RESEARCH
Why do young people stop participating in sport?
Chris Cutforth reviews a recent SIRC seminar, which highlighted research findings on why the so called ‘Wolfenden Gap’ between school and community participation isn’t narrowing
T
his feature gives a snapshot of what was discussed by UK practi- tioners and academics, who met at the Sport Industry Research
Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield Hallam University to discuss the latest data on the drop-off in young people’s sport participation. Peter Taylor, professor of sport conom-
ics at SIRC, began by quoting directly from the original Wolfenden Report (CCPR’s Sport and the Community Re- port, 1960). He referred to “a manifest break between, on the one hand, the participation in recreational physical ac- tivities which is normal for boys and girls at school and, on the other hand, their participation in similar activities some years later when they are more adult.”
In the UK we’ve created a culture of physical inactivity among young people
GEMMA HART – SIRC research fellow focussed on the latest statistical evidence relating to sports participation among 16- to 19-year-olds taken from Sport England’s Active People Surveys. Her headline findings included: • Between 2005 and 2008 there was a statistically significant decrease in sports participation by 16-to 19-year -olds, despite the strong policy focus and investment of public funds during this period into sports programmes aimed at children and young people. • During the same period, many tradition- al sports, which continue to receive large amounts of public funds, experienced significant decreases in participation. • Individual type sports/activities (nota- bly gym-based activities, running and cycling) are showing increasing popu- larity among young people. • Sports including badminton and netball, which have developed new, informal participation programmes, appear to have been the most suc- cessful in encouraging and sustaining participation by young people.
TESS KAY, professor of sport and social sciences at Brunel University, considered the broader social and economic factors external to sport, which included: • Britain today is a very diverse, divided and unequal society, socially and eco- nomically, with the gap between the most and the least affluent being the largest in Europe. • In the UK we’ve created a culture of physical inactivity among young peo- ple influenced by the rapid growth of new technology. This is becoming em- bedded within the lifestyles of many young people (particularly those from the lower socio-economic groups) and is therefore very difficult to break. • The full effects of the coalition govern- ment’s anti-recession policies are still
24 Read Sports Management online
sportsmanagement.co.uk/digital
to be seen. However, these effects will have a disproportionate impact on dis- advantaged groups in society, including young people, in terms of job opportu- nities, skill development, income levels, general health and well-being. • For many young people, sport will be low on their list of priorities when faced with these multiple challenges.
STEVE BULLOUGH, a research fellow at SIRC, highlighted the importance of con- sultation with young people. Bullough’s work, based on findings
from four County Sports Partnerships (CSP), suggests that consultation does not always have to be creative to be ef- fective. The most important thing is that consultation findings are acted on so young people can see and experience how their feedback has been used to create the right kind opportunities for them to participate in sport. Conversely, a failure to act on consultation findings can generate cynicism and apathy among young people, which can lead to a disen- gagement from sports participation.
DR MARY NEVILL from the Institute of Youth Sport at Loughborough University described the results of a recent research study conducted on behalf of British Gymnastics into the drop-out of young people from the sport. The findings presented some inter-
esting challenges to gymnastics, most notably relating to coach education, facil- ity provision, communication with parents and how to give young people more of a ‘voice’ in the running of their clubs. How enlightening it was to see a na-
tional governing body (NGB) employing a research officer and commissioning research to inform future policy and practice. Perhaps this could be an exam- ple for other sports to follow?
Issue 2 2011 © cybertrek 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84