Why do Governments Invest in Elite Sport - Essay Example

An analysis of Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic Elite sport and its funding is a topic that has often been ignored, arguably because sport is seen as something which is intrinsically ‘good’. However, the UK has spent over £300 million on elite sport in the 2009-2012 period (Carmichael et al, 2012), which means that it needs to be analysed and argued, particularly when austerity measures have been put in place for the majority of other governmental budget departments. The purpose of the Grix & Carmichael (2012) article is to explore the reasons for such high levels of investment in elite sport across the UK and a number of other government systems. To do this, Grix & Carmichael (2012) analyse previous literature on the topic to ascertain whether the reasons that are commonly provided for such large investments in elite sport are justified and have been scientifically proven to their standards. In turn, this essay will provide a thorough analysis of the article by using a summary and a strictly defined set of criteria that will show the contribution to knowledge that the article gives and the way that this can be incorporated into further research. Summary Grix and Carmichael (2012) have identified that elite sport has often had a huge amount of investment in many developed democracies, and this investment has not often been questioned or examined. The article suggests that the very reasons for high investment in elite sport, such as increasing participation in non-elite sport, are not often backed by substantial research and therefore the need for such levels of investment needs to be examined. Grix and Carmichael (2012) identify that the reasoning behind funding elite sport is based upon the ‘virtuous cycle of sport’, a term they use to refer to the thought that high levels of achievement in elite sport leads to a feel-good factor for the nation and higher levels of participation. They also argue that it is linked to the double pyramid theory, in that more people participating in sport in general will lead to the generation of more Olympic champions, which will in turn booster morale for the country and so on. The rationale for investing in sport to promote participation seems like a strong argument, particularly as levels of activity are at an all-time low and obesity levels are rising (Carmichael et al, 2012), which in turn gives a higher amount of pressure on the National Health Service. Additionally, Grix and Carmichael (2012) identify the increase of community cohesion for those who participate in sport, but the argument here is that increasing funding in elite sport (and thus the increase in number of medals won) does not increase participation in a meaningful way. The article also identifies the all-important feel-good factor about home teams winning medals, cups or championships. The article points to several pieces of research which suggest that the feel-good factor is difficult to measure and therefore may not be a meaningful scientific term to measure the success of high investment in elite sport. Criteria for Analysis There are a number of ways in which the quality or utility of a research article can be analysed, and thus it is important to identify these criteria before embarking on a thorough analysis. The first criterion which will be used here will be the accessibility of the article. It is evidently important that the research can be easily understood and is presented in a meaningful way, as research that cannot be understood by at least a small group of people is useless. Similarly, the research needs to be presented in a professional and academic way without reducing the integrity of the research by simplifying too many important terms that convey meaning. Without this accessibility, it is likely that the research cannot contribute much to the pool of knowledge. In a similar way, the article needs to be objective and balanced. Without this, the research will be biased and therefore not allow any reasonable conclusions to be drawn. For this reason, the objectivity of the Grix and Carmichael (2012) article will need to be analysed to ensure that it can contribute to political science in a meaningful way without resorting to bias or unexplained preferences. One of the ways that objectivity can be ascertained is by looking at the conditions and location of where the article was published, including the impact factor of the journal. Most good peer-reviewed journals will have vetting procedures and allow contributions and criticisms of the articles, which means that the quality of the article will generally be good. This essay will, therefore, analyse the publishing of the article. Finally, one of the most important parts of research is how it contributes to existing knowledge, either by backing up previous findings or altering perceptions of the field. Many articles also provide a discussion in which further research requirements are identified to help strengthen the paper in question. The importance of understanding the similarities and differences the research has to current knowledge and how this will impact the field is incredibly important because no research stands alone; nothing is completely new. For this reason, the way that the article contributes to the existing knowledge and the way that the authors identify this contribution will be analysed fully below. Analysis Accessibility The accessibility of research is of the utmost importance, as outlined above. It needs to be written in clear, concise language with no confusing and unnecessary tangents. Grix & Carmichael (2012) very clearly outline their aims within the article’s introduction, and suggest that the purpose of the paper is not to suggest that elite sport funding should not be in place, but rather to analyse the reasons behind such funding. By doing this, the authors have clarified their meaning and given an accessible introduction to the topic to allow readers to understand the research in context of their aims. A strong introduction is one of the most important parts of creating accessible and understandable research (MacArthur et al, 2008). From here, the paper does get more confusing and less accessible. Although it is important not to dilute meaning by omitting important and meaningful terms (MacArthur et al, 2008), the paper does refer to several different political ideologies and historical events which may not be immediately useful to the reader. Many of these are important to understanding why governments invest in elite sport, and comparing modern democracies with past governments such as the GDR and USSR (Grix & Carmichael, 2012), but a glossary or more thorough explanation of these would help make the article more accessible without diluting meaning. Overall, the article covers a lot of ground and does investigate several areas of sport policy. In many articles, trying to review so much literature can be confusing and lead to the alienation of the reader (MacArthur et al, 2008). However, Grix & Carmichael (2012) have used subtitles which are meaningful and therefore allow the reader to explore the more relevant parts of the article to their own interests. This also helps improve the accessibility by making the research more relevant to a number of disciplines without needing to understand a number of subject-specific terms. Taking these elements of the article into account, the article is extremely accessible in content and format, but perhaps could benefit from more careful choice of lexis. Objectivity From the outset, the article in question acknowledges the position that the authors hold, and the way that the research explores the funding for elite sport by government. It is obvious that the authors hold a position about elite sport funding; that is, that it should be examined in more detail as the reasons given may not hold up to extreme scientific scrutiny. This position can be felt throughout the research, and the literature review has not been done systematically, which means that many of the conclusions that the authors come to will have been created as a response to a slightly biased examination of the literature. Similarly, there is no clear hypothesis for the research, which is again problematic as it can lead to bias in the way outlined above (Bazerman, 2010). This suggests that the paper may not be as objective as possible. In a similar vein, the tone of the authors remains constant throughout. This is fair, as they are trying to research the reasoning behind elite sport funding and examining the way that this may not be allocated in the most economical way possible (Grix & Carmichael, 2012). This is fair, as the authors had a research aim and are trying to ensure that all the conclusions lead back to the original aim, which is a positive aspect for research (Bazerman, 2010). However, it could be argued that the personal position of the authors comes through strongly at times, which again leads to a questionable amount of objectivity. Retaining objectivity throughout literature reviews is difficult (Bazerman, 2010), particularly if the authors do feel particularly strongly. Despite this lack of objectivity in parts of the research, it does not seem fair to discount the article entirely as several good points are made and the authors acknowledge a lack of research holding their position in sports funding. This suggests that, for the article to be read objectively, it must be read in the context of wider research. Publishing One of the most commonly used ways of ascertaining the importance of an article and the way that it has been critically assessed by peers is to look at the impact factor. This impact factor is the average number of citations that the articles within the journal have received, usually in the last year (Braun, 2007). As citation numbers for more popular articles and those which contribute more to the field will be higher, this is generally a good measure in understanding how many people read the articles and how many are incorporating them into their own research. Unfortunately, the International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, the journal in which the Grix & Carmichael (2012) article was published, does not have an impact factor (Taylor & Francis Online, 2012). It is also evident that the number of citations that each article tends to receive is low, as the most-cited article received only 10 (Taylor & Francis Online, 2012). The article in question has only three citations. However, the work published in this journal should not be discounted completely on this basis, as it is still peer-reviewed and maintains integrity, suggesting that it may not be particularly important research but it is still of a good quality and can be used to inform further research. Contribution to Existing Knowledge Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Grix & Carmichael (2012) article is that it contributes to existing knowledge and acknowledges the differences between the conclusions it has drawn and those of previous writers on sport policy. One of the most important ways in which it does this is to challenge the relationship between sporting role models and increased participation. Throughout the paper, several references are made to The Select Committee Report on Drugs and Role Models in Sport and the way that this discussion on participation in sport automatically assumes that elite sporting individuals act as heroes and promote children and young people to take up sport. However, Grix & Carmichael (2012) are clear to note that much of the previously existing academic literature finds no such link between participation and elite sport. In fact, it cites two previous literature reviews by Lyle (2009) and Payne et al (2003) which both came to the conclusion that there is no significant link between levels of achievement in elite sport and participation on a lower level. By referencing these two articles, it is clear that the Grix & Carmichael (2012) research is adding to the existing knowledge on the topic and understands where this literature review fits in to previous research. In the concluding remarks of the article, Grix & Carmichael (2012) refer to previous research by Green (2006) which suggests that elite sport funding is a difficult topic because the discussions are so clouded by previous assumptions. Grix & Carmichael (2012) then go on to suggest that things have changed since the publishing of the Green (2006) article, and that things have become even more ‘evangelical’ (Grix & Carmichael, 2012, p86) and that much of the support for funding elite sport are based on unsubstantiated claims. Grix & Carmichael (2012) also point to previous research on the topic which points to the idea of a ‘virtuous cycle’ (p86) of sport that funds elite sport, bolsters national identity and increases promotion, and thus increases the pool of talent to pick from. Grix & Carmichael (2012) also found evidence for this virtuous cycle of sport when conducting their research. In this way, it seems evident that Grix & Carmichael are contributing to the existing literature by understand that of previous authors and bolstering the conclusions that had been found previously. Research of this kind is important, as many claims found in one single piece of research can be unsubstantiated, so covering the same ground is important for proving reliability of results (Braun, 2007). Conclusion There are several good points of the Grix & Carmichael (2012) essay. Firstly, it is quite accessibly in many points, and is written in strong and appropriate language. The only problem concerning accessibility is the use of many political terms and references to historical events, which may be confusing for some readers. The tone of the article is not extremely neutral and has a clear objective which the authors support continuously throughout, but overall it can be read in the context of other research and thus may retain objectivity. The journal in which the article was published does not currently have an impact factor and is relatively new, but as it is peer-reviewed this should not detract from the importance of the article, as it can still likely be trusted to provide good information in this sense. Finally, the above essay analysed the contribution to current knowledge for the article. In many ways, the Grix & Carmichael (2012) article referred back to previous research, showing a complete understanding of how the research contributed to that of previous authors. Additionally, there was a strong understanding that the results of the research conflicted with common opinion which is used as an excuse for high levels of elite sport funding. Overall, it seems as though the Grix & Carmichael (2012) article is an important literature review and is of a high quality, despite the few issues outlined above. References Bazerman, C., 2010. Traditions of Writing Research. Taylor & Francis. Braun, T., 2007. The Impact Factor of Scientific and Scholarly Journals: Its Use and Misuse in Research Evaluation. Akadémiai Kiadó. Carmichael, F., Grix, J., Marqués, D.P., 2012. The Olympic legacy and participation in sport: an interim assessment of Sport England’s Active People Survey for sports studies research. Grix, J., Carmichael, F., 2012. Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International journal of sport policy and politics 4, 73–90. MacArthur, C.A., Graham, E.S., Fitzgerald, J., 2008. Handbook of Writing Research. Guilford Press. Taylor & Francis Online. (2012) ‘Taylor & Francis Online, Sports & Leisure’. Taylor & Francis Online. Website. http://www.tandfonline.com/ (date retrieved 24th November 2012) Read More