READING
GUIDE TO: Lindsey, I.(2008)
‘Conceptualising
sustainability in sports development’, Leisure Studies, 27 (3): 279-294.
There seem to be four kinds of
sustainability that sports
development might be interested in—‘individual, community,
organisational and
institutional sustainability’ (279).There are also considerations of
processes
that affect sustainability, which involve us in issues of power,
control and
integration.
In general, sustainability is still
referred to in unclear and general terms [and some examples are given
from policy documents, page 280].There
are many definitions and therefore
ambiguity at the heart of policy.As a
result, there is little evaluative research either.A more promising line is to examine the
literature in health in sustainability in general, and in health
programmes
specifically.For example the general
literature combines ‘ecological, economic and social concerns’,
combining
economy, society and some notion of environment (280).
The literature on health programmes is
more specific.There seem to be two
separate but related
conceptual frameworks, invoking three alternative perspectives, and
then four different levels of social organization.The models can be synthesised into a general
framework: four kinds of
sustainability (‘individual, community, organisational and
institutional’ (281)).Individual sustainability indicates that there may
be quite different
outcomes for individual beneficiaries, but in general, individual
sustainability can be defined as ‘longer term changes in individuals’
attitudes,
aptitudes, and/or behaviour through involvement with the sports
development
programme’ (282).Community
sustainability often gets defined in terms of social inclusion, or
‘legacy’ in
strengthening community capacity or skills.Hence the definition: ‘maintenance of changes in the
community in which
the sports development programme is delivered’ (282).Organisational sustainability turns on
matters such as capacity to maintain delivery, financial and other
viability,
and these are commonly stressed in policy, hence the definition: ‘the
maintenance or expansion of sports development programmes by the
organisation
responsible for their delivery’ (283).Finally, institutional sustainability can be defined
as ‘longer term
changes in policy, practice, economic and environmental conditions in
the
wider context of the sports development programme’ (284).[Not very helpful or inspiring definitions in
my view].
A particularly influential model in
health policy is
provided by Shediak-Rizkallah and Bone (1998) , who identified
particular
groups of factors which affect sustainability: (a) design and
implementation,
including the effectiveness of the negotiation and its programme,
available
capital and training; (b) organisational strengths and integration and
capacity; (c) the broader political social and economic environment of
the
programme, including the degree of community participation.These factors are rarely specified in sports
development programmes, although they can emerge in programme
evaluations, and
the evaluation of the School Sport Coordinator Programme identified
similar
factors.It also specifically noted the
transient nature of volunteers, which relates to employment conditions,
and
the issue of what to charge participants—both can be included under
economic
environment, however.
An alternative model comes from Pluye
et al (2005), who
suggest that we should not use a chronological model of planning
implementation and so on but rather classify factors specific to
sustainability, those specific to implementation, and those addressing
both.The factors overlap, although they
separate
planning and evaluation from sustainability process as such.The two models can be integrated into a
framework, by recasting them as scales ( basic 2 x 2 table with
integration and
control as the two axes – p. 287).Particular forms and processes can be located at
different points.
The case study refers to the NOPES
Activities programme (new
opportunities for PE and sport), a national Scottish initiative.All four forms of sustainability were
relevant and addressed, although different participants have different
views
of them.The main definition of
sustainability was the possibility of gaining further funding to
continue, by
launching successful pilot projects.Generally, sustainability was left as rather vague
[not surprisingly
given the political fighting that must have gone on] individual
sustainability
was not a strong focus, partly because it was only a three year project
aimed
at generating initial interest.Community sustainability was identified as training
of volunteers the
development of voluntary sports clubs and the encouragement of
partnerships
between different community organisations [classically parasitic
activity
again].Some interviewees thought that
they could easily develop sustainable partnerships, but experienced a
lack of
control, especially over funding.They
saw evaluation is one way to get more funding.‘Some project staff gained a degree of control over
sports clubs in return
for providing access to training and facilities’ (289).However, there were some negative effects on
community sustainability, for example paying coaches leads to a
breakdown of
the voluntary provision.Charging
participants could also be seen as counterproductive.
Categorising the dilemmas was useful
and did help overcome
definitional lack of clarity [which is still seen as a serious weakness
for
policy and practice—typical scholastic remark really]. Categorising
practices
can help address weaknesses.Generally
though, research is needed on how different forms of sustainability can
overlap
or contradict each other.Evaluating
effectiveness was seen by some interviewees as an important element of
organisational sustainability, but this needs to be researched and
raises
policy issues about priorities.Overall,
processes affecting organisational sustainability were not well
integrated—there were conflicting desired outcomes, and insufficient
control
over project staff.The staff wanted
particularly to have more control over sustainability, but this may be
at the
expense of organisational integration, and it raises ‘significant
democratic
and accountability implications’ (291) [so reading between the lines,
it looks
like the underdogs were far more interested in getting more funding to
keep
their jobs, possibly at the expense of achieving the other priorities,
which
led them into conflict with managers?]
We need more research to further
develop the framework in
order to develop ‘a more comprehensive understanding’ (292).Longitudinal research would be particularly
useful, and probably mixed methods approaches: for example volunteers
might be
tracked, and future policies and practices might be researched.
Selected References
Pluye, P., Potvin, L., & Denis, J.
(2005).
Making public health programmes last: Conceptualizing sustainability. Evaluation
and Program Planning, 28(2),
123–137.
Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C., & Bone,
L.R.
(1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health
programmes:
Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and
policy. Health
Education Research, 13(1),
87–108.