Ioc Olympic Studies Centre Advanced Olympic Research Grant Programme 2014/2015
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IOC OLYMPIC STUDIES CENTRE ADVANCED OLYMPIC RESEARCH GRANT PROGRAMME 2014/2015 FINAL REPORT OLYMPIC MOVEMENT STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION FOR DELIVERING ON SPORT DEVELOPMENT IN EIGHT AFRICAN (SADC) COUNTRIES CORA BURNETT UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG OLYMPIC STUDIES CENTRE (UJOSC) & DEPARTMENT OF SPORT AND MOVEMENT STUDIES, JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA May 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. THE RESEARCH 5 2.1 Phases 5 2.2 Aims and objectives 6 3. METHODOLOGY 7 3.1 Research framework 7 3.2 Methods 7 3.3 Sample 7 3.4 Data analysis 9 4. CASE STUDIES 10 4.1 Botswana 10 4.2 Lesotho 15 4.3 Namibia 19 4.4 Seychelles 24 4.5 South Africa 27 4.6 Swaziland 34 4.7 Zambia 37 4.8 Zimbabwe 41 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 45 6. RECOMMENDATIONS 49 7. THE ACADEMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH 49 8. REFERENCES 50 9. Annexures 54 Annexure A: Map Annexure B: Pictures Annexure C: Methodology Annexure D: Olympic Education Workshop 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following agencies are recognised: • The IOC for funding and guidance relating to this research, as well as staff from the International Olympic Study Centre, especially Nuria Puig, for assistance during the research process. • All leadership at in-country NOCs and competent staff members for assisting with logistical arrangements and providing in-country support. The wide reach is contributed to them identifying research participants, providing a venue, local guide and venue when needed. • All research participants who committed their time and shared their expertise during often long and intricate discussions and interviews. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The conceptual framework is underpinned by network dynamics apparent in an institutional matrix of Olympic Movement partners. This research aims to provide insights on collaboration between multi-sectorial stakeholders in eight Southern African Development Countries (SADC). A Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach ensured that local voices are represented from eight stakeholder cohorts. A total of 156 interviews and four focus group discussions provided 420 typed page transcripts that were coded and categorised for theme generation. Each country represents a case study where stakeholders are profiled, and Olympafrica Centres and the Olympic Youth Academy Programme (Zambia) are discussed according to their strategic positioning. Results indicate a profile continuum within a +sport and sport+ configuration. Various innovative good practices exist, despite a high level of dependence on Solidarity Funding. Good governance principles are followed, especially with a supportive secretariat. In most countries (except South Africa and Seychelles) NOC-government relations are not clearly defined. Most national sport federations that are dependent on volunteers lack institutional capacity and various resources, whilst facing challenges with athlete development and retention, career pathways, access to high performance services and international participation that informs pragmatic recommendations. NOC representatives shared flagship programmes at a May workshop of the University Johannesburg’s Olympic Studies Centre. 1. INTRODUCTION This final research report addresses the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) priority field of sport development strategies in developing and emerging nations in terms of profiling Olympic Movement stakeholders as strategic and implementing partners. Other intersecting priority fields include policy-related matters concerning female participation in sport, and value education through Olympic Values Education Programmes (OVEP) in local contexts. These latter fields are addressed through NOC’s Commissions, which mirror priority implementation strategies associated with executive board portfolios. The Olympafrica Centres in Lesotho, Swaziland, Seychelles, and Zambia, in addition to the Olympic Youth Development Centre 2 (Sport for Hope programme), engage local stakeholders for the delivery of sport development and community outreach programmes (IOC, 2015, see Recommendation 24). Visits to these established Olympafrica centres provided a participation profile of community activities and established how mainly schools utilised them during and after school hours. In the case of Swaziland, there are seven Olympafrica satellites servicing about 50 schools in close proximity. In Namibia and Zimbabwe, the prospective Olympafrica sites were visited and discussions with key stakeholders contributed to a more in-depth understanding of such centres, since they are positioned in local communities and address various development frameworks in the African context of relative poverty. The modernisation of African states manifests in policy and structural changes that is reflected in relationships constructed around power, resources and legitimacy (Richardson, 2000; Robbins, 2010). On a global level, neo-colonial paradigms exist in which Global North-Global South partnerships find unique meanings (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2012; Henry & Al-Tauqi, 2008). Guest (2009) provides a critical view on unequal power relationships with the exportation of European and North American sports forms to under-developed nations in order to provide aid for predetermined development. This process is highly loaded with power relation dynamics that do not entail a pluralist understanding, sensitivity for cultural diversity, or contextual realities. In the 1920s, Pierre de Coubertin and the IOC executive at that time did not view African populations as particularly civilised and expressed their concern as to whether or not the continent would be ready to compete in a global sporting contest like the Olympic Games (Coubertin, 2000). It was popularly held sentiment that Africa was a ‘different’ continent. The colonial attitude of the time, expressed in racial hegemonic terms, subscribed to the notion that sport participation could create order among populations who lacked the same socio-political structures and recognisable westernised social institutions, including western sports (Guest, 2009). This philosophy influenced the IOC to embark on outreach programmes. In 1962, the Committee for International Aid (CIOA) was established, and in 1971, the organisation amalgamated with the International Institute for Development NOCs (founded in 1962) to form the Olympic Solidarity Committee (Naul, 2008). The Committee mainly supported athletes from developing countries to access expert coaching, to compete internationally, funded the training of coaches, and offered capacity-building programmes for sports administrators. In 1981 in Baden-Baden, Olympic Solidarity (OS) programmes were considered relatively successful, despite the socio-political and structural barriers preventing different segments of society (i.e. women) from free or optimal participation in sporting activities (Messing & Müller, 2012). Local contexts are complex and necessitate explorative research that may capture the dynamics of the institutional matrix where unclear mandates, jurisdictional conflicts and interdependent delivery of elite sport systems constitute an uncertain and fragmented environment (Green & Houlihan, 2004). Institutional contexts are aligned with global configurations of sporting excellence and a ‘results culture’ (Honta & Julhe, 2015). Global stakeholders such as the IOC, UNESCO, and the UN (sport-for-development institutionalisation) set courses of action and ensure that nations and their members follow specific pathways for which funding and opportunities for participation pave the way (Kidd, 2013). Inter-sectorial partnerships, 3 declarations, and policy frameworks provide a chartered course for members to follow. In the globalised economy, the mobilisation of stakeholders has diverse effects on sports governance (Houlihan & Lindsay, 2008; Kay, 2012). Such neo-colonial paradigms of governance are multi-faceted and finding synergies in inter- dependence effective models emerge, and strategic knowledge is generated to inform Olympic stakeholders of a meaningful (collective) development pathway (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2012: Girginov & Hills, 2008). This type of knowledge generation inevitably necessitates an anthropological approach that would explain stakeholder profiles emanating from the Olympic Movement at multiple levels of engagement (Darby, 2012). This approach provides insight into the real-life world of stakeholders and individual members as they voice their experiences collectively, and relates that to personal and institutional opinions. In this way, they assist in engagement and sense-making and transcend the often prescribed way of knowing. Each country is presented as a case study with unique and complex partnership and network dynamics (O’Brien & Slack, 2003). The description of the Olympic Movement members sets the scene for the results section of the case study. In the latter sections, the partnerships and networking relationships are presented. First, inter-sectorial mandates and synergies are described, since they exist between the governments as key strategic partners (Coakley & Burnett, 2014). In all instances, the government partners include the Ministry of Sport. In most cases, it is not a stand-alone ministry, in which case the relevant director may deal directly or indirectly with the NOC. In several countries, as per legislation, the ministries would have an implementing body (often a national commission) to which the national sport federations are affiliated. In addition to these government structures, national sport structures