Inevitable Tensions: Swiss and Canadian Sport for Development NGO Perspectives on Partnerships with High Performance Sport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Over 400 sport for development non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have formed in recent years, operating projects in more than 125 countries globally. These NGOs typically focus on sport participation in countries in the Two-Thirds World, and usually have partnerships with their more established national sports organizations in their home country. Drawing on partnership theory, the purpose of this study was to analyse tensions underpinning partnerships with high performance sport from the perspectives of staff in Swiss and Canadian sport for development NGOs. Qualitative research methods were used, including a content analysis of the two NGO websites along with various organizational documents. Key staff from each NGO were also interviewed. The findings reveal three major tensions that both NGOs encounter. The first is competing values and this was tied to different approaches to sport programme delivery and concerns that NGO programmes are seen as a feeder system for their high performance sport partners. The second tension related to gaining legitimacy. While there were benefits in being associated with the established histories of high performance sport partners, the NGOs wanted to move the sport for development agenda forward independently but found it difficult to do so. Resource dependency was a third tension identified by both NGOs that shaped and were shaped by power imbalances between sport partners. The implications of the findings for sport for development NGOs and ideas for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it