IA Specialist

Avis sur

Dafotec Récupération De Données

Dépanneur informatique · Villeneuve-d'Ascq

Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace : Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace
Programs: A Retrospective Analysis and Critique Informed by
Stakeholders’ Perspectives in a Two-Year Follow-Up
Adam Hansell
West Virginia University, ahh0005@mix.wvu.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Hansell, Adam, "Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace Programs: A Retrospective
Analysis and Critique Informed by Stakeholders’ Perspectives in a Two-Year Follow-Up" (2022). Graduate
Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 11369.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/11369
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research
Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU.
For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu.
Running head: RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace
Programs: A Retrospective Analysis and Critique Informed by
Stakeholders’ Perspectives in a Two-Year Follow-Up
Adam H. Hansell
Dissertation submitted to the College of Applied Human Sciences at West Virginia University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sport, Exercise,
& Performance Psychology
Dana K. Voelker, Ph.D., Chair
Jack C. Watson, Ph.D.
Cheyenne Luzynski, Ph.D.
Kristen Dieffenbach, Ph.D.
Lindsey Blom, Ed.D.
Department of Sport, Exercise, & Performance Psychology
Morgantown, West Virginia
2022
Keywords: sport diplomacy, community, culture, power, social change
Copyright (2022) Adam H. Hansell
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
ABSTRACT
Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace Programs: A Retrospective Analysis
and Critique Informed by Stakeholders’ Perspectives in a Two-Year Follow-Up
Adam Hansell
Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) programs are a popular approach to promoting positive
development throughout the world, spanning health, education, peace, and social issues.
However, scholars have identified critical shortcomings of SDP work, including the potential to
reinforce neoliberalist tendencies and values imposition from the Global North to the Global
South. Deporte y Cambio Social was a short-term SDP program established through partnership
between American and Mexican constituent groups with aims to empower girls and women
through soccer. Through six semi-structured, two-year retrospective interviews, the purpose of
the present study was to explore cross-cultural understandings of power and intercultural power
relations from the voices of Mexicans and Americans involved in the program to offer reflective
critique of, and generate participant-informed strategies for improving, the design and
implementation SDP programs broadly. Using thematic analysis from a critical constructivist
orientation, the meanings generated from the data showed that Mexican and American
participants similarly defined power and acknowledged power imbalances informed by a limiting
project framework and a sociocultural-informed deference to Americans as experts. Strong,
positive intercultural experiences between Mexican and American constituent groups were
reported amid often unseen social biases that can be experienced abroad and perpetuated in SDP
programs. Critical reflexivity, prolonged cultural preparation, longer-term engagement, and
careful construction of SDP leadership teams and program participants were among the strategies
informed by the data that were further interpreted to account for the complex realities of SDP
programs.
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
Table of Contents
iii
Page
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
The Setting: Deporte y Cambio Social……………………………………………………4
Method…………………………………………………………………………............................5
Research Design & Positionality………………………………………………….….......5
Participants………………………………………………………………………….…....6
Procedures…………………………………………………………………………….….7
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….10
Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………………..12
General Discussion………………………………………………………………………………26
Practical Implications……………………………………………………………………………29
Limitations and Future Research Directions…………………………………………………….32
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….33
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
1
Short-Term International Sport for Development and Peace Programs: A Retrospective
Analysis and Critique Informed by Stakeholders’ Perspectives in a Two-Year Follow-Up
Organized sport has played an integral role in human societies for ages, and it continues
to be one of the most popular forms of social interaction and entertainment throughout the world.
Experts in public health and exercise science have published an extensive body of literature
suggesting participation in organized sport can promote the development of a myriad of positive
physical, psychological, and social outcomes for youth, including improved health, social
interactions, and the development of essential life skills such as discipline, accountability,
teamwork, and responsibility that can be transferred to life outside sport (e.g., Holt, 2016). At the
elite level, global sport competitions, such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup, attract
millions of supporters worldwide to observe sporting phenomena believed to transcend race,
religion, socioeconomic status, and politics (Murray, 2012).
Due to the global popularity of sport, researchers, international organizations, and
government agencies have increasingly advocated for sport for development and peace (SDP)
programs which use sport to promote positive development in non-sport spheres (Schulenkorf et
al., 2016), including social cohesion, health promotion, education, livelihoods, peace, gender
equality, and disability (Giulianotti et al., 2016; Svensson, Andersson, & Faulk, 2018). Although
improvement across these areas is ubiquitously beneficial, scholars have encouraged the use of
SDP programs with individuals from underserved communities domestically and internationally
(e.g., Coalter, 2010; Kidd, 2008; United Nations, 2003; Whitley, Forneris, & Barker, 2014).
In an integrated literature review, Schulenkorf et al. (2016) found that SDP programs
have been most commonly conducted with underserved youth participants, used soccer as the
sport of choice, and incorporated either qualitative or mixed method approaches for evaluation.
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
2
Among the critical gaps limiting their effectiveness, however, was the use of apolitical and
outcome-focused theoretical frameworks, such as positive youth development (PYD) or social
capital, within which culture and context are peripheral. While the authors recognized the use of
any theoretical framework as a noted strength, they suggested sole reliance on frameworks that
neither acknowledge, nor deepen, understanding of the sociopolitical and cultural landscape
within which SDP programs occur, is misguided. Schulenkorf et al. further noted a significant
gap related to the intentional engagement of multi-level stakeholders in the evaluation of SDP
programs. Thus, evaluation is often limited to understanding whether program participants
changed according to a predefined outcome, yet other stakeholders with considerable influence
in shaping the SDP experience, including funders, researchers, and program developers, are
seldom examined.
Other scholars have highlighted critical directions for the field (e.g., Darnell et al., 2018;
Giulianotti et al., 2019; Welty-Peachey, Schulenkorf, & Spaaj, 2019). Among these
recommendations, researchers have been encouraged to move beyond solely outcome-based
approaches that measure short-term, transactional ‘impact’ of SDP initiatives on underserved
program participants (e.g., pre-posttests), toward critical reflection of how extant SDP
approaches, intended to empower participants, may counterintuitively reinforce dominant
ideology. International SDP programs, for example, are often conducted in low- and middle
income communities located in the Global South but are typically funded and evaluated by
Western stakeholders from the Global North and often rooted in neoliberal beliefs and values
(Darnell et al., 2018; Giulianotti et al., 2019; Schulenkorf et al., 2016). Neoliberalism is broadly
characterized as the belief that disadvantaged nations, most of which are located in the Global
South, would benefit from the adoption of Western systems, values, and institutions (Brown,
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
3
2019; McCarthy & Prudham, 2004). Despite the intention of helping other nations, critics assert
a neoliberal approach can reinforce systems of subordination and disempowerment (Svensson &
Loat, 2019). Although SDP programs are frequently advertised as meeting the needs of
underserved communities, they often entail the imposition of Western expertise and assumed
truths about a different culture without the careful and intentional involvement of local voices –
an immersive process that would offer the best opportunity for positive change, as defined by the
local community, as well as the development of meaningful intercultural relationships (Darnell et
al., 2018; Harris, 2018; Hayhurst, 2016; Oatley & Harris, 2020; Welty-Peachey et al., 2019).
Importantly, neoliberalist critiques are not unique to SDP, but are rather reflective of a
complex, global sociopolitical and cultural landscape across societal sectors. Nilsen (2016)
asserted neoliberalism is one of the primary, yet hidden, drivers of any international development
agenda. Similarly, scholars of anthropological phenomena have critiqued monolithic definitions
of power within international collaborations and encouraged conceptualizations that increasingly
consider complexity, fluidity, and context (Adler & Aycan, 2018). Some evidence, for example,
suggests cultural perceptions are influenced by the balance, or imbalance, of power observed
between members of the same or different cultural groups such that greater power symmetry may
be a primary determinant of positive cultural perceptions (Heijes, 2010).
Collectively, these critiques call into question how SDP programs can be better designed,
implemented, and evaluated to prioritize the expertise of local communities and meaningful
intercultural relationships that maximize contextual understanding of local culture, values,
norms, and long-term aims. The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively critique a
short-term international SDP program from the voices of varied stakeholders involved in the
program’s development and implementation, and related specifically to cross-cultural
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
4
understandings of power and intercultural power relations, to generate participant-driven
strategies that meaningfully inform future SDP engagement.
The Setting: Deporte y Cambio Social
Deporte y Cambio Social was an international SDP and sport diplomacy initiative
developed to promote girls’ and women’s empowerment and leadership in Mexico using soccer
as a platform – a topic selected based upon a sub-award received from a larger grant funded by
the U.S. Department of State. Academic professionals and graduate students from two large
public universities in the United States (U.S.) and Mexico developed and implemented the
program using a train-the-trainer model designed for current and future sport coaches of girls and
women based on the Social Change Model of Leadership Development (SCM) – a values-based
model that views leadership development and social change as a dynamic process within
individual, group, and community domains (HERI, 1996). The program involved two phases
with 56 days in-between: the first in Mexico for seven days and the second in the U.S. for 13
days.
The American constituent group included faculty members, graduate students, and
community coaches who were native U.S. citizens or originally from regions of the Global
South, including Mexico. Collectively, this group selected the guiding theoretical framework,
managed the budget, coordinated the international travel, designed the program in consultation
with members of the partnering institution in Mexico, and facilitated the workshops. The
Mexican constituent group included faculty members who were native to Mexico. Together, they
recruited participants (e.g., community coaches, college and graduate students, and girl youth
soccer players from the community), procured facilities and supplies, and facilitated the
workshops in a supporting role (e.g., providing directions, explaining activities) for the
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
5
programming in Mexico. Program participants were current and future sport coaches of girls and
women who were predominantly Mexican in addition to a small sample of Americans in similar
coaching or student roles. In addition to outcomes-based assessment of the program (i.e.,
quantitative and qualitative examination of learning relative to the program’s content; España
Pérez et al., 2021), Hansell et al. (under review) explored a subsample of Mexican participants’
impressions of the U.S. and Americans immediately following their program participation via
focus groups. Participants reported feeling connected to Americans in realizing they experience
some of the same struggles and shared optimism in forming future intercultural partnerships.
Interestingly, participants also described considerable deference to Americans as ‘experts’ in
sport-related professions and idealized sport training and resources in the U.S. Hansell et al.
purported it is possible the mere structure of the program reinforced a perceived imbalance of
power, in what was meant to be a shared intercultural exchange, which inspired the present
study.
Research Design & Positionality
Method
A critical constructivist epistemological framework was used to frame the present study,
which acknowledges the influential role of culture, context, and power, both hidden and overt,
across human social interactions as individuals navigate, and make meaning of, their experiences
(Amineh & Asl, 2015; Bentley, 2003; Hopf, 1998; Levers, 2013; Price & Reus-Smit, 1998;
Stetsenko & Arievitch, 1997). Within qualitative research, assuming a critical constructivist lens
entails the co-creation of meaningful information through interactions between researchers and
participants to promote transformation, critique, and the generation of novel ideas (McCabe &
Holmes, 2009). Scholars have highlighted the importance of adopting a critical lens to challenge
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
6
existing societal status quos by questioning, untangling, and constantly reevaluating entrenched
ideologies, beliefs, values, and assumptions (Denzin & Giardina, 2016). From this perspective, a
critical lens not only welcomes diversity, disagreement, and dissent, but views them as essential
components of the research process to garner new theoretical insights, possibilities, and
explanations. Qualitative researchers have highlighted the philosophical similarities between
constructivism and critical theory (Price & Reus-Smit, 1998). Both are rooted in ontological
relativism, which posits that reality is constructed through an individual’s unique interpretation
of their environment, context, and identity, and therefore multiple realities can exist
simultaneously (De Ronde & Mouján, 2019). From this orientation, semi-structured individual
interviews were conducted to provide participants with opportunities to respond to the same
questions within a flexible framework and, in turn, promote rapport building, depth of responses,
exploration of unique insights, and co-construction of meaning with participants through
elaborative discussion (Dearnley, 2005). The present study was informed by a seven-person
research team with various roles to include two interviewers and two critical friends whose
respective roles are discussed herein as well as an auditor who oversaw the project with the
consultative support of a dissertation committee representing experience in SDP, PYD,
intercultural collaboration, girls’ and women’s leadership, and the youth sport experience and
who offered insights iteratively through the writing process.
Participants
Participants (n = 6; Mage = 41.5 years; SD = 10.4 years) were a purposive sample of
Mexican and American citizens (n = 3 self-identified women; n = 3 self-identified men)
involved in both phases of Deporte y Cambio Social in Mexico and in the U.S., respectively.
Using maximum variation sampling methods, participants were selected according to select
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
7
variables that influence, or are influenced by, power (i.e., nationality, gender, professional role,
role in the program). The participant sample included two Mexican university students training
to become sport coaches and/or physical activity teachers of girls and women at the time of their
program participation; two Mexican faculty members and one American faculty member from
the collaborating universities who were involved in the design and implementation of both
program phases; and an American coach of girls and women involved in the program’s
implementation.
Procedures
Following IRB approval for this study, eligible participants (i.e., involved in design,
implementation, and/or participation in both phases of Deporte y Cambio Social; 18 years or
older) were contacted via email, text message, or private social media message with invitation to
participate in the study. This communication described the purpose and nature of the study, the
tasks involved in participating, and invited them to further discuss the study via video call.
Participants were also provided informed consent and a background questionnaire asking them
their name, age, hometown, place of residence, current occupation, and occupation at the time
they were involved in Deporte y Cambio Social. All eligible individuals responded to the initial
inquiry; participants who opted out cited personal events. Six participants agreed to participate
through electronic return of a signed consent form and scheduled their virtual interview.
Each interview, ranging from 28 to 60 minutes (M = 45 minutes), was conducted
collaboratively by two research team members. The first interviewer was an American citizen
and doctoral student at the American university who identifies as a White man. He has been
passionate about the potential role of sport in promoting positive social change through his
experiences traveling internationally, his soccer career, and his continued non-profit work in a
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
8
rural community in Ghana. Although he is fluent in Spanish, he acknowledged his role as a
cultural ‘outsider’ given his limited immersion in Mexican cultures, customs, and traditions. The
second interviewer was a Mexican citizen who completed her doctoral degree at the American
university and identifies as a Latina woman. Born and raised in Mexico for 18 years before
attending university in the U.S. as a student-athlete, she had personal experience with gender
inequity in Mexico both within and outside sport, and openly acknowledged her role as a cultural
‘insider’ given her lived experience as a Mexican citizen. Both were involved in the program
development and implementation across the two phases of Deporte y Cambio Social. They
attended all planning meetings and provided feedback connecting sport-based activities with
program objectives and their alignment with Mexican cultural norms. Each assisted the primary
workshop facilitators and served as translators between Spanish and English speakers.
The interviewers stayed in contact with many of the representatives, Mexican and
American, who were involved in Deporte y Cambio Social in the time since the program ended.
These continued personal relationships primarily consisted of occasional (e.g., bi-weekly)
conversations in-person or via text messaging services and social media. The formation of
sustained relationships beyond participation in SDP programs has been labeled as ‘friendship
potential,’ which is a common outcome stemming from SDP programs involving stakeholders
from different cultures (Dixon et al., 2019). Having relationships (e.g., personal, professional)
beyond traditional researcher-participant dynamics is not uncommon in ethnographic studies
within anthropology. Day (2012) asserted that role conflicts for qualitative researchers are not
inherently problematic, as long as the researchers engage in a robust reflexive process to
understand their different roles, their impact on the research, and how and when they alternate
between multiple, and sometimes conflicting, roles. Other scholars have noted that pre-existing
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
9
relationships between researchers and participants can counteract perceived power imbalances,
enhance vulnerability and honesty, and foster more meaningful discussions during qualitative
interviews (Eide & Kahn, 2008; Råheim et al., 2016).
Following guidance outlined by Whiting (2008) for facilitating semi-structured
interviews, the interviewers began each interview by explaining the study purpose, use and
dissemination of findings, their rights as research participants, and protection of confidentiality.
The interviewers additionally encouraged discussion of concerns or questions to allow
participants to explore the prompts freely and interact with the interviewers comfortably.
Interview items (See Appendices D and E) were developed to prompt critical reflection related to
participants’: (a) experiences in the program (e.g., describe your experience participating in
Deporte y Cambio Social); (b) understandings of power (e.g., what does power mean to you?);
(c) perceptions of power within the present intercultural collaboration (e.g., during the program,
tell us when you perceived a power balance/imbalance); and (d) additional hypothetical prompts
related to intergroup dynamics and power (e.g., would you ever consider coming/returning to the
U.S./Mexico to deliver a similar program?).
The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into English by a
professional editor who is fluent in Spanish and English. Each participant was contacted to
complete a virtual, individual member reflection with the interviewers (Smith & McGannon,
2018) during which participants were prompted with questions regarding their initial interview
experience (i.e., what was it like for you to critique, with strengths and areas of improvement, the
Deporte y Cambio Social program?). Participants were then provided with a case summary,
developed by the interviewers, with initial interpretations from their first interview and
encouraged to question, clarify, or expand. All participants engaged in member reflections,
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
10
ranging from 10 to 17 minutes (M = 13 minutes), which were additionally transcribed as data
and integrated into the remaining phases of data analysis (Smith & McGannon, 2018).
Data Analysis
The core data analysis team included the interviewers, as well as two individuals with
‘critical friend’ roles, both of whom are American citizens who identify as White women; the
first is pursuing her doctoral degree, and the second is the primary author’s doctoral advisor, at
the American institution. Neither critical friend was involved in the design or delivery of Deporte
y Cambio Social and, accordingly, were well-positioned to offer perspectives external to direct
programmatic experiences. Given the analysis teams’ variable roles, experiences, and
relationships to the participants, reflexivity was prioritized – a critical thinking practice to
identify and bring into conscious awareness specific personal, cultural, social, theoretical, and
political factors that influence the research so meaning can be understood and evaluated in
context (Attia & Edge, 2017; Day, 2012; Georgiadou, 2016; Lazard & McAvoy, 2017). The
researchers followed guidance provided by Meyer and Willis (2019) to intentionally engage in a
structured and reflexive process using journaling and critical collective discussions to elucidate
unconscious biases and tendencies that may influence their interactions with participants and the
data (Cunliffe, 2004; Malacrida, 2007; McNair, Taft, & Hegarty, 2008). Prior to data collection,
analysis team members discussed their role in the program, identity, and positionality (Day,
2012; e.g., What are your underlying assumptions about the production of knowledge? How does
my role/identity/education/experience influence my perspective and interpretation?). They
additionally responded to prompts, in written form, related to power (e.g., in my community,
power means…) and their views on SDP (e.g., my impressions of SDP work are…). The purpose
of the analysis team’s engagement with themselves and each other was to process, clarify, and be
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
11
transparent about what each member brought to the analysis and explore how the study, in turn,
would be informed by that awareness. This process encouraged exploration of multiple
interpretive possibilities while supporting participants’ voices as the primary source of meaning
derived from the data (Halcomb & Peters, 2016).
The data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019;
2020). Importantly, Braun and Clarke (2020) asserted their guidance is not meant to be followed
rigidly, as the process should be fluid, recursive, and flexible. Prior to reading transcripts, the
analysis team met to discuss, establish, and clarify norms, roles, and expectations for the coding
process that were subsequently revisited at the start of each analysis meeting. These initial
conversations included sharing from each member’s reflexive journals (e.g., What thoughts and
feelings emerged for you as you read the data this week?); invitations to respectfully dissent with
another member’s perspective (e.g., Could this interpretation more deeply consider the
sociocultural context?); and acknowledging insights from each team member as equally valuable
regardless of their role (e.g., What was it like as a student to receive that feedback from me, as
your doctoral advisor? What resonates? What doesn’t?).
Each member of the analysis team reviewed the data individually and pre-coded, one
transcript at a time, using open coding (Charmaz, 2014; Saldaña, 2006) and an analytic memo to
document impressions before discussing as a group. Together, the analysis team deductively
organized the codes according to all facets of the study purpose and inductively organized them
according to meanings generated. Over several months, the organization of codes, drafted in text
form and via conceptual mapping, were iteratively revised, refined, and re-defined as new
transcripts were read via constant comparison (Braun & Clarke, 2020) as well as throughout the
writing of the study in which all research team members were consulted for clarity,
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
12
interpretation, and context based on their unique role in the program and the study. In the
following narrative, participants’ names were replaced with pseudonyms to protect
confidentiality (i.e., Mexican participants were Fran, Guillermo, Mariana, and Miguel; American
participants were Jennifer and Jeremy).
Results and Discussion
The following narrative begins with participants’ broad impressions of the program.
Understandings of power and culture that shaped their experience are then examined and
interpreted to inform recommendations for SDP engagement. Within each section, main ideas
generated from the data are italicized for emphasis. Participants’ names were replaced with
pseudonyms to protect confidentiality (i.e., Mexican participants were Fran, Guillermo, Mariana,
and Miguel; American participants were Jennifer and Jeremy).
General Impressions of the Short-Term SDP Experience
Mexican and American participants expressed significant enjoyment of, and deep
gratitude for, their experience in Deporte y Cambio Social. Participants reported sentiments such
as: “…Everyone who travelled, based on what I saw, they really enjoyed the trip. They really
had a great cultural experience” (Jeremy); “This trip was an example of how relationships that
are formed in sport can be lifelong and life changing” (Jennifer); and “…we still talk on some
occasions about the subject of [state]. The truth is we loved the treatment we received from all of
you. What happened is that a very nice, very fraternal integration was made” (Miguel). Miguel
elaborated: “The truth is that it is an experience I will cherish throughout my life.” Participants’
gratitude for their rich intercultural experiences was deeply rooted in their belief that sport can be
used as a powerful, unifying mechanism that can “…teach that sort of balance and
responsibility” (Jennifer). Miguel shared: “Sport moves masses. Sport prevents crime. Sport
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
13
unites cultures...Sport creates values. If I am a child, a six-year-old or seven-year-old, and I learn
teamwork, communication, friendship, honesty, tolerance, respect, companionship, etc., society
is going to be better.”
Such positive reflections of participants’ overall experience are much like those reported
in response to similar SDP programs conducted between, for example, the U.S. and China
(LeCrom & Dwyer, 2013), Jordan and Tajikistan (Blom et al., 2019), as well as countries in
Latin America and the Caribbean (Baker et al., 2018). Although belief in the power of sport to
support positive and productive social change is hopeful, Coakley (2015) cautioned against
overcommitment to the Great Sport Myth that assumes participation in sport is automatically
good. According to Coakley, policymakers and others in positions of power have historically
taken advantage of this assumption, particularly because sporting endeavors generate significant
popular and financial support. While describing the positive “impact on society” that sport can
have for “all the problems that currently exist in terms of violence, drugs, dropping out of school,
etc...,” Miguel also emphasized “it all depends on the people involved." Germane to Coakley’s
(2015) assertion and Miguel’s poignant perspective, sport does not inherently ‘do good;’ its
potential depends on how people within a socially and culturally-informed sport context, are
positioned to promote positive change. In turn, though often unexplored in broad stroke
assessments of participants’ impressions of SDP programs, astute consideration of ways to
acknowledge and address power-related disparities within SDP partnerships are additionally vital
to the integrity and sustainability of SDP work (Darnell et al., 2018; Giulianotti et al., 2019;
Svensson & Loat, 2019). In the following sections, we share insights from participants of
Deporte y Cambio Social with respect to the dynamic intersections of power and culture that are
foundational to the impact of SDP programs and, based on the data, explore how these programs
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
14
can be approached to maximize cultural understanding, and minimize the reproduction of
inequities, while acknowledging the constraints under which SDP work is often conducted.
Understandings of Power and Power Relations with the Short-Term SDP Experience
Mexican and American participants described power as a paradoxical concept.
Guillermo reported:
If you want to know a person, you give them power. It’s going to give us the best of
themselves or it’s going to give us the worst of themselves. Power…is a great
responsibility that can lead us to a positive or negative side with a very thin line.
When used appropriately, power was characterized as involving the “capacity to influence
others” (Jeremy); a “basic need” that “defines our safety overall” (Jennifer); and a “tool” that can
“break barriers and help other[s] grow alongside you” (Miguel), allow one to “do things for
others…or society” (Fran), and “reach your goals” (Mariana). Two participants, both of whom
were Mexican women, further described power as an aspiration; that is, “a strong word that we
should all have in our minds as a value” (Mariana) because it can lead to “more educational and
economic opportunities” (Fran). Although acknowledged by everyone, only Mexican
participants robustly elaborated on the negative potential of power with contextual examples
(i.e., “…in Mexico, power means to do what you want whether it is right or wrong…Many
powerful people do things only for them and their family and not their community. I think it’s
wrong” [Miguel] and “power in the Mexican context can be understood as an abuse” and a
“negative authority” [Guillermo]).
Within Deporte y Cambio Social specifically, power dynamics between Mexican and
American stakeholders were informed by a complex intersection of privileges rooted in
nationality, language, culture, race, sex, and gender. Foundationally, Mexican and American
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
15
participants acknowledged that SDP programs involving a partnership between a country from
the Global North, like the U.S., and a developing country, like Mexico, are inherently built upon
a pre-existing power imbalance. Jeremy shared: “I think the imbalance of power started from
day 1...you’re an American university, so you are automatically considered good.” In reflection
of a mandated visit to the U.S. Consulate during the first program phase in Mexico, including its
“nice” appearance, “ready to respond” formalities in case of emergencies, and resources “had I
needed anything,” Jennifer shared: “I think that just speaks to the power that Americans have and
also think we’re entitled to…” Miguel explained:
Maybe I'm a little biased because personally I’m a big fan of American culture. I can say
that I grew up with their philosophy that I learned through their movies, through their
sports, their leagues, but I think that the university issue is amazing; how they live, how
they get to campus, how doors are opened for people to be able to be in these institutions
of such high prestige.
Deference to Americans and other Global North actors and institutions regarding
knowledge, ideals, and expertise is well-documented in the SDP literature (i.e., Dao & Chin,
2021; Hansell et al., under review; Hayhurst et al., 2021d). Such deference fuels a foundational
imbalance of power on which SDP programs are often built that, despite intentions to facilitate
equitable partnerships, nonetheless influences the process through which SDP programs are
designed and delivered (Dao & Chin, 2021; Harris, 2018). In the present study, Jeremy shared: “I
think we sort of like were dictating the program…the program was in our, the ball was on our
side.” Concordantly, Mariana observed: “I noticed Americans had a lot of power.”
Mexican participants, however, did not perceive the control that Americans had over the
program and its implementation as problematic. Mariana elaborated: “I did not notice any
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
16
[power imbalance]. It was more like [Americans] reached an agreement, you talked about it and
told us, and we had to do it no matter what. It was not like an option.” Fran similarly
acknowledged the American constituent as the leaders who arrived to “present” while Mexicans
“participate,” but only problematized the observed power imbalance between Americans who
could and could not speak Spanish: “When you [Americans] came [to Mexico], you were the
ones who were organizing everything. So, it could be a number one imbalance, the language,
because [American] spoke Spanish and English and had more decision-making power on that
side.” Together, these findings suggest that, as an identified world power, ‘American expertise’
and leadership were expected (Collison et al., 2016; Darnell et al., 2018).
Further, Mexican participants reported they were treated as equals by the American
constituent, which strengthened their cultural perceptions. Feelings of equality were observed
most when Mexicans and Americans were jointly engaged in the program’s functions (i.e.,
“When we were doing the activities in the field I believe that was more of a power balance”
[Mariana]; “…in all the activities, those that were done in classrooms, when you shared a talk
with us, when we had practices on the fields, when we were in the camp” [Miguel]). Fran
reflected positively on Mexicans’ homestay experiences during the program phase in the U.S.,
which she believed were met with not only equality, but also consideration:
I told them that we Mexicans must eat together at least once a day, and what they did was
to invite their son to dinner so that I wouldn't feel so out of my house. They told me ‘We
have dinner together on a few occasions, but we are inviting him for you to see what a
family dinner is like because we do not really have them often.
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
17
Despite positive interpersonal connections with the American contingent in the program,
Mexican participants also candidly described, with expectation and acceptance, experiences of
racial discrimination while in the U.S. Guillermo explained:
…when we were at [name] airport, there was a dark-skinned policeman who just noticed
that we were Mexicans and threw our bags. Then I said, ‘I will do it and put it up.’ He
saw what I did, returned it, and threw it back again. It seems to me that there was an
abuse of power from an authority there. He wanted to show, here I command…However,
I insist, we are in the process of social development, and we must be tolerant of this type
of action and just understand the reasons why these things occur, only that. But I'm not
talking about a generality, it was simply an isolated event that that occurred on that trip,
but at least in Deporte y Cambio Social we were treated wonderfully.
Fran shared:
…we have an idea of the profile of the nationalities in Mexico. Unfortunately many times
we see racism, that you are not being loved, that they don't see you as equal, but we see
that in this type of program, it was super good, and this perception was not in it…this
paradigm that many people have was changed...Many Mexicans think that Americans are
not interested in us. But, they were quite interested in knowing our culture, in knowing
our food, how we thought and how we interacted with each other. I saw it as a good
thing…I see that in this type of program, nationality does not matter, the important thing
is people...
While intercultural interactions within the insulated context of SDP programs are positive, they
also serve as barriers to meaningfully identifying, discussing, and working through authentic
intercultural conflict in real world settings. Jeremy, for example, cautioned that the American
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
18
contingent who partook in Deporte y Cambio Social was largely comprised of individuals who
were already educated with significant travel experience:
…I really would have liked to actually take kids that actually maybe think that Mexicans
are rapists, Mexicans are bad people. These are the people that actually we should have
selected to really go there, because that’s the aim of the program, the people to people.
Although defaulting to university-affiliated professionals and students is a convenient
recruitment tool, it prevents the expansion of SDP opportunities to a more diverse group of
Global North participants without prior access to this type of exposure and learning and who
might benefit most. Further, other literature cautions that marketing SDP volunteer positions to
college students as opportunities to enrich their educational experience and boost future
employment prospects detracts from the intended purpose of these programs to serve with
another cultural community (Clarke & Norman, 2021; Giulianotti, Collison, & Darnell 2021).
Specific to sex and gender, Mexican and American participants observed when biases
were perpetuated, and at other times challenged, amid program execution. Jennifer shared:
…sexism showed up in the management of our trip in that it was too hot for the women’s
event to happen, so we didn’t get to connect with just women only…It’s like we’re here
for [women’s empowerment] and you’re telling a bunch of women that it’s too hot for us
to play instead of asking us if we want to do it.
In observation of the American constituent group, Mariana reported: “In the case of [American
woman], who was with us a lot, she would say something and then later it was changed to what
[American man] wanted; then yes, I saw two unequal powers.” Other scholars have described
how, although SDP programs are intended to facilitate positive social change, often unseen
biases, specifically with respect to sex and gender that are deeply entrenched in our sociocultural
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
19
worlds, still manifest in program execution. For instance, del Socorro Cruz Centeno (2021)
reflected on ways in which the prescribed curriculum of an established SDP program that used
soccer to target gender equity and environmental stewardship in Nicaragua subtlety reinforced
existing gender norms in the local context. Specifically, women program participants assumed
cleaning and organizational tasks (traditionally feminine) while men program participants
neglected these chores to play soccer (traditionally masculine). Chawansky (2015) used
autoethnographic vignettes to similarly reflect on ways in which her identity as an American
White woman influenced her experience and interactions as a Global North SDP researcher;
specifically, she recounted experiences of gender bias and sexualization while aiming to
empower girls and women in a Global South context.
Parallel to these types of experiences were instances in which sex and gender disparities
were contemplated and challenged. Mariana explained how, in response to a training received in
the U.S., the Mexican girls reflected on the differences in societal norms regarding the legal
protection of girls and women:
…the girls were saying, ‘so, here, if somebody turns to see you, it is almost a felony, if
somebody touches your hair, it is a felony.’ They didn´t know that. Some had the
openness to tell me some very strong things that happened in their community [in
Mexico], and I think it doesn’t happen here in the United States, not even half of it,
because you would be taken to jail or arrested...
Such reflections suggest that takeaways for Mexican participants from this training included
being more conscious observers of their surrounding environment as well as an awareness of
differences in gender protections across cultures. However, although the presence of institutional
systems intended to protect the rights of girls and women was both surprising and inspiring,
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
20
these structures have been frequently criticized for operating under the guise that they protect
girls and women, when, that is not always the case. For instance, critics of Title IX, which was
designed to provide institutional protection for girls and women within higher education, assert
that navigating it’s policies can be complicated, traumatic, and unsuccessful for many survivors
of sexual violence. Instead of taking firm, no tolerance stance on sexual misconduct,
administrators, and others in positions of power often maintain a silent, neutral position to
protect their own public image as well as their institution’s (Cruz, 2021: Delaet & Mills, 2018).
Thus, Mexican participants may have been left with an incomplete idea of the effectiveness and
procedures for complex institutional policies designed to protect girls and women in the U.S.
Explicating the Realities of SDP Programs with Recommendations Forward
Despite perceptions of Deporte y Cambio Social being generally “well-designed” and
“super well-organized,” time was a significant barrier (e.g., “…it was just too much to fit into a
week” [Jennifer]; “…everything was in a hurry” [Mariana]). Mexican participants reflected on
the busy daily itineraries developed by the American cohort. Miguel shared:
…honestly, nobody wanted to go back home. We all wanted to stay a few more days
because a very good atmosphere was created...Why do I tell you more time? Because
almost every day was very busy and went by very fast.
Mariana echoed: “Take it more slowly, only that. I know it was tight since you had to fulfill a lot.
But you can give them time to relax or do their own things and let them be with each other.”
Mexican participants’ observations of the program itinerary, which largely aligned with
American cultural norms on productivity and punctuality, are one example of the problematic
discordance between meeting the demands of a grant originating from a Global North context
and norms of local culture in many Global South communities (Hayhurst et al., 2021c; Oxford &
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
21
McLachlan, 2018). Within the noted time constraints, participants also explained they had
limited role clarity (e.g., “I feel like if [my role] was a test question, I would probably not get it
correct” [Jennifer]; “I believe that knowledge, to know what we were going to do and why,
would have facilitated everything that happened” [Mariana]).
Concordantly, Jeremy described the coordination of lodging, meals, budgeting, and
transportation as a significant constraint on time and resources that made for an “intense”
experience. He further acknowledged significant investment from the Mexican constituent
group: “We were just asking them to be partners, collaborators without any cost, but of course
they had costs… not only during the event but prior to the event…if you put money into the time
of the people.” Thus, the very structure of the funding opportunity and its associated demands
were believed to significantly complicate the ability to more meaningfully engage with the
Mexican stakeholders during the program’s design. Jeremy added:
…it was not a program that I would say was totally built with them…at the very
beginning, we talked about ‘we need to build this program with them, so it’s going to be
more inclusive’…I think it was more a logistics issue…I think we had the intentions to
build something with them, but it was so complicated to really have a clear idea of what
we want to do...we were moving, right? Because of the logistics, because of the time…
Managing complex logistical barriers, including navigating the landscape of SDP funding
sources, has been discussed extensively in the literature as a competitive, detailed, and
exhausting process (e.g., Darnell et al., 2018; Svensson & Loat, 2019). Scholars have identified
considerable discordance between the primary, outcome-focused objectives of funders (e.g., to
demonstrate evidence of pre-post change and positive experiences) and additional, process
focused objectives of SDP researchers and practitioners (e.g., empowering communities and
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
22
building sustainable programs; Giulianotti et al., 2019). To this point, Jeremy explained: “It’s a
little bit artificial…when you create this positive feeling. And by creating these positive feelings,
I think you are achieving in a certain way the [funder’s] purposes...” He elaborated: “…They
require a lot of time and involvement into setting up the programs with all these demands, but
sometimes you lose focus of what is the core problem.” Jennifer reflected on the broader
implications of a short-term SDP program: "With more time and experience we could have made
this a richer experience about women, coaching, social change, and sport.” She added:
…I don’t really think we impacted another generation of women. We just impacted the
women that were there. So, I would have liked to be able to encourage females more
specifically to take and apply what they learned. I thought we were kind of able to
encourage the group generally, but I would have liked more in that.
Although a subsample of Mexican participants designed and implemented abbreviated
workshops with pupils at two Mexican high schools following their own workshop participation,
there may not have been sufficient opportunity for participants to apply and/or share their
knowledge and experience from the program.
Indeed, Mexican participants described their cultural learning, including site seeing, as
their “favorite” or “best parts of the trip.” While cultural learning is foundational to any SDP
initiative, coupling an immersive, first-time cultural experience with a social change program
simultaneously is a known challenge of short-term SDP endeavors (e.g., Dao & Chin, 2021;
Giulianotti et al., 2021; Whitley et al., 2018). Scholars have also problematized the frequent
prioritization of funding new investigators that make learning from experience and sustained
careers in SDP difficult (Coalter, 2010; Harrison & Boehmer, 2020; Kidd, 2008). Jeremy
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
23
explained: “I think I would like to really take the time to understand how people have done it.
Because I think many of the programs probably experienced the same as we did.”
Accordingly, participants offered their ideas toward SDP programs that can reasonably
accomplish their central purposes to support meaningful intercultural engagement while fostering
culturally relevant learning and reflection of key social issues. Among these recommendations,
members of the Mexican contingent suggested SDP programs be longer in duration and that the
experiences across countries be increasingly parallel. Fran explained:
I saw how an American family lived. I realized the great differences. Maybe if you had
stayed with a family when you came to Mexico, you would have also realized it too. You
would not only have seen it from the outside…I would not change anything more than to
see the way that, when you come, you could stay in the house of Mexicans and not in a
hotel because it is very different.
Guillermo similarly reported:
[I wish] that Americans had more time in our country, that it was at least balanced.
Because we stayed two weeks and it seems to me that you were only six or seven days.
Then I would like it to be the same time so that it was wider, be calmer, and we could
enjoy it a little more, and that this opportunity could be used to present more things about
our country…of its people who are wonderful, that you could live it in a better way…
Other Mexican participants added, “…it would have been better if it would have been more days,
obviously. I know it is not simple to be accepted one month” (Mariana) and “at least four weeks
instead of two” (Miguel).
Relatedly, participants reflected on the importance of follow-up opportunities for
continued, long-term engagement with program stakeholders and the programming. Mariana
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
24
shared: “I believe there should be a follow up...Let’s see what we did or how this has impacted.”
Jennifer similarly explained: “…had there not been a global pandemic, I would have really
hoped that there was some sort of follow-up, because I think that would have been where we saw
how sustainable this was or how to make this sustainable.” Interpersonally, Miguel noted
Mexicans and Americans “are still in contact” and “developed a very nice friendship.” As an
indicator of the importance of sustained engagement, several Mexican participants expressed
sincere appreciation for the opportunity to discuss their experiences toward the present research.
Mariana reported: “…you are considering me in something that maybe can be of impact on the
next generation, then I feel great; I feel considered.” Without strategic and intentional continuity,
however, the ability to transfer ownership and responsibility of the program to local communities
is compromised. Fran explained: “Since we came back, 80% of participants asked if there was
going to be something similar and if they could volunteer for another program or another
visit...We told them ‘We did not bring the program, it isn’t ours.’”
Participants further described the importance of engaging in considerable introspection,
reflection, discussion, cultural preparation, and relationship building prior to travel and
throughout the experience. Jennifer explained: “When we design programs, we have these great
ideas, but we don’t know the participants yet. I see more successful mentoring programs being
more organic where there’s possibility for connection.” Fran stated:
Maybe [more preparation] on what our culture is like. Although you do not know a
person well, even if they have just been introduced to you, we greet with a kiss and a
hug…Telling Americans this would have been useful so they wouldn't be scared…
Guillermo added:
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
25
It probably would have been good if the [Mexicans] who visited knew more about [the
United States]. Maybe 80% had never visited the United States before. Many had never
left Mexico before. The ones for whom it was the first time did not know practically
anything about it…Maybe if they knew a little about the cultural aspect before going.
Jennifer, in her interview, reflected upon her experience as an English-speaking American in
Mexico that serves as an example of the type of critical reflection that is warranted throughout
the SDP experience from beginning to end:
I was in the middle of a group, and I suddenly could not remember anything in Spanish. I
had been speaking in Spanish, I mean not well, but at least enough that the group
understood me. And as I kept talking, I was like ‘yeah…I don’t know anymore’
(laughter). It’s just this silly example but in that moment, I felt a distinct shift in how
much power I had and how much I could help. I pretty much felt worthless to the group
and to the project.
She added: “This expectation that we went there and didn’t have to speak Spanish speaks so
much to our power and privilege. People wanting to learn from us regardless of if they can
understand us is pretty amazing.”
Central to the core purpose of SDP programs, women participants across cultures
recommended considerable attention to understandings of sex and gender and the intentional
construction of representative leadership teams. Specifically, Mexican and American women
participants discussed the prominent role of women within the project, but also wished more had
been involved given the program’s emphasis on women’s empowerment. Fran shared:
I saw when you visited Mexico that most of the visitors were women; both the girls who
coached soccer, the organizers, and many of the researchers who came were women, so I
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
26
think it was already focused on women’s empowerment and all the activities that were
done were usually led by women.
Mariana added:
I would have liked more women teachers and not as many men teachers. Also, more
people from the sports arena, because if your goal is to use sport and empower women
through that sport, more sport professionals should have been [involved]…there were
teachers that had nothing to do with that sport and they were men. I don’t mean that only
women should be included, but I think that if we want to empower girls, we [the Mexican
constituent group] should have taken more women teachers.
General Discussion
Although our findings suggest that Mexican and American participants valued their
experience in Deporte y Cambio Social, our subsequent analysis underscores the importance of
engaging in critical and constructive reflection as a vital component of the SDP experience for
all stakeholders. Indeed, garnering participants’ perspectives on some of the common challenges
and related power dynamics within the SDP sphere is a noted strength of the current study, as is
the significance of the candid accounts shared by participants and the humility of those engaged
in the project who were willing to critique their own work and experience. To create dissonance
with the potentially unsettling data shared in this study, it is easy to perceive the challenges
discussed herein as unique and isolated to Deporte y Cambio Social. However, the alignment of
the present data with a preponderance of recent conceptual critiques of SDP work (Darnell et al.,
2018; Giulianotti et al., 2019; Hayhurst et al., 2021a; Whitley et al., 2018) suggest the
conclusions are indeed transferable to a larger body of SDP programs that have, and continue to
be, conducted. Following a process of critical and admittedly difficult introspection and
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
27
reflection, we encourage others associated with SDP programs to engage in a similar reflexive
experience as a solution toward greater awareness, understanding, and increasingly effective
navigation of known challenges. Indeed, the purpose of this study was not to dismiss the
important potential of SDP programs and the overwhelmingly positive experiences that have
been described here and in other literature (Baker et al., 2018; Blom et al., 2019; LeCrom &
Dwyer, 2013), but rather to suggest that the broad stroke impressions of SDP programs capture
only one chapter of a much longer and more nuanced story that will meaningfully inform the
future of SDP work, if told.
To begin, while the Mexican participants in this study reported enjoying and appreciating
the opportunity to interact with and learn from Americans and engage in American culture, at a
deeper level, these cultural experiences also served to reinforce a neoliberal view of Americans
as experts and the U.S. as ideal compared to Mexicans and Mexico (Hansell et al., under review).
In fact, when Mexican participants were asked whether they would consider leading a similar
program in which they would share their expertise with Americans, they responded with repeated
confusion over the question to suggest this possibility was difficult to conceive. As a world
power, Americans assuming the role of deliverers of expertise and experience, mostly in English,
was expected, which reflects the larger power disparities upon which this, and other SDP
programs are built. While positive interpersonal exchanges with those directly in the American
constituent promoted feelings of value, worth, and equality, discriminatory experiences while
abroad were also expected and viewed as a normal aspect of human existence and development.
Other research has highlighted understandings of power as core foundations of SDP programs
(e.g., Hayhurst et al., 2021a). Our findings suggest that conceptualizations of power can differ
across stakeholders and cultures, which underscores the importance of explicitly discussing
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
28
power (im)balances both within and across cultural groups and how they will be addressed,
potentially as part of the relationship-building and familiarization process early on. As one
example, understanding that others may come to know power as abusive comes with tremendous
responsibility to attend to power dynamics so as not to reproduce harm.
Participants’ responses further suggest that the most rewarding elements of the program
were the cultural experiences and the person-to-person activities. Interestingly, Mexican
participants’ responses related to their experiences during the second program phase in the U.S.
were almost entirely about the cultural activities, which included excursions to local landmarks,
tours of the university campus, spending an entire day in a major American city where
participants were given money to shop, and tours of professional baseball and American football
stadiums, all of which were included as part of the program’s itinerary. Mexican participants’
responses suggest what was unaddressed was a truly parallel experience in Mexico that would
have allowed Americans to similarly engage and learn about Mexican culture more deeply.
Aligned with contact theory (Allport, 1954) and SFDT (Dixon et al., 2019; Lyras &
Welty-Peachey, 2011), the person-to-person interactions within the program seemingly helped
members of each group connect over shared human experiences, which resulted in the formation
of personal and professional interpersonal relationships across cultures, many of which have
been sustained since the program ended. Admiration of American ideals such as work ethic and
motivation were described by Mexican participants in focus group interviews conducted
immediately after the first program phase in Mexico (Hansell et al., under review), and findings
from the present study suggest the cross-cultural experiences were valued by both Mexican and
American stakeholders within Deporte y Cambio Social. Yet, while the program’s emphasis on
cultural activities emphasized by the funder is an important part of intercultural engagement, it
RETROSPECTIVE SDP CRITIQUE
29
also served to distract from the program’s emphasis on women’s empowerment in attempting to
accomplish both simultaneously. Such distraction is evidenced across participants’ responses that
were largely devoid of commentary about the program itself and is an important indicator of how
to position SDP work differently in the future.
Practical Implications
Participants’ recommendations for future endeavors to have longer-term opportunities to
engage with program stakeholders and materials corresponds with a common critique of SDP
programs and their typical short duration. Limited information exists regarding the long-term
implications of SDP programs, and researchers have asserted that collecting follow-up data over
time is a major challenge due to barriers such as misunderstandings of the role of data collection
among community members, logistical constraints for Western researchers in the balance of
other professional responsibilities such as teaching, and limited professional and financial
support for long-term objectives (Blom et al., 2015; Schulenkorf et al., 2016; Welty-Peachey &
Cohen, 2016). Within the present study, and particularly in the member reflections, participants’
expressions of appreciation and gratitu