A Qualitative Exploration of Coaches’ Perceived Challenges and Recommendations Relating to Social Justice in Canadian High School Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport can at once promote social justice and reinforce systemic inequities. Considering the influence coaches have on athlete development, research related to coaches’ perspectives on social justice issues is warranted. The purpose of the study was to explore Canadian high school sport coaches’ attitudes towards social justice. An online survey saw 392 coaches respond to six open-ended questions on perceived challenges (three questions; n = 989 responses) and recommendations (three questions; n = 724 responses) related to social justice within their teams, schools, and school boards. A content analysis led to coaches’ responses being classified into three groups: (a) high school sport faces social justice issues (57.38%), (b) no social justice challenges and/or recommendations to share (39.34%), and (c) urgency regarding social justice issues is overblown (3.28%). A reflexive thematic analysis, guided by the critical positive youth development framework, was used to develop several overarching themes, highlighting persistent inequities, a lack of involvement from school boards, missed/ignored social justice issues, and a small group of antisocial justice coaches within the Canadian high school sport system. Considerations for coach education programmes and 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".