This article was downloaded by: [Katie Liston]On: 19 November 2012, At: 04:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport Policyand PoliticsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/risp20

Elite sports policy and coaching at thecoalfaceKatie Liston a , Robin Gregg b & Jim Lowther ca Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute, Ulster SportsAcademy, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Northern Irelandb Sport Northern Ireland, Belfast, Northern Irelandc Ulster Sports Academy, Ulster Sports Academy, University ofUlster, Jordanstown, Northern IrelandVersion of record first published: 19 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Katie Liston, Robin Gregg & Jim Lowther (2012): Elite sportspolicy and coaching at the coalface, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,DOI:10.1080/19406940.2012.735689

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.735689

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Elite sports policy and coaching at the coalface

Katie Listona*, Robin Greggb and Jim Lowtherc

aSport and Exercise Sciences Research Institute, Ulster Sports Academy, University of Ulster,Jordanstown, Northern Ireland; bSport Northern Ireland, Belfast, Northern Ireland; cUlster SportsAcademy, Ulster Sports Academy, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Northern Ireland

This article marks an important watershed in the investigation of elite sport developmentin the ‘Atlantic Isles’. It outlines some features of the emergence and development ofinternational elite sports policy and its idiosyncratic diffusion to Northern Ireland (NI)specifically. Drawing on the SPLISS framework and the need for empirical work withinPillar 7 (coaching provision and coaching development), there is also an examination ofelite coaches’ perceptions of the policy factors influencing international sporting success.This goes some way towards redressing the dearth of knowledge about the complexsocial and political realities in which elite coaches ply their trade. A ‘mixed methods’approach was employed, which incorporated secondary analysis of government andsports policy documents, the historical charting of the elite sports policy field in NI, thecompletion of an internationally validated survey and also semi-structured interviewswith eight high-performance coaches (seven males and one female) who ranged in agefrom 38 to 59 years. The study demonstrates some of the unique challenges for the dualpositioning of NI within Irish and British sports governance arenas. There, the resultantfractured elite sports policy landscape has constrained coaches’ attempts to deliver uponperformance targets. There was also less than convincing evidence of a ‘high-perfor-mance’ oriented sport culture. The article concludes by bridging the gap between sportspolicy and social policy in NI and, in so doing, offers some possibilities for developing amore integrated research agenda.

Keywords: elite sports development; talent identification development; NorthernIreland; elite coaches, elite sports policy

Introduction

This article is an important first step in chronicling the diffusion of elite sports development(ESD) to Northern Ireland (NI) and in charting some of the local idiosyncratic features there.It sets the scene by examining briefly the importance of international sporting success togovernments and the reorientation of government policies to meet certain desired outcomesaround this. It also sets out the critical position of elite coaches situated at the juncturebetween the macro- and micro-level delivery and practice of ESD. The article then examinesthe perspectives of high-performance coaches in NI who practice ‘at the coalface’, theirexperiences of this fledgling elite sports environment and their perspectives on the policyfactors impacting on elite sport. It does so in part response to the need for a greater empiricalunderstanding of the complexities of elite coaching practice within the theoretical context ofPillar 7 of the SPLISS model (Sports Policy Factors Leading to International Sporting

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics2012, 1–22, iFirst Article

*Corresponding author. Email: k.liston@ulster.ac.uk

ISSN 1940-6940 print/ISSN 1940-6959 online# 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2012.735689http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

Success) (see, De Bosscher et al. 2010), and to the call from Jones et al. (2004) for a betterappreciation of the messy and fragmented lives of coaches. In so doing, it bridges the gapbetween two apparently autonomous policy fields and, it is hoped, avoids the dual-sidedtendency to depersonalize the elite sports policy arena and to portray coaches as ‘cardboardcut-outs’ (Benyon 1985 in Sparkes and Templin 1992, p. 118). Finally, in the process ofacknowledging some necessary limitations, the opportunity is also afforded to commentmore broadly on sport and on social policy in NI. Firstly, there is a necessarily succinctappraisal of the increasing importance of international sporting success to government.

Government policy and sport

The reorientation of governments towards the use of sport for particular national and interna-tional policy outcomes, especially since the 1960s and 1970s, has been well documented (see,e.g. Houlihan 1997, Green and Houlihan 2005, Houlihan and Green 2008, Bloyce and Smith2010, Coalter 2010). Indeed, Houlihan and Green (2008, p. 3) have argued that governmentshave used (and continue to use) sport at the meso-level as ‘a policy instrument’, for example,most governments now ‘espouse a commitment to elite sport and competition’ which isbolstered by public investment, the amount varying according to how much governmentsare willing to devote to this. The increasing social significance of sport internationally has alsoled governments to invest in the promotion of international sporting success, most notably inOlympic sports (Bloyce and Smith 2010). Two topical and striking examples of this invest-ment in the Atlantic Isles were the recent pledge by the British government to its elite athletesof around £125 million a year through to the 2016 Olympics (though a smaller proportion ofthis funding will come from public funds than in the build-up to the London 2012 Games)1

and, basking in the same post-Olympic glow, the Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure in NIre-announced an additional £3.2 million of lottery funding for boxing (on 9 August 2012),using the Olympic success of local boxers Barnes and Conlan as one of a number ofjustifications for this. Elsewhere and earlier, the quest for international sporting success ledthe Australian government to concede in 2010 that their innovative systems and practices,previously the envy of other nations and which had enabled them to ‘punch above [their]weight’, were not keeping pace with competing nations’ efforts. In their words, ‘we are rapidlylosing our highly coveted competitive edge’ (Australian Government 2010, p. 1). As aconsequence, a record $1.2 billion dollars is being invested by the Australian governmentinto their institutes and academies of sport from 2010 to 2014 (Australian Government 2010).It is clear then that public investment by governments in sport reflects a variety of national andinternational policy objectives and desired outcomes, notable among them the quest forpolitical advantage through sportive nationalism (Hoberman 1993, 2004).2

Of what is known about ESD and policy, much of this research is dominated by ananalysis of macro-level features of these fields such as the increasing politicization of sport,government approaches to elite sports policies, the globalization and diffusion of particularmodels of elite sport systems and analyses of national and international sports policy. At themicro-level, the implementation of sports policy falls to a wide range of groups includingphysical education (PE) teachers, sports club volunteers, recreation and health professionals,sports development officers, national sports administrators and, importantly from the per-spective of high-performance sport, elite coaches. Not unlike PE teachers, elite coaches tendto be portrayed as the final link in a smooth chain between policy and practice and they toomodify policy to make it more manageable within the constraints of their particular workingenvironments. However, we know comparatively less about the experiences of elite coachessuch that they are relatively invisible in the elite sports policy chain. Accordingly, elite

2 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

coaches’ experiences are inadvertently divorced from the policy process and coaching tendsto be presented as ‘a systematic, depersonalised set of standardised models and procedures’(Jones et al. 2004, p. 1). In short, coaches are often portrayed as ‘cardboard cut-outs’(Benyon 1985 in Sparkes and Templin 1992, p. 118), coaching practice is often homoge-nized (Taylor and Garratt 2010) and the elite sports policy chain is presented in a largelyimpersonal fashion. This chain, like that of PE, is usually viewed in hierarchical and linearterms, but, as Green notes, this perspective belies ‘a more complex, contingent and dynamicprocess’ (2008, p. 25) in which there is also a noted dearth of understanding about theworking environments of elite coaches (Jones et al. 2004) at the coalface of this contingentand dynamic environment. This is somewhat ironic given that, at the world-class level inparticular, sports coaching is central to the delivery of high-performance objectives includ-ing talent identification, talent development and sustained success in elite-level competition.

The image of two apparently autonomous policy fields – elite sports policy/developmentand coaching – is reinforced by the tendency of government to ‘send forth’ policy on thecrude assumption that it leads unproblematically to success on the elite sports field, track orarena. That is, there is the expectation that policy will be implemented by coaches, straight-forwardly and uniformly. However, as Penney and Evans (2005) demonstrate, policy israrely a standard or routine outcome based on mutual agreement, be that in PE or coaching.Rather, it is ‘a complex, ongoing, always contested process, in which there are struggles overvalues, interests and definitions’ (2005, p. 22). Amongst other things, these struggles havecontributed to diminishing contrasts between, and increasing varieties of, ESD modelsaround the world since the 1960s when a global sporting flow began from the Easternbloc that subsequently ignited a global sporting arms race (Green and Oakley 2001).3 Thisrace ‘forces governments and NGBs (federations) to invest more money on elite sportdevelopment, while their market share of international sporting success is decreasing’ (DeBosscher et al. 2010, p. 7). One consequence of this is that, ‘in their quest for internationalsuccess in a globalizing world, the elite sports systems of leading nations have becomeincreasingly homogenous’ (De Bosscher et al. 2008, p. 13). For instance, Green and Oakley(2001) illustrated a global sporting flow from the Eastern Bloc which resulted in theemergence of a more uniform model of ESD throughout the world (akin to the diminishingof international contrasts). At the same time, this global flow of people, sporting practicesand ideas around ESD was shaped by the traditions and patterns of individual nations,thereby contributing to concomitant local variations in ESD.

Smaller nations are by no means exempt from the global sporting arms race in thatinternational sports success can be for them a highly significant reflection of an increase,however slight, in their comparatively smaller power chances relative to more establishedand successful sporting nations. NI is one such example where, as will be shown next, themacro-level features of international elite sports systems have been adopted by degrees –wesee the prioritization of limited funding, an increasing emphasis on the identification anddevelopment of sporting talent, the provision of some high-performance facilities and moreprofessional support for athletes and coaches alike – though not without some striking localnuances. There, the elite sports policy arena is a multi-layered, complex and nuanced fieldsitting within and between the ESD structures of Ireland and the United Kingdom, making ita unique site for investigation.

Elite sports policy in Northern Ireland

In comparison to the sophisticated East German sports system that emerged in the 1960s andwas characterized mainly by formal talent identification programmes and state-driven

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

intervention in all aspects of athletes’ sporting and private lives, contemporary Australianand British systems vary somewhat in their organization and focus. While the Australianswere constrained by a smaller population base than the former East Germany, they imple-mented a sophisticated talent identification system that involved detailed measurement andtesting of individuals, but within the broader context of a club-based development system ofrecruitment (Stewart et al. 2004). This club-based development is also a feature of UK andIrish sports provision, though most commentators agree that, with the exception of the moreobvious featuring of talent identification in pre-London 2012 elite sports policy,4 the UnitedKingdom’s talent identification development (TID) system has been more rudimentary andvoluntary (Bloyce and Smith 2010, p. 153). Moreover, developing effective ESD systems inthe United Kingdom ‘becomes a real challenge when faced with the political and sportingautonomy of the UK with four international sporting nations and one Olympic team’. In2001, Green and Oakley predicted that the mosaic of different interests was ‘likely to hinderthe development of a truly Olympic-focused national elite sport system’ (2001, p. 55) in theUnited Kingdom and this was certainly the case in London 2012.5 In NI specifically, thismosaic could be described as revolving around North–South and East–West axes of Irelandand the Irish Sea respectively, being dominated, west of the Irish Sea by post-colonialnationalist tensions on the island of Ireland and the impact of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty.6

This Treaty formally established the Irish Free State and it led, subsequently, to theestablishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI and to the uneasy co-existence of the six counties of NI and the nine counties of the province of Ulster (Figure 1).

This process of bifurcation, coinciding as it did with the emergence and development ofmodern sports on the island of Ireland (Garnham 2004, Cronin et al. 2009, McCarthy 2011),has impacted on the organization and development of elite sport in NI today such that,despite its fledgling status, it is a multi-layered, complex and nuanced field sittingwithin andbetween the ESD structures of Ireland and the United Kingdom. This complex bi-partitegovernance system was preceded and partly compounded by the emergence of cross border(all-island), Ulster-based, Northern Irish-based and Irish-based (Republic) national govern-ing bodies (NGBs) of sport in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a result of thisand the more recent enshrining of dual nationality in the Good Friday Agreement (1998),7

there are many governance issues for sports officials and administrators and also contentiousdecisions about national representation for sportspeople from NI.8

Figure 1. The province of Ulster (nine counties) and Northern Ireland (six counties).

4 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

If Houlihan was correct in his 1994 claim that ‘any description of domestic policy-making is an exercise in capturing the essential features of a dynamic process’ (1994, p. 49),then any preliminary account of elite sports policy in NI is even more challenging given itsco-jurisdictional status. The elite sports policy field in NI is layered with, and cross-cut by, arange of organizations. There are state-sponsored organizations including Sport NorthernIreland (SNI), the Sports Institute for Northern Ireland (SINI, which is similar to the EnglishInstitute for Sport and draws on lottery funding from the Department of Culture, Media andSport), the Irish Sports Council (ISC), the Irish Institute of Sport (IIS), sports coach UnitedKingdom (scUK, which is funded through a combination of charity, Sport England and UKSport monies); non-governmental groups such as Coaching Ireland (CI), the British OlympicAssociation (BOA), the Olympic Council of Ireland (OCI), the Paralympic Council ofIreland (PCI); voluntary-run national associations such as the Northern IrelandCommonwealth Games Council and the various government departments with involvementin the delivery of sport north and south of the border.

To elucidate this complex policy landscape further, there are 74 NGBs of sport, 35 ofwhich are constituted on an all-Ireland basis, 26 constituted on a UK basis and 13 are whatmight be termed ‘stand-alone’ organizations, for example, Northern Ireland Volleyball andthe Irish Football Association (IFA) (SNI 2011). Correspondingly, the ‘national question’ ismultifarious for some athletes born in NI. It can mean sporting representation for Ireland(constituted on a 32-county sporting basis), the Republic of Ireland (26 counties), GreatBritain and NI, NI alone or a combination of these, depending on the Commonwealth Gamescycle and the particular sport under consideration. This complexity also extends to mattersbeyond the immediate field of play. Pertinently, in the coaching realm, both CoachingIreland and scUK have formal involvement in the coach education system, the ISC andSNI fund the same NI athletes who compete at elite international level and SNI also fundspecific roles in all-Ireland NGBs of cricket, hockey and triathlon. In elite sports governanceterms, this nuance manifests itself even more in the Commonwealth Games when the UlsterBranch selects a team from NI comprising athletes funded by the ISC and Sport NI, and forwhom Ireland or Great Britain is their preferred representative choice in other sportscompetitions. Consequently, coaches and athletes from NI are forced to negotiate a com-pliance minefield because the policy complexities of national sports representation meanthat an Olympic athlete, in particular, may have to report to any number of national sportsorganizations. Consider the following composite example taken from interview excerptswith elite coaches:

Take a world class athlete from athletics. The athlete is born in Northern Ireland and chooses tocompete for Ireland at international level. The athlete receives funding from SNI. In order toaccess this funding the system requires the athlete’s NGB to make the application, in this casethe athlete’s NGB would be Athletics Ireland. However, this body is not recognised by SNI asthey recognise the Northern Ireland Athletics Federation (NIAF), who must make the applica-tion. The athlete also receives funding through the ISC; again this application is made by theNGB Athletics Ireland on the athlete’s behalf. The athlete receives support services throughSINI. In order to compete at the Olympics the athlete is connected with the Olympic Council ofIreland. In this example, potentially the athlete is required to communicate effectively with up tosix bodies in order to access the appropriate level of funding and support to achieve results atinternational level.

Certainly, then, even a preliminary outline of the basic features of the dynamic and evolvingelite sports policy arena in NI reveals some unique local nuances, notably the bi-partite (andsometimes, tri-partite) status of governing bodies of sports, sports councils and the athletes

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

themselves. It also highlights some of the structural barriers that have mitigated against theachievement of excellence in high-performance sport and the challenges facing elite coachesin particular. Having said this, elite sport in NI is similar, in many other respects, tointernational ESD.

Northern Ireland: the same and different

Since the 1990s, successive UK Conservative and Labour governments re-prioritized elitesport development and, in so doing, emphasized the political, economic and social impor-tance of success on the international sports podium. Key policy-makers included PrimeMinisters John Major, Tony Blair and, latterly, David Cameron, all of whom were/are keysupporters of, and proponents for, sport and utilized their relative power chances to prioritizeelite sport. Two focusing events, the performance of the GB and NI Team at the 1996 AtlantaOlympics and the 2012 London Olympics, were also drivers for changes in UK-wide elitesports policy since the late 1990s. Consequently, the 1997 establishment of the UK SportInstitute (following the Atlanta Games) and, latterly, SINI (in 2002) were two extensions ofan increasingly interdependent worldwide model of elite sport and sports governance.Confirming the growing interdependency between NI and the elite global sports world,there has also been a flow of key sportspeople from successful sporting nations into theformer, for example, when the SINI was established at least half of the permanent staff wereAustralian, Canadian or from mainland United Kingdom, having prior experience andknowledge of ESD there. While this enabling feature of globalization – the flow of peopleand the dynamic interchange of ideas and expertise – has been acknowledged, in passing, asa positive factor in Sport Matters (DCAL 2009), questions remain about the unintendedoutcomes of this global flow of sportspeople. Anecdotally at least, evidence is emerging of atension within NGBs in NI about the challenges of appeasing equally their stakeholders inelite and mass participation sport, not least because of the increasing friction between anaspiration towards high-performance sport – typified in a ‘professionalised rational-bureaucratic model of management’ (Green and Houlihan 2005, p. 169) that permeatesmost Western ESD models – and the amateur, voluntary ethos that is inscribed mainly ingrassroots, club or mass participation sport.

Of course, this tension is by no means confined to NI,9 but the distinctive developmentthere is such that, apart from what are described locally as ‘the Big Three’, that is, rugbyunion, football (soccer) and Gaelic games (football and hurling) which have the greatestcultural significance and associated investment by the devolved government at Stormont;most other sports are based almost exclusively on voluntary structures, having no more thanthree or four full-time employees whose focus is generally on the management, governanceand development of sport.10 Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom then, ESD (typicallydefined by government in terms of Olympic and Commonwealth sports) is potentiallyhampered by the pre-dominance of the ‘Big Three’ who themselves strive for excellencein coaching, training and performance. Like most other Western countries, the underperfor-mance of NI in international sport generally and at the Olympic and Commonwealth levelsin particular, and the associated symbolism to be gained or lost from international success orfailure, has occasioned state intervention in sport. To this extent, Sport NI has a wide remitto promote increased participation and improve performance in sport and physical recrea-tion and to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of sport. Nevertheless,similar to Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom generally, and has been acknowl-edged in the Melbourne Review (SCNI 2006), there was a failure to plan systematically forcoaching services and coach development in NI. This is not surprising given that it, along

6 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

with sports science and medicine, are generally an afterthought (Green and Houlihan 2005)in international ESD. Comparative policy analyses bring this fact into sharper alignment.

The elite sport climate in NI is relatively fledgling when we consider that manygovernments developed explicit ESD objectives in the post–Second World War period. IfGreen and Houlihan (2005, p. 63) accurately describe the United Kingdom as ‘a “lateadopter” of many of the principles of organisation and administration developed by formerEastern bloc countries’, then NI (and, arguably, Ireland) has lagged on the coat tails of thisprocess. One of the key themes in the Strategy for the Development of Sport 1997–2005(DCAL 1997) was Striving for Excellence. This provided the basis for the establishment ofthe SINI in 2002, the resultant identification of a small core group of athletes who wereprovided with specialist services such as sports medicine, strength and conditioning andperformance skills, and the enshrining of the performance theme in the most recent sportsstrategy, Sport Matters (DCAL 2009). UK-wide developments such as the establishment ofthe National Lottery in 1994, the publication of the CunninghamReview (DCMS 2001), andthe more defined role for UK Sport (Bloyce and Smith 2010) have also contributed to theprofessionalization of elite sport in NI, notwithstanding Collins’s (2008) qualificationsabout coaching. The Cunningham Review led to a realignment of UK Sport towardsworld-class performance programmes and the repositioning of Home Country SportsCouncils such as the then Sports Council of Northern Ireland (established in 1974 andrenamed Sport NI in 2006), towards the use of grassroots and development programmes tosupport world-class sport. A critical ‘focusing event’ (Chalip 1995) for elite sport in NI, atleast as SNI saw it, was the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games in which the attain-ment of two silver medals came to be seen as a defining achievement in a cycle ofunderperformance since the 1994 Commonwealth Games. The Melbourne Review, under-taken subsequently by the Sports Council of Northern Ireland (SCNI 2006), noted thepredominance of what might otherwise be described as a traditional talent environment(Bompa 1994) in which raw talent was perceived to exist coincidentally, rather thanharnessed deliberately. It was selected retrospectively on the back of success and therewere noteworthy concerns about the quality of high-performance coaching.

This review made a number of key recommendations for the stabilization of the NI elitesports environment including the requirement for increased investment in the systemcombined with greater accountability and modernization; more strategic, innovative andfocused NGB athlete development systems and the development of a performance environ-ment in NI incorporating the ‘best bits’ of ESDs around the world, that is, the implementa-tion of specialist support service provision, talent identification and development,11 andhigh-performance athlete and coach development through the co-operation of key agencies(e.g. SNI, SINI, NGBs and the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games Council).Accordingly, a Talent Systems Unit was created within SNI with responsibility for providingspecialist support to NGBs and other relevant agencies, the Investing in Performance Sport(IIPS) programme was designed to develop NGB performance systems and, importantlyfrom the coaching perspective, the Practitioner Development Programme was developed totarget and sustain high-performance coaches and their support staff in the global sports race.In this regard, the fledgling elite sport system in NI replicates the main features of thedominant Western model of elite sport development. Because of these similarities inpractice and infrastructure, it can be benchmarked against other contemporary elite sportssystems using international comparative models such as SPLISS (De Bosscher et al. 2006)but with two necessary caveats: first, there is the unique co-jurisdictional status of sports inNI which challenges the use of the nation state as a unit of analysis, and, second, given the

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

relatively late entry of NI into the global sports arms race, the system is comparativelyunderdeveloped there.

Comparing national success in sport

There are ‘inevitable challenges when viewing nations and sport systems on a directlycomparable basis, due to cultural differences and the uniqueness of each sport system’ (DeBosscher et al. 2010, p. 568). In the sporting world specifically, there are also ‘manyextraneous factors that influence success’, making it ‘impossible to create one singlemodel for explaining international success’ (De Bosscher et al. 2006, p. 209). Havingmade this qualification, the SPLISS model provides a tentative theoretical base fromwhich to identify and examine ‘pivotal issues and to generate crucial questions in a bench-mark study of elite sport systems’ (De Bosscher et al. 2006, p. 209). It identifies possiblerelationships between what are termed inputs (financial support for elite sport), throughputs(support services and systems) and outputs (high performance) in elite sport (see Figure 2).But, significantly, as De Bosscher et al. (2010, p. 575) note, the model requires furthertesting and application in empirical environments to ‘understand how the pillars are acti-vated in different nations’ and this should not be isolated from qualitative descriptions.

Being subject to ongoing theoretical and methodological validation, the cumulativemodel is based on nine pillars that may be specific to a given nation’s local context and inwhich different elite sport systems may all be successful (De Bosscher et al. 2010).12

Importantly, the existence of the nine pillars is not a guarantee of success. Rather, theirstrategic and efficient implementation is crucial. Amongst other things, the SPLISS projectconcluded that three pillars of international sporting success remain relatively underdeve-loped, these being talent identification and development (Pillar 4), coaching provision

Elite sport environment media

and sponsoring

Scientific research

INP

UT

INPUT

INPUT

OUTPUT

TH

RO

UG

HP

UT(Inter)national competition

Coaching provision and coach

development

Training facilities

Talent identification and

development system

Athletic and

post-career support

Foundation and

participation

Financial support

Organization and structure of sport policies:an integrated approach to police development

Na

tional gove

rnin

g b

odie

s Pillar 9

Pillar 5

Pillar 4

Pillar 3

Pillar 1

Pillar 2

Pillar 8

Pillar 7

Pillar 6

Figure 2. The SPLISS model: a conceptual model of nine pillars of Sports Policy Factors Leading toInternational Sporting Success (De Bosscher et al. 2006).

8 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

(Pillar 7) and scientific research and sports science support (Pillar 9). These, it is suggested,might give sporting nations a competitive advantage, therefore making any examination oftheir activation even more critical. Here, Pillar 7 provided the theoretical basis for an empiricalinvestigation of the experiences of elite coaches; this having also been acknowledged else-where as an under-researched area.

Of what is known about coach development internationally, coaches’ sporting experi-ences and educational attainment are important milestones in the elite-level pathway(Erickson et al. 2007), the definition of coaching excellence continues to be discussed ifnot contested (see, e.g. Côté et al. 2007), elite coaches have particular educational needs(Gould et al. 1990) and there are some agreed frameworks or benchmarks for sports coaches’behaviour (Lyle 2002). Not unlike other professions, micro-level politics are to be found incoaching in terms of the need to manage relationships carefully, particularly in relation to thenegotiation of power relationships in the drive for sporting excellence (Potrac andJones 2009). Coaching involves extensive ‘management of uncertainty and contradictions’(Saury and Durand 1998, p. 263) not only in the day-to-day work with athletes on thetraining ground (e.g. Gould et al. 2002) but also when consideration is given to the widerimpact of complex systems of sports governance and administration on elite coaches’abilities to deliver on targets set for them by performance directors and the like.Empirically speaking, then, the need to examine coaches’ perspectives on ‘the social andorganisational environment that provides the circumstances in which athletes can developinto elite sports athletes and can continue to achieve at the highest levels in their branch ofsport’ (van Bottenburg 2000, p. 24) is palpable given the depersonalization of elite sportspolicy, the perception of sports policy and sports coaching as two apparently autonomousfields and the comparative dearth of empirical work on elite coaches’ lives with someexceptions (see, e.g. Taylor and Garratt 2010). What follows next is a rationale for themixed methods approach utilized in this study and the benefits that were derived fromcombining these methods. Thereafter, the design parameters of the study are sketched(including selection criteria, participants and analytical procedures) followed by a detaileddelineation of the qualitative experiences of elite coaches in NI. The latter was based on the‘expectation that policy-makers . . . will . . . have a close look at the evidence before the leapinto policy and practice’ (Pawson 2006, p. 8). Accordingly, the study places a necessaryimportance on those ‘moments . . . when the . . . reviewer of evidence must insist that “itreally is more complex than that”’ (Pawson 2006, p. 175), not least when mythic notionsabound about sport and it is assumed by some that parachuting in the ‘best bits’ ofinternational sports practice will lead, unquestionably, to success irrespective of the socialcontext. Next, there is a concise discussion of the mixed methods approach utilized here.

Research design

Along with the historical charting of the elite sports field in NI and secondary analysis ofrelevant policy documents, the study featured a mixed methods approach (Denzin 2006,Creswell and Plano Clark 2007) defined as ‘the class of research where the researcher mixesor combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, con-cepts or language into a single study’ (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004, p. 17). Here, thegoal is ‘not to replace either of these approaches but rather to draw from the strengths andminimize the weaknesses of both in single research studies and across studies’ (Johnson andOnwuegbuzie 2004, p. 14). Mixed methods research designs have become more establishedin applied research (Fielding 2010) and also in studies of physical activity and sports culture(see, e.g. Henderson et al. 1999, Messner et al. 2003, Fletcher and Arnold 2011). As Gratton

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

and Jones (2010, p. 121) put it in the context of sports research, ‘triangulation from usingdifferent data collection techniques can strengthen the validity of the research’ and ‘the twotypes of data may complement each other’. Here, methods were triangulated to incorporatethe collection of quantitative and qualitative data with elite coaches through parallel andsequential phases of data collection and analysis, the overall benefit to the research designbeing that elite sports policy was brought to life through the generation of rich qualitativedata on coaches’ experiences. The quantitative stage included a structured survey which alsodoubled as one element of the wider international SPLISS project. This was important inenabling some benchmarking between the NI and international cases in the first phase of datacollection. The survey developed by De Bosscher et al. (2010) included a five-point Likertscale applied to the analysis of coaches’ responses to questions about their perceptions of thefactors impacting on sporting success. This was followed by a series of semi-structuredinterviews with coaches, accepting that ‘qualitative data can be used “to support andexplicate the meaning of quantitative research” (Jayaratne 1993, p. 117)’ (Gratton andJones 2010, p. 34). In this regard, the blending of the two approaches enabled the researchteam to achieve descriptive precision and empirical vitality within the limits of the sample.

Sampling, selection criteria and participants

Purposeful sampling and specific selection criteria were applicable for this study given thatthe aim was to focus on a particular population – elite coaches – and their experiences.‘Embedded in this is the idea that who a person is and where that person is located within agroup is important, unlike other forms of research where people are viewed as essentiallyinterchangeable’ (Palys 2008, p. 697), that is to say, coaches are not cardboard cut-outs ofeach other. The initial selection criteria applied to the coaching cohort necessitated theoperationalization of elite status and included the following: coaches involved in the trainingof elite athletes and/or talented youths ranked in the world top 16 in their discipline, or in thetop 12 of an equivalent continental ranking system and/or those coaches operating in anational/regional training centre in which their athletes received direct or indirect funding,services or support from SNI for participation at Olympic, Senior World or ContinentalChampionship levels. This purposively selected interview sample was refined furtherthrough the application of two additional selection criteria – participation in SNI’sPractitioner Development Programme (PDP) and demonstrable or recent high-performancesuccess – to ensure the collection of rich data (Silverman 2006) and a pertinent evidencebase. At the time of completion, six coaches were registered on SNI’s PDP (2011–2013), aninitiative supporting those coaches identified as working at the elite level and with clearevidence of impact on the development of high-performance athletes. The application ofdemonstrable and recent high-performance success was a final criterion that enabled theselection of two remaining coaches, one of whom who was a coach at the 2010 DelhiCommonwealth Games at which NI achieved some success, winning 10 medals and finish-ing 10th in the medals table behind India (see Table 1 for a profile of coaches).13 Thus, of atotal cohort of 180 coaches in NI, eight met the specific eligibility criteria for elite status.Seven were males and one was female.

The summary profile (see Table 1 above) is deliberately less specific to prevent cross-tabulation of information and the revelation of coaches’ identities. Some had formal coach-ing qualifications, identified primarily by the availability of coach qualification pathways inparticular sports. All had competitive experience of the international sports scene and were

10 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

involved, by degrees, in coach development. For example, some had been mentored in needsanalysis and were using this to develop Personal Development Plans based around moreeffective communication with athletes and stakeholders in elite sport, while others wereengaged formally in coach education and in improving their technical expertise throughobservations of international coaching practitioners.

Research procedure and data analysis

The project was granted ethical approval through the Sport and Exercise Sciences’Research Institute at the University of Ulster. In accordance with the British SociologicalAssociation’s Statement of Ethical Practice, the anonymity of the eight coaches wasprotected by the allocation of a unique reference number during completion of the onlinesurvey.14 Subsequently, interviewees were assigned randomly allocated pseudonyms toreinforce this level of protection. All eight coaches completed the online questionnaire.This was facilitated by raising their prior awareness of the study through a comprehensiveinformed consent process (Smith 2010) conducted prior to the release of the questionnaire.Personal contact, via e-mail and/or telephone, was also made with them to encourage theircompletion of the questionnaire during a 4-week period in June/July 2011. The resultswere analysed using the SPSS Dimensions package to generate basic frequencies anddescriptive data. These formed the parallel mixed methods aspect of the methodologywhere the questionnaire data were then used to inform phase two of data collection, thatis, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Eight interviews were conducted to validate someof the descriptive data already collected and, more importantly, to enrich understanding ofthe perspectives of the coaches.

An interview guide was developed from the survey data to include open-ended questionsand informal probing as befits the semi-structured interview format as well as enabling theresearch team to explore any subtle local variations. The latter were less likely to be capturedby the standardized, internationally validated questionnaire tool. This method of interview-ing encouraged participants to provide in-depth information that resonated at a personal leveland captured meaning in contextual situations (Kvale and Brinkmann 2008). It also facili-tated a greater understanding of the assumptive worlds (Young 1977) of the elite coaches. Alleight interviews were recorded and transcribed. The consistent recollection and repetition ofsimilar vignettes by coaches confirmed that eight interviews were sufficient for theoreticaland data saturation to be attained (Bibble et al. 2001, Bowen 2008). Interview data wereanalysed to identify interpretable and relevant key themes (Gliner and Morgan 2000).Having selected a thematic interpretational content analysis as the most appropriate method

Table 1. Profile of coaches.

Sports Athletics, boxing, hockey, judo, rowing and triathlon

Current level of coaching National to internationalYears of experience International – 2–35 years

National – 6 yearsEmployment status in coaching NGBs

Sports Institute for Northern IrelandVoluntary coaches

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

of analysing the data (Gibbs 2007), this inductive process generated a number of emergentthemes beyond the quote level (Scanlan et al. 1989) (see Figure 3).

The analytical process started with the initial thought level on the left and each succes-sive theme to the right represented a higher-order theme composed of the themes on its left.These were then isolated into second-order themes and finally inductive and deductiveinterpretations were completed to identify general dimensions of the elite coaches’ percep-tions.15 Data from both phases were then triangulated to map out and explain the richnessand complexity of the coaches’ perceptions (Cohen and Manion 2000).16

As noted above, the SPLISS model (and Pillar 7 specifically) was used as a propitioustheoretical reference point from which to gather empirical data on high-performancecoaches’ experiences in, and perceptions of, the elite sports climate in NI. Data weregenerated on the socio-economic circumstances of elite coaches; the provision of trainingand competition facilities; co-operation and communication between the various sportsstructures as seen through the eyes of the coaches; technical support provision fromgoverning bodies; support services; financial support during the talent development andelite athlete phases and the organization and structure of policies at governing body andnational levels. Given the breadth of these data, it is not possible here to outline them intheir entirety. What follows is a necessarily abridged summary of coaches’ perspectives,focusing specifically on the elite sports culture and coaching provision (or the lack thereof)given their direct relevance to Pillar 7 and to this discussion. Amongst other things, theirexperiences reveal an ongoing conflict of values in the field of sport that has hamperedcoaching development in particular.

Quote from elite

coach

Higher-order

themeSecond-order

theme

General

dimension

Quote Higher-order theme Second-order theme General dimension

‘administration

is far too

complex’ (EC7)

•

‘the capacity of

voluntary coaches

to develop raising

talent is a barrier

to the

development of

talent’ (ECS)

• Coaching• Importance of

quality

coaches/limited

knowledge and

skill of coaches

• The importance of

quality coaches to

develop both

raising talent

•

The weakness of

the system to

support and

develop coaches

•

Administration• Governance

complexityPerception of a

complex

administration system

• •

Figure 3. Examples of inductive and deductive thematic analysis.

12 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

What elite sport culture!

All eight coaches were unequivocal in their views that an elite sport culture was indiscerniblein NI. For them, this point was reflected in, and accompanied by, a wider lack of under-standing of elite sport on the part of key decision-makers in the sport and policy arenas aboutits functioning and effective management. Interviewees’ claimed variously that there was ‘aweak understanding of elite sport’ (EC2), ‘culturally, elite sport is not valued’ (EC7) and ‘thevalue of elite sport is low in Northern Ireland’ (EC3) because ‘there is no vision for elitesport’ (EC3). As they saw it, there were also unrealistic expectations on the part of govern-ment and the wider public in NI for elite sports success given the limited resources availableto athletes and their coaching teams. One coach observed that ‘there is an expectation ofmedals from limited finance’ (EC6).

Compounding all of this for the coaches was the axis of tension within NGBs betweenclubs (primarily run by voluntary staff oriented towards grassroots and mass participation)and those people concerned to deliver high-performance targets. For the coaches inter-viewed here, the voluntary governance structures that existed in the majority of NGBs in NIcreated an environment where volunteers, often with a limited understanding of elite-levelsport, were tasked with decision-making that impacted directly, and usually negatively, onthe activities of the former. The largely voluntary nature of these and most other NGBs alsomeant that the wider NGB membership was more or less disenfranchised from the vision toproduce elite-level performers at Olympic and Commonwealth level – one coach observedthat ‘there is a lack of governing body infrastructure to evaluate policy’ and ‘my NGB hasno policy on elite sport’ (EC1) – thereby buttressing the axis of tension between both.Another commented that the ‘knowledge, skill, experience and capacity of staff in [name ofgoverning body]. . . is weak’ (EC8). This same governing body was ‘very stuck in theamateur ethos of sport . . . a system was designed to access funding for three fulltime posts(and) the funding was returned!’ (EC8). For these reasons, it was tempting here as it was forHoulihan some years earlier to ‘paint a picture of domestic governing bodies as institutionswhose best days are behind them’ (1997, p. 177), at least from the perspective of Olympicand Commonwealth sports. However, this would be to throw the baby out with the bath-water and, in so doing, to take an ideological stance on what is a much deeper sociologicalissue with roots in the de-amateurization of sport and the ways in which this is seen bymany sports clubs, communities and NGBs as posing a threat to ‘traditional’ sportingvalues. ‘In their current form, it is unlikely that such values will flourish’ (Garrigou2006, p. 666) because elite coaches, professional policy-makers, performance directorsand the like cannot continue to adopt the attitude that ‘it is only a game’. As Garrigou putsit, ‘the phrase echoes the very reverse idea; that is, it appears to function as a way ofcompensating for loss or disappointment in relation to something which clearly is not “justa game”’ (Garrigou 2006, p. 670). In fact, it seemed to the coaches here as if some of thekey stakeholders were moving in opposite directions when it came to the notion that ‘it isonly a game’ with a certain disdain shown by the majority of NGBs for a more professionalapproach to sport.

‘Moving in opposite directions’

At the national level, coaches encountered what they perceived to be a lack of understandingby policy-makers of the realities of delivering elite sport success. This was not surprisinggiven the fact that, in the United Kingdom, ‘policy priorities towards developing a frame-work of support systems for elite-level athletes have, traditionally, been rather more

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

ambiguous’ (Green and Houlihan 2005, p. 3) than in other successful European andinternational contexts. Coaches were clearly frustrated by the various and fragmentedstakeholders in the sports policy arena in NI who lacked agreement or a shared vision andwere ‘riding two horses in opposite directions’. As was previously demonstrated at themacro-level and, subsequently, confirmed by coaches on the ground, there was, and con-tinues to be, a lack of clarity surrounding the role of key agencies, leading to disharmony anddisorganization in the management and delivery of elite sport.

Importantly, from the coaches’ perspectives, they felt alienated from the elite sportspolicy process and issues around planning and support for high-performance athletes werenot addressed sufficiently in this context. This was reflected in many ways, for example, intheir lack of input into, and consultation about, the selection by SNI of focus sports as a keystrategy in the drive for medal success,17 and in the lack of value consensus and clarityaround elite sport which hampered their efforts to meet high-performance targets. In effect,they saw the elite sports process almost as a contradiction in terms because the process wascompleted by administrators, managers and others rather than by recognized experts in highperformance. This feeling of disenfranchisement was also reinforced by what they saw as theill-informed establishment of Talent Posts18 in 26 of the 33 NGBs funded by the IIPS,including mountaineering, tennis, gymnastics, squash and badminton, sports that were lesslikely to be successful at elite level according to the coaches interviewed here.19 Morefundamentally, they argued that the TID system was based largely on an outmoded view ofnatural selection, that is, that ‘talent will out no matter what’.20 In a word, the lack ofcoaching provision had impacted negatively on the identification of needs and priorities forelite (Olympic and Commonwealth) sport in facilities provision, coaching development, theintroduction of talent systems and in the effectiveness of specialist athlete support services.

Allied to the axis of tension around voluntarism, the multiple fracturing of the sportspolicy landscape meant that the orientation of government priorities and subsequent finan-cial investment were centred largely on non-Olympic sports, a feature that detracted from thedrive for elite sports success for these coaches. As they saw it, the limited investment in elitesport was one outcome of the disproportionate and continued channelling of resources intonon-Olympic and Commonwealth sports, that is, into the ‘Big Three’ sports, for varioussocio-political reasons. Taking these themes together then, it was not surprising that thecoaches attributed their respective coaching successes to individual merit and ability –‘success is due to the commitment of high-performance coaches to develop plans andwork above and beyond’ (EC5) – rather than to the logical consequence of an optimallyfunctioning support system for high-performance coaches and athletes. Pillar 7 was, forthem, manifestly underdeveloped and, rather like the impatient youth who wants to ‘runbefore they can walk’, they felt that SNI’s relatively late entry into the ESD arena led tounfounded attempts to compete in the global sporting arms race. One example of this was thebuilding up of certain features of the elite sports system that were not benchmarked by SNIprior to public investment. This was perceived by the coaches to be at the very real expenseof the delivery of high-performance aspirations. Another was the lack of sustained invest-ment in coaching provision which was the most critical component hindering the develop-ment of Olympic and Commonwealth targets.21 This tension has also been notedelsewhere (Green and Houlihan 2005, Bloyce and Smith 2010) when the effectiveness ofinternational elite sports systems has been problematic, not least when facilities or infra-structural investment are prioritized over the continuing professional development of ath-letes and coaches. By way of illustration, Collins (2008, p. 75) has argued that despite thefact that high-performance coaching has received some funding in the United Kingdom,‘much training is (still) left for individual (coaches) to fund themselves’. Striking parallels

14 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

exist in NI where three elite coaches were voluntary and, of the five employed in NGBs or bySNI, all had subsidized aspects of their training from their own personal finances.

In summary, coaches were trapped between two conflicting demands. On the one hand,at the macro-level there was the fractured sports policy landscape, an outcome of thediffusion of international elite sport onto a less than ideal seedbed of co-jurisdictional sportsstatus in NI. Allied to this were the dominance of the ‘Big Three’ and imperceptible evidenceof ‘high-performance’ oriented Olympic and Commonwealth sport cultures, includingcoaching provision. On the other hand, there was the resultant pressure on coaches to engagein value negotiations and the micro-management of daily politics in order to achieve theirgoals, for example, in the raft of communications with facility managers, physiotherapists,sports managers, NGB officials and the like, for whom the professionalization of sport wasan erosion of their values. Specifically, the need to ‘play nice’ (Festle 1996) with the keydecision-makers involved in funding and organizing sport was seen by the coaches asunwelcome, but necessary, if they were to attempt to deliver on high-performance objectivesin sport. Indeed, such was their orientation to high-performance sporting objectives that thestructures of amateur sport no longer served theirs or the interests of elite sport, at least intheir eyes.

Having summarized the key themes around the elite sports climate, coaching provisionand the clash of values in sport as they were experienced by coaches, the opportunity is nowafforded to reflect upon the elite sports policy arena as a whole given the macro- and micro-level data outlined here. In closing the discussion, there is a consideration of the normativeprioritization of professional values by the coaches interviewed here and the efficacy of theSPLISSmodel. The article concludes by bridging the gap between sport and social policy. Inso doing, it pinpoints the lowest common denominator approach of government in NI whichmay continue to compound the marginal policy status of sport more generally.

Conclusion

First, it can be said that the relatively uneven diffusion of ESD to Western Europe, and itssubsequent idiosyncratic adoption in NI, reflects the often short-term reactionary practice byWestern governments and devolved administrations like Stormont to take ‘the best bits’(Bloyce and Smith 2010) of international elite sports practice. This is carried out on theexpectation that ESD can be imported smoothly, in the fashion of a blunt tool it seems, andwithout due recourse to local particularities or needs. Taking the SPLISS model and otherinternational comparative work on elite sports policy (see, e.g. Green and Houlihan 2005,Houlihan 2008, Bloyce and Smith 2010) as baseline measures, the bedrock for the devel-opment of a formal elite sports environment in NI could be described as less than optimal,given the uniqueness of dual eligibility for athletes, the co-jurisdictional status of sport thereand the orientation of government priorities towards the ‘Big Three’ (non-Olympic andCommonwealth) sports. Additionally, this study has supplemented empirical knowledge ofthe micro-delivery of elite sport and of the messy and fragmented lives of coaches. Suchwere the levels of frustration and alienation experienced by the coaches here that high-performance goals appeared almost unattainable. This depth of frustration was both areflection of the commitment of coaches and of their difficulties in working within afractured policy landscape, the necessary caveat being that these experiences may not beshared, to the same degree, by the remaining 172 coaches striving for elite status in NI.

There are clear and necessitous grounds, then, for further appraisals of smaller nationsinto which ESD systems are ‘imported’ and, of the qualitative experiences of coaches,performance directors and others, working towards and charged with the delivery of high-

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

performance sport in these countries. This is particularly acute given the prediction byDe Bosscher et al. (2011) that the elite sports prospects of smaller countries like NI are likelyto decrease further, given the unsustainability of a relaxed approach to talent identificationand development in the more established sporting nations. The idiosyncratic features of sportin NI have also highlighted the parameters of international aggregated measures such asSPLISS that rely on the nation state as the unit of analysis. While this does not necessarilypreclude a reconsideration of the appropriateness of the SPLISS framework for NI, there maybe some scope for amore strategic and adapted implementation of thismodel there in the lightof the fact that it offers a series of empirically testable measures that are one step in thedirection of a much needed evidence-based approach to ESD. These may, in turn, drive thefuture theoretical refinement of SPLISS.

A second but by no means unique leit motif in this study was the potentially irreconcil-able tension between amateur values around mass participation sport delivered mainly byvolunteers with limited knowledge of elite sport, and elite sport success driven by perfor-mance targets, resource prioritization and the like. Clearly, there was a normative prioritiza-tion by the coaches here of so-called professional values. This was not surprising given theirhigh emotional and professional commitments to the delivery of high-performance coach-ing. Such was this intensity, however, that they appeared less able or willing to recognize therewards they themselves had gained from competing and working within voluntary govern-ance structures during earlier stages of their sporting careers and, contradictory though itmight appear to be, the benefits to be gained from the deep appeal of the philosophy ofamateurism to key decision-makers in elite sport. Ironically, perhaps, ‘the faint residues,rhetoric and imagery of a self-consciously, anti-commercial ideology, forged in the nine-teenth century, now arguably play the major role in sustaining the value of the OlympicGames as a global commercial spectacle’ (Gruneau 2006, p. 578). This same spectacleserves to part-fuel the continued financial investment in elite sport, the drive to surpass thelimits of human performance and, within this, the professionalization of coaching and othersports professions.

This dual-sided view of sport also bears the unambiguous marks of the tendency to adoptan uncritical view of it, almost as if it were a chimera. It meant, for instance, that the widerNGB membership was more or less disenfranchised from the vision to produce elite-levelperformers at Olympic and Commonwealth level and the wider approach to sport. It has alsoserved to suppress the emergence of balanced and critically engaged reflections on the socialrole of sport in NI with some notable exceptions (see Sugden and Bairner 1993, Bairner2001). Rather, there is an ideological policy stasis around sport and associated myth-makingaround the power of sport to create a shared future there. One consequence of this has beenthe disregard of structural tensions and value clashes within and between NGBs, sportscouncils and other stakeholders which may lead, amongst other things, to the demotivationand early out-migration of high-performance coaches away from poorer performing ESDsystems like NI where such tension is exacerbated by complex governance issues. Quiteunintentionally then, the targeting by Sport NI of international sports professionals(e.g. coaches and performance directors) to work there may serve to reinforce the very skillsdeficiencies they set out to redress. The likelihood of this is intensified in cases like NI whenopportunities persist for the ‘parachuting in and out’ of sports experts.

Third, and moving to the unique local factors at play in NI, there remains a notablecontinuity in the longstanding powerful positions of the ‘Big Three’ in the status hierarchy ofsports, despite attempts to establish a more bureaucratic, rationalized and state-drivenapproach to sport. This is not to deny that rugby union, football (soccer) and Gaelic games(football, hurling and handball) are played at elite and/or professional levels and that their

16 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

respective sports organizations have embedded high-performance goals and structurestherein. Rather, it is to note that these sports appear to retain the greatest cultural significanceand associated investment by the devolved government at Stormont. Their pre-eminence canbe seen, not only in the frustrated experiences of elite Olympic and Commonwealth coachesthere but, more objectively perhaps, in the cessation of elite facilities programmes for someOlympic sports (such as cycling) and delays in the completion of others, while around£140 million pounds is predicted to be spent on ‘the Big Three’ in stages between 2011 and2015 (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/index/sport/sport-3.htm, 10March2011).Of this, £61.4mil-llion has been allocated to football with £25 million of this set aside for the redevelopment ofWindsor Park, the home of Linfield FC and the stadium used for international home matchesfor NI. The GAA also received £61.4 million for the redevelopment of Casement Park into a40,000 all-seater stadium, while Ulster rugby were allocated £15million for the upgrading oftheir Ravenhill ground. This was a notable financial investment by DCAL for two reasons:firstly, it occurred at the same time as a £4 billion reduction in Stormont’s budget allocationfrom Westminster, and, secondly, according to SNI, 7 in 10 adults were satisfied with sportsprovision in NI in 2010. In this same national survey, it was reported that around 10% weredissatisfied (SNI 2012, p. 10) and this dissatisfaction was strongest when proximity to local(and not national) facilities was taken into account. In other words, the recent investment instadia provision for the ‘Big Three’ appeared to be disproportionate on economic and socialgrounds, and could be seen as running contradictory to the substantial financial investmentrequired to generate and sustain success in Olympic and Commonwealth sports.

Finally, it should be noted that there is a distinctive approach to, and outcome of, coalitiongovernment and policy-making in NI that may compound the continued channelling ofresources towards the ‘Big Three’ and the marginal policy status of sport more generally.This lowest common denominator approach is a ‘cautious and conservative approach to socialpolicy development’ (McLaughlin 2005, inGray andBirrell 2011, p. 18) typified, for example,in the limited developments made by the power-sharing executive into early years and child-care provision, long-term care and others. In short, ‘bargaining over budget allocations to 11departments and 11 ministers led to a consensus on equalising increases or cuts across alldepartments rather than a determination of priority areas’ (Gray and Birrell 2011). It has alsolead to the rotation of sport as a ministerial post between the two coalition parties, the DUP andSinn Fein. This having been said, rather than there being a policy impasse about sport in NI asthere was/is in other policy cases including the system for academic selection for secondaryschools, a victim’s strategy and single equality legislation (Gray and Birrell 2011), thereappears to be some political and ideological stasis around sport. In the case of elite sportspolicy specifically, external determinants such as the realignment of UK Sport appear to havedriven the comparatively recent establishment of SINI rather than any determined prioritiza-tion of this by the Stormont Executive, while those civil servants and ministers with respon-sibility for culture, arts and leisure have appeared to adopt a rather chimeric and mythopoeic(Coalter 2010) view of sport. For instance, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness laudedthe ‘invaluable role [of sport] in our people’s health and wellbeing. Young people in particularwill through the construction of stadia be inspired and encouraged to participate in sportingactivities which are good for health’ (www.u.tv/news/NI-stadiums-get-£138-cash-boost-8e7ad261-b0b9-4f2e-afcc-e7db7eda45cf), while former and current Ministers for Culture,Arts and Leisure have numerously highlighted what they claim to be the role of sport indelivering a shared and better future in NI. For example, it has been said that ‘participating insport, at every level, brings rewards’ (NelsonMcCausland 27 July 2009 at the launch of the 5thWorld Dwarf Games) and that ‘sport is an integral part of our culture in Northern Ireland. Weenjoy sport, we cherish it, it inspires us, and it creates a sense of pride and projects a powerful,

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

positive image of our community to international audiences. The power of sport should not beunder-estimated . . .’ (Gregory Campbell 11 November 2008 at the official opening of sportsfacilities in Jordanstown). However, this lowest common denominator approach, resting as itdoes on a cross-party ideological stasis about sport and its wider social role, is not to beconfused with an apolitical approach to sport.

The disposition to ‘play politics with sport’ can be seen in the recent attendances of Firstand Deputy Ministers Robinson (DUP) and McGuinness (Sinn Fein) at high-profile sportingevents traditionally associated with the Catholic and Protestant communities, respectively.This was the very essence of political efforts to demonstrate identification and trust with the‘other’ side, on the one hand, while the public relations thrust around these events relied on theuncritical assumption that sport is, unquestionably, a bridge for cross-community relations.This raises an important closing question about the socio-political role of sport in NI as one of anumber of means of stabilizing the power-sharing executive and maintaining political har-mony, perhaps for instrumental reasons. Certainly, statements about the role of sport inpromoting community development (defined in the widest sense) continue to be ‘made againsta background in which many administrators of sport and leisure in Ireland continue to claimthat their sphere of influence is essentially apolitical’ (Sugden and Bairner 1993, p. 129).Ironically however, the failed outcome of the proposal for a multi-sports stadium on the site ofthe former Maze prison (made famous by the 1981 hunger strikers) has demonstrated that theboundaries between sport and politics in NI continue to be malleable – sport reflects politicaland policy conditions. The marginal policy status of sport in NI has also created a situation inwhich the dominant message that prevails around sport is one of deeply entrenched andmythical storylines, ‘not only that elite success has a powerful demonstration effect on themass of the public, but also that sport participation has a positive impact on the behaviour ofthe young, that international sport improves relations between nations and that sport canstrengthen community integration’ (Houlihan et al. 2009, p. 5). In this regard, the politicizationof sport – be that the claim that sport is either above or below the political dimensions of sociallife – merits further critical reflection in NI because, as Allison argued, ‘even in politics, fewcomplexities can rival the world of Irish sport’ (1993, p. 5).

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers and the editorial team at the IJSPP whoseinsightful and constructive comments were certainly beneficial in developing this article. This studywould also not have been possible without the support of Sport Northern Ireland and the involvementof the elite coaches who gave willingly of their time.

Notes1. Team Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s third place success in the London 2012 Olympic

medal table followed an increase in UK Sport’s funding from £70 million for Athens 2004 to£235 million (for Beijing 2008) to £264 million for London 2012. This was their most successfulOlympics to date. Ireland’s medal tally of five (four of which were in boxing) equalled their bestOlympic performance of 1956.

2. Hoberman (2004, pp. 184–185) defines sportive nationalism as a

doctrine that promotes sportive success in international competitions as an instrument ofnational self-assertion. The explicit content of this doctrine is the claim that triumphantathletes promote national prestige. Implicit . . . is also the more urgent idea that victoriousathletes are indispensable symbols of national vitality who contribute to the survival of thenation through role modelling effects. In this sense athletes can function as symbols ofnational willpower and strength.

18 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

3. The quest for elite sport success has also led to increasing academic interest in the factorscontributing to this success and to comparisons between successful sporting nations, theSPLISS model being a clear example of the latter.

4. ‘A number of recent programmes focused quite specifically on identifying potentially talentedperformers on the basis of their physiological profile and their sporting aptitudes’ (Bloyce andSmith 2010, p. 144) such as Sporting Giants (for rowing, handball and volleyball), TalentTransfer (for gymnasts to move into diving), Pitch2Podium (for unsuccessful footballers tomove into cycling, hockey, athletes, canoeing, bob skeleton and the pentathlon) andGirls4Gold. These schemes are not unlike some of the staged approaches to talentidentification first developed in the former GDR and the Soviet Union.

5. There were claims that the selection criteria for some sports such as football were pro-English, forexample, and the appropriateness of the title ‘Team GB’ was also questioned. The use of the titleTeam GB as shorthand for the 2012 Olympic team from Great and Britain and Northern Irelandwas a consistent theme in some regional media, notably newspapers, over the course of the 2012Olympics. For instance, in Northern Ireland, the shorthand was excused by the Belfast Telegraphin the following terms: ‘Even the omission of NI in the Team GB name could be forgiven as amarketing tool to make a slicker brand for our national team’ (15 August 2012, ‘Northern Irelanddeserved placed in Team GB). See also Belfast Telegraph (2 August 2012), ‘Team GB Olympicname row still simmering in Northern Ireland’; Mail Online (1 August 2012) ‘Here’s hoping weavoidGod Save theQueen vHenWlad FyNhadau in Cardiff duel’; and,Reuters (8 August 2010),‘Scolympians or Team GB? Games flare secession row’ (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/uk-oly-scotland-day-idUKBRE8770KK20120808).

6. Collins and McCann (1993) argue that one of the distinctive features of the Irish (defined as theRepublic of Ireland) policy process is the impact of decisions made outside the Republic.

7. The British–Irish Agreement, commonly known as the Good Friday Agreement, dated 10 April1998, provides at article 1(vi) that governments recognize the birth right of all the people ofNorthern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish, British or both, as they may sochoose.

8. Darron Gibson’s decision to ‘defect’ from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland’s footballteam is one case in point (Hassan et al. 2009) and there are also tensions for players in other sportssuch as hockey (see, Liston and Moreland 2009). More recently, Olympic athletes from NorthernIreland (Campbell and the Chambers brothers) won medals for ‘Team GB’ in rowing, whileboxers from Northern Ireland (Barnes and Conlan) represented Ireland on the Olympic medalpodium. Of the eight paralympians fromNorthern Ireland, two competed for TeamGB in London2012 and six competed for Team Ireland. In advance of the 2016 Rio Olympics, there is alreadyspeculation about the ‘national question’ facing top-ranked golfers, GraemeMcDowell and RoryMcIlroy, who are eligible to represent ‘Team GB’ and Ireland.

9. There is aworldwide axis of tension between elite-level andmass participation sportwhereNGBs findthemselves in the difficult position of ‘trying to square the circle’ (Bloyce and Smith 2010, p. 152).

10. Houlihan (1997, p. 161) argues that ‘any analysis of the policy significance of governing bodiesof sport in Ireland is bound to have the dominant role of the Gaelic Athletic Association at itsheart’. As a result, the predominance of the ‘big three’ is also evident in sports policy anddevelopment in the Republic of Ireland. Importantly, this traditional and longstanding dominancedoes not necessarily translate itself equally into financial or organizational advantages for malesand females playing gaelic games, soccer and rugby union (Liston 2005).

11. Interestingly, the term talent identification is being replaced gradually by talent development ortalent confirmation in international elite sport development.

12. For further information on the nine pillars, see http://www.vub.ac.be/SBMA/sites/default/files/file/Docs%20SBMA/SPLISS-II%20study%20(2011-2012),%20research%20proposal.pdf.

13. ‘Northern Ireland Team’s performance at the Commonwealth Games over the past 60 years hasbeen erratic, with results steadily declining between 1994 and 2010’ (Sport NI 2010a, p. 1).‘Despite a significant improvement in performance in 2010 relative to 2006, Northern Ireland stillperforms below what would be expected on the basis of population and wealth’ (Sport NI2010a, p. 40).

14. This was particularly important in the light of the occupational status of one of the authors, beingemployed by Sport Northern Ireland. The process of informed consent was also critical to thevalidity of the results given that the coaches were commenting on the sports provision offered bySport Northern Ireland, for whom they were nominal employees and/or volunteers.

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

15. This process was also consistent with the methods adopted by Duffy et al. (2001) in their researchon the factors impacting on the success of high-performance players and athletes in Ireland.

16. This content analysis was also validated independently by two researchers who had experiencein, and an understanding of, elite sport and thematic data analysis.

17. Focus sports are eligible to apply for funding from Sport Northern Ireland to develop aperformance strand.

18. Talent Posts are defined either as Talent Coaches or as Talent Identification/Talent DevelopmentOfficers. The second role focuses more on building a high-performance system in governingbodies as opposed to the delivery of high-performance coaching.

19. SNI’s annual investment of around three million pounds to the IIPS programme may come undergreater scrutiny given that this is distributed between 33 sports and, thus, not prioritized.

20. ‘There remains a lack of consensus in relation to how talent should be defined or identified andthere is no uniformly accepted theoretical framework to guide current practice’ (Vaeyens et al.2008, p. 703).

21. This was consistent with the findings of a 2010 Northern Ireland athlete survey (SNI 2010b) thathighlighted the central contribution of high-quality coaching towards the achievement ofinternational sports success.

ReferencesAllison, L., ed., 1993. The changing politics of sport. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Australian Government, 2010. Australian sport: the pathway to success. Canberra: Commonwealth of

Australia.Bairner, A., 2001. Sport, nationalism, and globalization: European and North American perspectives.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Bibble, S., et al., 2001. Research methods in sport and exercise psychology: quantitative and qualita-

tive issues. Journal of sports sciences, 19, 777–809.Bloyce, D. and Smith, A., 2010. Sport policy and development: an introduction. London: Routledge.Bompa, T., 1994. Theory and methodology of training: the key to athletic training. Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.Bowen, G., 2008. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note.Qualitative research,

8 (1), 137–152.Chalip, L., 1995. Policy analysis in sport management. Journal of sport management, 9, 1–13.Coalter, F., 2010. A wider social role for sport: who’s keeping the score? London: Routledge.Cohen, L. and Manion, L., 2000. Research methods in education. 5th ed. London: Routledge.Collins, M., 2008. Public policies on sports development: can mass and elite sport hold together? In:

V. Girginov, ed. Management of sports development. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 59–87.Collins, N. and McCann, F., eds., 1993. Irish politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Côté, J., et al., 2007. Towards a definition of excellence in sports coaching. International journal of

coaching science, 1, 3–17.Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V., 2007.Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage.Cronin, M., Murphy, W., and Rouse, P., eds., 2009. The Gaelic athletic association 1884–2009.

Dublin: Irish Academic Press.De Bosscher, V., et al., 2006. A conceptual framework for analysing Sports Policy Factors Leading to

International Sporting Success. European sport management quarterly, 6 (2), 185–215.De Bosscher, V., et al., 2008. The Global Sporting Arms Race: an international comparative study on

Sports Policy factors Leading to International Sporting Success. Oxford: Meyer & Meyer.De Bosscher, V., et al., 2010. Developing a method for comparing the elite sport systems and policies

of nations: a mixed methods approach. Journal of sport management, 24, 567–600.De Bosscher, V., van Bottenburg, M., and Shibli, S., 2011. Talent development: a comparative factor in

international elite sports. Paper presented in copenhagen, May 2011. Available from: www.teamdanmark.dk/~/media/Team%20Danmark/Media%20Archive/Documents/Forside/Fokusomraader/Talentudvikling/Fremtidssymposium-2011/Presentation%20Veerle%20De%20Bosscher%20et%20al-printable.ashx [Accessed 20 April 2012].

Denzin, N., 2006. Sociological methods: a sourcebook (methodological perspectives). New York:Aldine Transaction Publishers.

Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure, 1997. Strategy for the development of sport 1997 – 2005.Belfast: DCAL.

20 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure, 2009. Sport matters: the Northern Ireland strategy for sportand physical recreation 2009–2019. Belfast: DCAL.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2001. Elite sports funding review (Report of the ReviewGroup chaired by the Rt Hon. Dr. Jack Cunningham MP). London: DCMS.

Duffy, P., et al., 2001. Factors promoting and inhibiting the success of high performance players andathletes in Ireland. University of Limerick: National Coaching and Training Centre. Availablefrom: www.coachingireland.com/press/subs/Success%20Factors%20STUDY.doc [Accessed 1June 2012].

Erickson, K., Côté, J., and Fraser-Thomas, J., 2007. The sport experiences, milestones, and educationalactivities associated with the development of high-performance coaches. Sport psychologist, 21(3), 302–316.

Festle, M., 1996. Playing nice: politics and apologies in women’s sports. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Fielding, N., 2010. Mixed methods research in the real world. International journal of social researchmethodology, 13 (2), 127–138.

Fletcher, D. and Arnold, R., 2011. A qualitative study of performance leadership and management inelite sport. Journal of applied sport psychology, 23, 223–242.

Garnham, N., 2004. Association football and society in pre-partition Ireland. Belfast: Ulster HistoricalFoundation.

Garrigou, A., 2006. Illusio in sport. Sport in society, 9 (4), 665–673.Gibbs, G., 2007. Analysing qualitative data. London: Sage.Gliner, J. and Morgan, A., 2000. Research methods in applied settings: an integrated approach to

design and analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Gould, D., et al., 1990. Educational needs of elite U.S. National Team, Pan American, and Olympic

Coaches. Journal of teaching in physical education, 9 (4), 332–344.Gould, D., et al., 2002. A survey of U.S. Olympic Coaches: variables perceived to have influenced

athlete performances and coach effectiveness. The sports psychologist, 16, 229–250.Gratton, C. and Jones., I., 2010. Research methods for sports studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Gray, A.M. and Birrell, D., 2011. Coalition government in Northern Ireland: social policy and the

lowest common denominator thesis. Social policy and society, 11 (1), 15–25.Green, K., 2008. Understanding physical education. London: Sage.Green, M. and Houlihan, B., 2005. Elite sport development: policy learning and political priorities.

London: Routledge.Green, M. and Oakley, B., 2001. Elite sport development systems and playing to win: uniformity and

diversity in international approaches. Leisure studies, 20, 247–267.Gruneau, R., 2006. “Amateurism” as a sociological problem: some reflections inspired by Eric

dunning. Sport in society, 9 (4), 559–582.Hassan, D., McCullough, S., and Moreland, E., 2009. North or South? Darron Gibson and the issue of

player eligibility within Irish soccer. Sport in society, 10 (6), 740–753.Henderson, K., et al., 1999. Notes on linking qualitative and quantitative data: the cross cultural

physical activity participation study. Leisure sciences, 21, 247–255.Hoberman, J., 1993. Sport and ideology in the post-communist age. In: L. Allison, ed. The changing

politics of sport. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 15–36.Hoberman, J., 2004. Sportive nationalism and globalization. In: J. Bale and M.K. Christensen, eds.

Post-Olympism? Questioning the sport in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Berg, 177–188.Houlihan, B., 1994. Sport and international politics. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Houlihan, B., 1997. Sport policy and politics: a comparative analysis. London: Routledge.Houlihan, B., 2008. An analysis of the mechanisms of the internationalisation of elite sport develop-

ment systems. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association conference. University ofSwansea, April 2008. Available from: www.psa.ac.uk/2008/pps/Houlihan.pdf [Accessed 12May 2012].

Houlihan, B., Bloyce, D., and Smith, A., 2009. Editorial: developing the research agenda in sportpolicy. International journal of sport policy, 1 (1), 1–12.

Houlihan, B. and Green, M., 2008. Comparative elite sport development. In: B. Houlihan andGreen, M., eds. Comparative elite sport development: systems, structures and public policy.Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1–21.

Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A., 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose timehas come. Educational researcher, 33 (7), 14–26.

International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012

Jones, R., Armour, K., and Potrac, P., 2004. Sports coaching cultures: from practice to theory. London:Routledge.

Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S., 2008. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing.2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Liston, K., 2005. Playing the masculine/feminine game: a sociological analysis of the fields of sportand gender in the republic of Ireland. Thesis (PhD). University College Dublin Library, Dublin.

Liston, K. andMoreland, E., 2009. Hockey and habitus: sport and national identity in Northern Ireland.New Hibernia review, 13 (4), 127–140.

Lyle, J., 2002. Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches behaviour. London: Routledge.McCarthy, K., 2011. Gold, silver and green: the Irish Olympic journey 1896-1924. Cork: Cork

University Press.McLaughlin, E., 2005. Governance and social policy in Northern Ireland (1999-2–2): the devolution

years and postscript. In: M. Powell, Bauld, L., and Clarke, J., eds. Social policy review 17, analysisand debate in social policy 2005. Bristol: The Policy Press, 107–124.

Messner, M., Duncan, M., and Cooky, C., 2003. Silence, sports bras, and wrestling porn: women intelevised sports news and highlights shows. Journal of sport and social issues, 27, 38–51.

Palys, T., 2008. Purposive sampling. In: L. Given, ed. The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative researchmethods, Vol. 2. London: Sage, 697–698.

Pawson, R., 2006. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage.Penney, D. and Evans, J., 2005. Policy, power and politics in physical education. In: K. Green and

Hardman, K., eds. Physical education: essential issues. London: Sage, 21–38.Potrac, P. and Jones, R., 2009. Power, conflict and co-operation: towards a micropolitics of coaching.

Quest, 61, 223–236.Saury, J. and Durand, M., 1998. Practical knowledge in expert coaches: on site study of coaching in

sailing. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 69 (3), 254–266.Scanlan, T., Ravizza, K., and Stein, G., 1989. An in-depth study of former figure skaters: II. Sources of

enjoyment. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 11, 65–83.Silverman, D., 2006. Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. 3rd

ed. London: Sage.Smith, M., 2010. Research methods in sport. Exeter: Learning Matters Ltd.Sparkes, A. and Templin, T., 1992. Life histories and physical education teachers: exploring the

meanings of marginality. In: A. Sparkes, ed. Research in physical education and sport: exploringalternative visions. London: The Falmer Press, 118–145.

Sport Northern Ireland, 2010a. An analysis of Northern Ireland’s performance in the commonwealthgames 1950–2010. Belfast: Sport Northern Ireland. Available from: http://www.sportni.net/NR/rdonlyres/A5CAD177-8225-478E-97B9-1C5FE7BABAA0/0/SNI_Comm_Games_singles.pdf[Accessed 12 May 2012].

Sport Northern Ireland, 2010b. A survey of the athletes on the athlete support programme. Belfast:Sport Northern Ireland/SIRC.

Sport Northern Ireland, 2011. Current numbers of national governing bodies. Available from: www.sportni.net/performancesport/governing+bodies [Accessed 31 May 2012].

Sport Northern Ireland, 2012. The Northern Ireland sport and physical activity survey 2010: a baselinereport. Belfast: SNI and Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure.

Sports Council for Northern Ireland, 2006. Melbourne 2006 review: a review of the preparation andperformance of the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games Council Team in the MelbourneCommonwealth Games. Belfast: SCNI.

Stewart, B., et al., 2004. Australian sport: better by design? The Evolution of Australian Sport Policy.London: Routledge.

Sugden, J. and Bairner, A., 1993. Sport, Sectarianism and Society in a divided Ireland. London:Leicester University Press.

Taylor, B. and Garratt, D., 2010. The professionalization of sports coaching: relations of power,resistance and compliance. Sport, education and society, 15 (1), 121–139.

Vaeyens, R., et al., 2008. Talent identification and Development Programmes in Sport: current modelsand future directions. Sports medicine, 38 (9), 703–714.

van Bottenburg, M., 2000. Het topsportklimaat in Nederland [The elite sports climate in theNetherlands]. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Diopter-Janssens and van Bottenburg bv.

Young, K., 1977. Values in the policy process. Policy and politics, 5 (2), 1–22.

22 K. Liston et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ie L

isto

n] a

t 04:

52 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2012