A Critical Examination of Race and Antiracism in the Sport for Development Field: An Introduction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We welcome you to this special issue of the Sociology of Sport Journal which was envisioned as an opportunity to reimagine and recreate sporting spaces for true racial inclusion and equity.We developed the special issue because of what we saw as an absence of a specific and sustained focus on race and racism in Sport for Development (SfD) as well as an antiracist approach to research and analysis of SfD.This was driven, in part, by the ways in which race; racism; antiracism; and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) permeated U.S. society following the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020. 1 As statements of solidarity were released, equity audits performed, diversity statements crafted, chief diversity officers hired, DEI training mandated, and strategic plans reframed, we found ourselves (as individuals actively engaged in the SfD field) asking about the ways the field was responding in this moment, given its intentional focus on the use of sport to achieve social change outcomes.As a microcosm of the broader society in which these interventions exist, the field of SfD has a complicated history with race and racism.For example, historical racial power dynamics are apparent in SfD practice, with practitioners (especially those in leadership roles) and funders more often being economically privileged White people, and participants more often being economically oppressed Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC; Anderson et al., 2021).With this in mind, how did conversations unfold in these settings related to the Black Lives Matter movement, which began in 2013 as a response to the tragic murder of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Black male? 2 How did SfD organizations, particularly those in the United States, respond when a 46-year-old Black man cried out to his mother just before he was killed at the hand and knee of Minneapolis police officers?And how did researchers study these phenomena?Did they identify connections between structural conditions that preceded and contributed to the manifestation of these heinous events?We know the COVID-19 pandemic created space for communities to pause, focus, listen, and learn of the mobilizing message that galvanized a global movement.Black Lives Matter protests emerged across the world in places such as the United States, the Netherlands, France, England, Tokyo, Berlin, Poland, Colombia, Brazil, and Stockholm (Erdekian, 2020).In these moments, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi shared how they worked outside of a system that empowers White supremacy and reproduces systemic marginalization.Their messaging took hold as 2020 saw an increased number of protests, rallies, and demonstrations (Chotiner, 2020).And yet, how did stakeholders across the SfD field respond?The Black Lives Matter movement was not the only racecentric movement focused on advancing justice, equity, and selfdetermination in society and sport in recent years.In 2018, for example, Crystal Echo Hawk launched the IllumiNative organization to "disrupt the invisibility of Native peoples, re-educate Americans, and mobilize public support for key Native issues" (IllumiNative, 2023).This organization produced multiple resources to educate and support an accurate depiction of Indigenous people.In addition, they curated materials to support BIPOC more broadly and to build alliances with non-Indigenous people.These critical, yet thoughtful resources focused on representation (e.g., What's In and What's Out for Native Representation), advocacy (e.g., For Our Future: An Advocate's Guide to Celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day), and mascots (e.g., 2020 Native Mascots Fact Sheet, Unpacking the Mascot Debate Explainer) (IllumiNative, n.d.).The work of IllumiNative sought to promote community, connectivity, and, when necessary, social movement activation.And yet, what was the role and response of SfD to this race-centric movement?Conversely, how did or does SfD address the fact that White supremacy and social control are woven into the fabric of our society?Recent examples within the United States include the efforts of politicians at the local, regional, and national levels to legislate against the use of critical race theory (CRT) and DEI, to ensure that any efforts to share history and facts regarding the experiences of BIPOC are not permitted within educational, corporate, and/or social spaces (Schwartz, 2021(Schwartz, , 2023)).In higher education settings in the United States, at the time of this special issue's publication, 22 bills in 13 states had been introduced that would prohibit colleges from engaging in DEI efforts (Hu et al., 2023).Within the K-12 environment, most recently, the South Carolina House passed legislation that bans "race-based" discussion in K-12 school classrooms and allows parents to sue districts that do not abide by the prospective law (Budds, 2023).Globally, the prevalence of Eurocentric educational curriculum (i.e., perceived primacy of European universities) including the prevailing usage of languages of former colonizing countries (English, French, Spanish, and German) in international communications and concurrent suppression and erasure of Indigenous, African, and Asian epistemologies also reflects the ongoing vicissitudes of settler colonialism (Chen & Mason, 2019).In this special issue, race and racism are the central foci and are conceptualized as socially constructed systems of oppression Cooper
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,029 | 0,039 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,028 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».