- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
The field of sport for development (SFD) has been criticised for the way that evidence has been produced and used to account for and demonstrate the perceived success of SFD programmes. Much of this critique has highlighted shortcomings in approaches to monitoring and evaluation (M&E), which underpins a perceived weak evidence base concerning what works, why and within which contexts (Coalter, 2007; Coalter & Taylor, 2010; Pawson & Tilley, 1997). Conceptually a lack of evidence discourse (Nicholls et al., 2010) has emerged. This paper explores and analyses the power dynamics that shape this discourse and argues that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical. While offering a Foucauldian framework, the power, knowledge and discourse related to political actors in SFD processes are examined. This paper addresses two key questions: what is power and who is it for? Whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence? The paper concludes that the role of the sport development practitioner (SDP) is underprivileged and to enable the field of sport for development (SFD) to move forward, the very people who implement the programmes need to be better understood. Furthermore it is argued that a deeper understanding and interpretation of the terrain of the sport development practitioner (SDP) within UK and international shores are a necessity if a more open and transparent knowledge transfer process, surrounding evidence, is to be entered into.
This article has analysed the mechanisms by which power and knowledge concerning M&E within SFD, are shaped by the lack of evidence discourse. Indeed in outlining the lack of evidence discourse it is clear that power to shape the conditions within which individuals can discursively create their own knowledge is wielded and constrained by a range of vested interests. In addressing the key questions set out at the start of this article it is apparent that the lack of evidence discourse is a dominant narrative that is beginning to give rise to counter-discourses that are constructed by resistance. Whether any counter course will be empowering is a question for further empirical research. Establishing a Foucauldian framework within which to frame the argument also highlights the importance of the neoliberal context to understanding how evidence may be produced and interpreted. It is clear that neoliberal inspired modernisation discourses have ensured that market orientated disciplines, such as NPM, have dominated the contexts and frameworks that SFD operates within.