Confessions of a retired footballer: a Foucauldian reading of British working footballers’ longer-term retirement experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, the phenomenon of retirement from high-performance sport has predominantly been researched through a psychological or psychosocial lens, highlighting the key challenges experienced by athletes in their lives after sport. Despite this substantial investment and the tailored interventions that have ensued, as well as the assertion that sport prepares individuals well for their futures, problematic issues associated with this common athlete experience prevail. Denison and Winslade (2006) have suggested that the focus of psycho-social research upon the individual athlete as the ‘problem’, and the location where ‘change needs to occur’ has limited scholarly understanding of a range of athletic issues, including retirement. Over the last few decades, the socio-cultural exploration of sports retirement has grown considerably and scholars have begun to consider sport retirement using a range of theoretical tools. However, sport retirement studies have overwhelmingly considered the initial and recent aftermath of career cessation - what sport psychologists have labelled the ‘retirement phase’ (Stambulova et al., Citation2020). In the current study, in an attempt to change this status quo, we continue our Foucauldian informed analysis of Association Football (football) retirement to analyse the experiences of 25 retired football players between the ages of 21 and 34, a minimum of 18 months since their careers had ended. To do so we use a theoretical framework derived from Michel Foucault’s (1978) underutilised conceptualisation of ‘confessional techniques’. Our data analysis has suggested that the legacy of having worked as a ‘docile football body’ continues to impact and shape our participants’ everyday experiences – in particular, through the importation of a learned ‘confessional mindset’ from their careers as a means of navigating their new roles.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".