Monthly Archives: January 2017

And I thought Apartheid was over…but it is a global condition?

Posted on by
Reply

By Cora Burnett

University of Johannesburg, Professor and Director, Olympic Academy

& Global Fellow University of Edinburgh, Academy of Sport

Having been in the space of sport for development (SfD) for more than two decades, I have met amazing scholars and continue to engage with them around a common interest – SfD in Africa. In this field, context is everything. Over the years I have shared the forum for vibrant public discussions with some of the most informed and some of the most uninformed about the conditions of my country and continent.

2015-02-04094111FootballLandscape3

I would like to raise five main issues concerning: i) the documented ‘under-representation’ of African scholars and their research outputs; ii) research on filtered realities in support of the academic argument; iii) the focus on neo-colonial practices without capturing the voices (sense-making) and praxis of the affected populations; iv) the lack of critical introspection; and v) exclusionary practices.

For some, Africa represents an abstract collective of ignorance, backwardness and not ‘yet there’ phenomenon. As academics from non-first world countries, African scholars are often invited to contribute to discussion and debate but often solely about ‘context’. It seems that scholars from the Global North’s insights are recognised first and foremost in advancing first world discourses through the ‘production of (new) knowledge’. Mapping the field of SDP work, shows the small proportion of scholars from Africa whose work has been published in high impact research journals, whilst scholars from the North are increasingly conducting research on Africa and, in some instances, they have the arrogance to explain this by stating that local expertise does not exist.

The statistics tells a story. Cronin found 20% or 27 reports of all research to be conducted in Africa with five of the researchers living in Africa. In another analysis by Schulenkorf, Sherry and Rowe an even more dismal picture emerges. Of the total published research 73% of all authors were from Europe (37%) or Northern America (36%), whilst 8% authors were from Africa contributing to 9% of publications.

The latter was reported in 2016 which contradicts an analysis I conducted last month. I found at least triple the number of published research from authors in Africa, although not all 63 papers were strictly categorized or had keywords indicating a Sport-for-Development domain search. The under-representation raises some questions on many accounts. Such analysis contributes to the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ of an absence of Sport for Development researchers delivering quality research in Africa which may partly explain the absence in ‘other’ circles as well.

For many years, I have been silent about this issue. Discussing how some First World academics constructed and built stick figures for critical work on ‘neoliberal’ practices has become ‘entertaining’ lecture material in post-graduate classes. Notably, many of these first world academics come to the same conclusions. Some discover the complex truth based on a few interviews, blog or face book material, reducing the complex reality to build a case that would serve their particular flavour of ‘critical analysis’; or, they argue for the inclusion of ‘local voices’ (captured as an additional data set).

How can some academics be so sharp, intellectual and blind all at the same time? What about real reflection? Why construct hyper- or filtered realities and ‘lamenting’ on the unequal power relations, ideology and structures that in the first place continue to perpetuate SDP work without addressing the root problems to which they (possibly unintentionally) contribute? Why is most work pitched at the level of the recipient such as women and girls, who ultimately benefit little through endless temporary initiatives aimed at their empowerment and improved self-worth and self-esteem?

One must question who is actually benefitting from such programs when women and girls eventually return to real life and real conditions that render their newly founded power relatively meaningless. What about action? What about the authentic truth? What about real inclusion and collaboration on equal partnerships?

I intentionally did not quote the work of scholars as I think we should all reflect on our own academic practices. A recent ‘practice’ which mirrors many others, is a forum of invited and influential experts within the field of SDP that will gather in March 2017 at the University of Illinois. Of the invited experts, all but four are from Northern America and none are from Africa. Another example that rings hollow when talking about ‘human rights’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘partnership’ within academia, relates to invitations to publish in open source journals where the cost of the author’s contribution is completely out of the reach of many African scholars. Yet, as an African-based scholar I am repeatedly asked, and as a professional, often contribute, by reviewing the manuscripts of first-world scholars.

As South African academics we face violent student demonstrations, such as the Fees Must Fall Campaign and other poverty-related issues, on a daily basis. Conditions necessitate that we must work as relative generalists due to cash-stripped universities of which some provide up to three meals per day to needy students. We do not have the luxury of funds for large scale longitudinal research projects and associated opportunities to pay-to-publish, or to attend international conferences.

Nor, do we have the advantage of extensive and well connected networks of specialist colleagues for support. When I received some recognition from U21 universities at the end of last year, I tried to mask my level of indignation by merely stating: “Researchers from the Global South are obliged to unearth new ways of knowing with a voice that matters in academic discourse.”

I may have stepped on important toes, but I trust I can count on those academics who are committed to integrating their humanitarian beliefs to create a more just society and a truly genuine, inclusive scholarly community. Sometimes it seems that apartheid is alive and well amongst those scholars who live by some sense of their own objective morality yet, remain unaware of the meaninglessness of their detached, highly abstract but well-articulated arguments.

References: 

[1] Cronin, O. (2011). Comic Relief Review. Mapping the research on the impact of Sport and Development interventions. Manchester, UK: Comic Relief.

[1] Schulenkorf, N. Sherry, E.  Rowe, K. (2016). Sport for Development: Ann integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management, 30, 22-39.

Sport, Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease: Cause, Cure and Compassion?

Posted on by
1

By Professor Michael Ego
University of Connecticut- Stamford

The text below was developed from the address presented at a one day symposia on Sport, Dementia and Mental Health hosted by The Scottish Football Museum in partnership with the University of Edinburgh.

Dementia can be caused by a number of different diseases, the most common being Alzheimer’s Disease. The cognitive and functional losses are exacerbated by stereotypes and stigma – as the world sees a person almost totally lost once he or she receives an Alzheimer’s diagnosis – lost both to themselves and to those who love them.

The stigma attached to dementia can be observed when the general public’s body reactions to the word when it is pronounced before them. Some associate dementia as a contagious disease (i.e. infectious) and steer away from any physical proximity, just in case they may catch the disease. Others will not admit that there is a friend or relative with the disease, since it would show shame about their family. Fact: Dementia is not an automatic condition of human ageing.

Alzheimer’s and other dementia-related illnesses have a devastating impact on American society and culture – impacting an estimated 5.2 million American citizens each year. The media coverage of this disease has primarily focused on the Cause and the Cure – with the third C – Compassion – mostly seen as third fiddle in the discussion.

The research that has been conducted on the Cause have pointed to what is considered “risk factors.” Age is one factor, in that persons over age 65 are likely to have the disease, as compared to during young adulthood or middle adulthood. Family history portends that persons who have a parent or sibling who has the disease are two to three times more likely to develop the disease, but not a guarantee that genetics is the cause.

The third category is lifestyle patterns, that include head injury, lack of exercise and a healthy diet, avoidance of tobacco, limiting alcohol consumption, staying socially active, and engaging in intellectually stimulating activities, and there is an association between heart health and brain health. In summary, there is NO evidence that there is a definitive causation that may PREVENT someone from developing the disease.

The “C” that has got most of the attention is Cure. Although there are some drugs that been developed to ameliorate the disease in the early stages of diagnosis, as of this time, scientists have not been able to discover the proper drug to cure the disease. Recently, there was an announcement by one of the pharmaceutical companies that a highly anticipated “trial” for a drug that might cure the disease was not successful. So, we are still awaiting good news about a discovery as a cure to dementia.

The third “C” is Compassion. During the past four years, I have been investigating the reasons for the third “C” being seen as an afterthought, in most cases. Of course, American society wants to know what causes the disease, and also the cure that will save people’s lives. But, unfortunately, Compassion is not shown by those who do not have the disease, towards those that do, nor towards the families with a person with the disease.

I began to investigate how Compassion was displayed regarding dementia by countries around the world. I found there is attention being given to non-pharmacological interventions to enhance the quality of life for those individuals with dementia. Sports and related activities have made a valuable contribution to provide experiences that are beneficial to the lives of persons with dementia.

In my exploration of societal efforts that demonstrate Compassion led me to Scotland. There, starting in 2009, socialization programs were initiated to enhance the quality of life for men with dementia.

The programme, entitled “Football Memories,” was begun by Michael White, who had several friends with dementia, and who also were soccer fans. Since the inception of “Football Memories,” there are currently 185 support groups, consisting of volunteers throughout Scotland (a population of 5 million people), who offer similar memories programs in Golf, Rugby, Cricket, Shinty and Movies.

I suggested In November 2016, at a symposium  hosted by the University of Edinburgh (Academy of Sport and the Global Health Academy) and the Scottish Football Museum that Scottish society understood the challenges and struggles of those with dementia, and were responding with Compassion through the socialization programmes. I was particularly struck by the way the challenges were being met in terms of dealing with, and helping people living with dementia through the medium of the Gaelic language – materials being prepared bilingually and work being done using both English and Gaelic where appropriate. This was highly cost effective and beneficial to a significant number of people.

In comparison, in the United States (with a population close to 325 million people), I have found two programs that have initiated sports memories programs: the Baseball Reminiscence League in St Louis, MO, and the BasebALZ League in Austin, TX). I have observed both programs and there is a genuine display of Compassion by the volunteers and the sponsoring organisations. In January, a third Baseball Reminiscence League will begin in Cos Cob, a collaboration between the River House Adult Day Care Center and the University of Connecticut.

In conclusion, I am not advocating that we dismiss the two C’s – Cause and Cure. We must continue to explore both dimensions that will help us to prevent dementia and to find a remedy for the disease. As we await the answers to Cause and Cure, let us show Compassion to those who have the disease and for their families and friends.