often described as an “appropriate” setting in which to meet with and provide team sessions.

Also in 2008, Schinke et al. addressed the development of cross-cultural relations with a Canadian Aboriginal community through reflective research. In their paper, Schinke and colleagues presented their experiences as researchers working within a multicultural group. The purpose of the research group was to study the adaptation challenges experienced by Canadian Aboriginal athletes pursuing athletic experiences in mainstream North American sport settings. The initial research group - which consisted of professionals with a North American mainstream education - purposefully sought feedback from the Aboriginal community. As Schinke et al. (2008) stated, “the intent was to gain some expertise from the Aboriginal community to ensure the credibility of the data and accurate description” (p. 359). Of particular importance to this section of the chapter is the discussion of power relations within the research group. While the White members of the group held the privileged position in the early stages, a transition in power gradually occurred as the integration of the members continued. As Schinke et al. suggested,

There was sometimes a tendency to revert back during negotiations to the previous power differential in which the mainstream members would make decisions and all that was needed was community endorsement. During such moments the community and academic team leaders reminded the group of its mandate, and the power decisions returned to the community members. (p. 361)

This paper provides an example of the ways in which researchers have the potential to adhere to and model the multicultural guidelines of the American Psychological Association.

P

With three exceptions, the concept of praxis has not been taken up in sport psychology work since our 2003 article. As we mentioned then, the integration of theory, research, and practice – praxis – is a concept that is familiar and important in cultural studies work (Hall, 2000) but has not been given much attention in applied sport psychology. The exception prior to 2003 was the work of Bredemeier and colleagues (Bredemeier, 2001; Bredemeier, Carlton, Hills, & Oglesby, 1999; Bredemeier, Desertrain, Fisher, Getty, Slocum, Stephens, & Warren, 1991). Post-2003, Schinke and Hanrahan (2009) have included at least 13 chapters on applied practice in their recent text (see Araki & Balasekaran, 2009; Diehl, Hegley, & Lane, 2009; Galloway, 2009; Gill & Kamphoff, 2009; Hanrahan, 2009; Ikulayo & Semidara, 2009; Kontos, 2009; Kozuma, 2009; Lidor & Blumenstein, 2009; McGannon & Johnson, 2009;

Moraes & Salmela, 2009; Ryba, 2009; Schinke et al., 2009; Stambulov et al., 2009; Terry, 2009). However, we feel that three recent studies better exemplify a praxis-focused line of research. These are two studies conducted by Schinke and colleagues (Blodgett, Schinke, Fisher, Wassengeso George, Peltier, Ritchie, & Pickard, in press; Blodgett, Schinke, Fisher, Yungblut, Recollet-Saikkonen, Peltier, Pickard, & Ritchie, in press) and one study conducted by Roper (2008b).

Schinke and colleagues (Blodgett et al., 2008; Blodgett et al., 2008) continued a line of earlier work by Schinke, Michel and colleagues (2006) related to Canadian Aboriginal youth. Their 2006 study revealed that these youth suffer from lower health demographics, higher rates of substance abuse, diabetes, heart problems, and obesity than the rest of the Canadian population. With that in mind, the two 2008 studies were unique in that “mainstream” academics from the university partnered with Aboriginal community members to address “real-life” concerns that community members had. These concerns centered on the struggle that elite Aboriginal youth felt between acculturating to Canadian mainstream society during their elite sport participation and retaining their Aboriginal customs. Townspeople and elders were also concerned about attrition in their youth sport programming. After realizing that their “traditional” methods of interviewing were not getting at the issues that were important to the townspeople, researchers became a part of Aboriginal “talking circles” where consensus decision-making became the goal. Analysis of “talking circles” themes resulted in issues of integrating Aboriginal elders, promoting role models, and broadening the volunteer base in the community’s sport programming. This type of cultural sensitivity and research flexibility is exactly what is meant by praxis, the integration of theory, research, and practice. In addition, the project changed the way the academic researchers viewed their own life and customs as a result of immersing themselves in Aboriginal customs.

Another study exemplifying praxis is Roper’s (2008b) examination of female recreational runners’ feelings of fear and concerns for safety and the strategies used to negotiate their feelings of fear. Interviews were conducted with thirty female recreational runners in a major U.S. city – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Findings revealed that these runners limited and altered their running patterns due to feelings of fear and concerns for safety. These women reported higher levels of fear when running: (a) by themselves; (b) in natural (secluded, wooded) areas; and (c) in dark and unfamiliar areas. From the findings, it was also revealed that female runners feared being attacked, having an accident/injury while running, and theft of their belongings while running. Each participant was asked to share recommendations for other female runners and to the city of Philadelphia. Participants provided a variety of suggestions including increased lighting and police presence, removal of excess vegetation/brush, increased discussion of safety within the community, promotion of park use, installation of police/emergency call boxes, and use of mirrors at blind spots. Upon completion of the study, the findings were shared with committee members of the Philadelphia Task Force for Safety. As a result, several of the recommendations provided by the participants were incorporated by the committee. This kind of “taking back” research findings and making improvements in the community is also illustrative of a praxis approach to research.

A(C

)R

A

-

-C

?