Youth, Transferability, and Sport-Based Interventions: Reopening and Rethinking the Debate on the “What” and the “How”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 22 - Given the thesis of the article would it not be better to refer to 'a growing body of literature' rather than 'evidence'.

Response 1: Yes, I agree and this has been amended accordingly (line 22).

Comment 2: Line 38 - Is there widespread evidence of 'attributes acquired'?

Response 2: This has been amended (lines 36-39).

Comment 3: Line 57 - I think this is an exaggeration. Many policy documents emphasise so-called 'soft skills' (e.g. most UN documents) and not formal qualifications. 

Response 3: I agree and this has been addressed (line 56-59).

Comment 4: Lines 73-76 - The assumption here seems to be that successful outcomes are achieved and the only issue is transferability. A more qualified presentation is required.

Response 4: I wasn't entirely sure what the reviewer was asking for here. Some references were suggested (Svoboda and Sandford et al.) but these publications appeared to be specific to the PE context, rather than sport-for-development, and I do not want to conflate contexts in making assertions about SBIs and the intentional use of sport and physical activity. 

Comment 5: Lines 104-120 - The choice between explicit and implicit approaches seems to be made on pragmatic resource-based considerations rather than pedagogical evidence.

Response 5: This section of the paper has been significantly revised to take account of this very good observation (see lines 102-131).

Comment 6: What does a 'photo-elicitation method' involve?

Response 6: A footnote has been added to explain this method for those not familiar with it.

Comment 7: Quotations should be indented.

Response 7: This was an automatic formatting issue made by the journal. However, this has been amended throughout the Findings and Discussion section.

Comment 8: Line 315-316 - Bandura specifically states that perceived self-efficacy is task-related and not reducible to the generic non-theoretical term confidence. This seems to refer to perceived self-efficacy. Further the concept of perceived self-efficacy seems to inform much of the analysis - ie Bandura rather than Freire. With regard to the emergence of a sense of critical self-consciousness (lines 420-421) how did this happen - what were the processes of critical pedagogy which encouraged this? Was it wholly implicit? How much was an inevitable aspect of processes of maturing. 

Response 8: All reference to confidence has been removed, but this section of the analysis is aimed to outline how participants developed a range of capital, including psychological capital which has self-efficacy as a core component. I have also added a paragraph to the start of the Findings/Discussion to address the very good point made about the extent to which any capital development (and critical consciousness) was attributable to the intervention.

Comment 9: It is not clear how much of this relates to critical pedagogy and offers new insights. Such processes and outcomes have been widely commented on in previous research. For example, much of this seems to reflect a supportive social climate similar to Witt and Crompton's (1997) protective factors and Biddle (2006) analysis that the social climate of sports programmes is central to an understanding of the potential for the development of self-efficacy and self-esteem. Also, Sandford et al (2006) argue that 'social relationships experienced during involvement in physical activity programmes are the most significant factor in effecting behavioural change'.....it is the social process and not the activity type that is the vital element in engaging young people.

Response 9: I would agree wholeheartedly about the points made about social climate, and have indeed attempted to reinforce/make more explicit this point in the added parts to 5.1 and the Conclusion. However, this section is really about providing context and how the SBI developed a range of capitals for participants (rather than try to offer anything new). This point is reinforced in an amended paragraph at the end of 5.1.

Comment 10: Transfer, reflection and developing a critical consciousness - This seems to simply reflect experiential learning - where is the critical pedagogy?

Response 10: My intention in this section was to illustrate how some participants had begun the process of developing a critical consciousness since being part of the SBI, rather than outlining specifically how a critical pedagogy approach had 'done' this. I have tried to make this more explicit in the added paragraph at the start of the Findings section (lines 338-352) and again lines 491-502. 

Comment 11: Line 555-556 - Only a few sport for employability programmes emphasise the acquisition of formal qualifications - this is a straw man.

Response 11: This is a fair point and has been removed from the Conclusion.

Comment 12: This is a well-written and largely academically sound article. However, I am afraid that I am not convinced that it illustrates or affirms the case for critical pedagogy or illustrates transferability. The social processes referred to are widely present in S4D work, which do not claim to use critical pedagogy. More details of the processes illustrating critical pedagogy are required. It also seems to forget its concern with transferability which seems to depend on assertation rather than evidence depending on the hypothesis to assert 'transferability'. It certainly does not deal with the 'dynamic of transfer' (line 569). The article needs substantial revision before publication. 

Response 12: I would like to thank the reviewer for their considered and constructive review of the manuscript. I have attempted to address the suggestions as fully as I can, notwithstanding the need to remain cognizant of the word limits in play and the time allowed by the journal to revise the manuscript (all revisions are in red font on the manuscript). In specific response to the summary comments, the purpose of the paper is not to affirm a case for critical pedagogy nor illustrate how it deals with the dynamic of transferability. Indeed, my aims are far more modest, and simply use a relatively small data set to offer some tentative insights into the potential to think about transferability in a different way and how an implicit approach to programme delivery might support this. As stated, in the Introduction, and re-affirmed in the Conclusion, the purpose is to invite further consideration of this 'dynamic' not 'deal with it'. I trust that the amendments to the paper make this aim/purpose more explicit and thank you again for your consideration of the manuscript. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Youth, Transferability, and Sport-Based Interventions: Reopening and Rethinking the Debate on the ‘What’ and the ‘How’ 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. To begin, I must say that I am impressed by the work and the approach. The article has the potential to become a standard reference in the debate about transferability in sport for development programs and sports-based interventions. The shift from focusing on skills to capital provides some important development on the topic. Still, I think more can be done to the theorization of the links between sports, pedagogy, skills and capital. Therefore, I will suggest some revision to be made before publication. The manuscript fits well within the aim and scope of the journal.

 

Golf could be much better introduced in the manuscript. In what ways are golf a suitable sport for examining this theoretical problem? What does the context of golf mean in this national, institutional and sport context?

 

The topic of transfer in the debate referenced is often associated with notions about “life-skills”, but there is no discussion about this concept. Is that a choice made or is it overlooked for some reason? Parts of the analysis seems to resonate with notions of life-skills in terms of “life lessons” (line 425).

 

The analysis draws on a conceptualization of human capital that is presented and clear. Though there lacks a bit of theoretical clarity when the authors refer to the various forms of capital in the paper. What does “capital” when referenced to other writers mean? Does it mean the same thing or different things?

 

Considering the influence of different (Putnam, Bourdieu and more) capital theories in the sociology of sport, I think that the authors could engage more in the discussion of what capital means (specifically to the sport sociology literature), and on this basis argue for their specific approach to “human capital”. In the analysis there is references made to social capital in a Putnamian sense (collective resource), which does not resonate with the Becker (individual resource) as I understand (?). What is the difference as conveyed in analysis between human capital (of Becker) and social/cultural capital (of Bourdieu). What does the concept of human capital add to the analysis that social/cultural capital wouldn’t do?

 

Moreover, I wonder how the concept of “human capital” moves the debate “away from economic orthodoxy”? In sociology and social sciences, the concept(s) of capital does not oftentimes refer only to economic capital. Does not the work of Becker rather introduce economic discourse to the ways in which we think about capital?

 

I don’t think that the authors argue enough about how or why critical pedagogy has the potential to “be applied as a framework to enable the acquisition of a broader array of capitals and support transfer to other domains”. The article would benefit from a stronger argument in this link between capital and pedagogy. Very much is said about critical pedagogy in the manuscript, but rather little attention is paid to how the implicit learning provides a frame for understanding acquisition and transference of capital, theoretically.

 

I am very sympathetic of “the purpose of this article was to (re-)open the conceptual debate on transferability and present empirical insights into how transference might occur through SBIs” by shifting focus from skills to capital. But this needs to be done through a more precise use of the concept(s) of capital.

 

Also, the combination of Becker and Freire is innovative, considering not least the normative underpinnings of their scholarships respectively. Perhaps this can be acknowledged? Are there any inconsistencies between the economical approach (of Becker) and the holistic approach (of Freire)?

 

I don’t follow the presentation of the procedures of analysis. The reference to Charmaz seems to indicate a grounded theory approach. Is the analysis of thematization done through a grounded theory approach? Supposedly, the deductive phase followed the predefined theoretical frameworks; but it is little unclear how the move from the inductive thematization to the deductively thematized order were performed. Perhaps a little more detail can be provided?

 

How does the analysis move from the empirical data comprised by discourse/narrative (epistemology) of respondents to findings of capital transference (ontology)? This can be presented in the methodology section, but needs to be clear throughout the analysis.

 

This may be a matter of formatting, but it is somewhat confusing to see were transcripts presented begins and ends. I understand from reading, but it is difficult to go back and forth in the text.

 

Line 331. The intervention examined is called Drive your future, but in the excerpt, it is bracketed as “the golf intervention”. Does the respondent talk about Drive your future?

 

To conclude, I think it is important that this study is published and that it becomes published as a good and thorough analysis. I think it has every potential. But I think more could be done to theory and methods in order to strengthen the article.

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. To begin, I must say that I am impressed by the work and the approach. The article has the potential to become a standard reference in the debate about transferability in sport for development programs and sports-based interventions. The shift from focusing on skills to capital provides some important development on the topic. Still, I think more can be done to the theorization of the links between sports, pedagogy, skills and capital. Therefore, I will suggest some revision to be made before publication. The manuscript fits well within the aim and scope of the journal.

Response 1: Many thanks for the positive and constructive review of the manuscript. I have attempted to address the suggestions as fully as I can, notwithstanding the need to remain cognizant of the word limits in play and the time allowed by the journal to revise the manuscript. All revisions to the manuscript are in red font.

 Comment 2: Golf could be much better introduced in the manuscript. In what ways are golf a suitable sport for examining this theoretical problem? What does the context of golf mean in this national, institutional and sport context?

Response 2: This is a very important observation. A paragraph has been added to the Introduction to highlight where golf-based SBIs may have merit (especially drawing upon the ‘values’ of golf), drawing upon previous scholarship where golf has been the context for intervention.

 Comment 3: The topic of transfer in the debate referenced is often associated with notions about “life-skills”, but there is no discussion about this concept. Is that a choice made or is it overlooked for some reason? Parts of the analysis seems to resonate with notions of life-skills in terms of “life lessons” (line 425).

 Response 3: Again, this is a good point and is addressed in the Introduction (lines 56-59) and re-iterated in the Conclusion.

Comment 4: The analysis draws on a conceptualization of human capital that is presented and clear. Though there lacks a bit of theoretical clarity when the authors refer to the various forms of capital in the paper. What does “capital” when referenced to other writers mean? Does it mean the same thing or different things?

 Considering the influence of different (Putnam, Bourdieu and more) capital theories in the sociology of sport, I think that the authors could engage more in the discussion of what capital means (specifically to the sport sociology literature), and on this basis argue for their specific approach to “human capital”. In the analysis there is references made to social capital in a Putnamian sense (collective resource), which does not resonate with the Becker (individual resource) as I understand (?). What is the difference as conveyed in analysis between human capital (of Becker) and social/cultural capital (of Bourdieu). What does the concept of human capital add to the analysis that social/cultural capital wouldn’t do?

 Moreover, I wonder how the concept of “human capital” moves the debate “away from economic orthodoxy”? In sociology and social sciences, the concept(s) of capital does not oftentimes refer only to economic capital. Does not the work of Becker rather introduce economic discourse to the ways in which we think about capital?

Response 4: I have combined these three comments/suggestions. Again, all excellent points and ones that I have attempted to address as succinctly as I can, drawing upon the argument of Brown et al. (20020) in the book ‘The Death of Human Capital’, which invites a re-examination of the relationship between human capital, skills, and credentials for employment (see lines 183-195).

 Comment 5: I don’t think that the authors argue enough about how or why critical pedagogy has the potential to “be applied as a framework to enable the acquisition of a broader array of capitals and support transfer to other domains”. The article would benefit from a stronger argument in this link between capital and pedagogy. Very much is said about critical pedagogy in the manuscript, but rather little attention is paid to how the implicit learning provides a frame for understanding acquisition and transference of capital, theoretically.

 Response 5: Thank you for the invitation to extend this argument. A paragraph has been added (lines 272 – 281) to outline how implicit learning approaches potentially better invite young people to have ownership on what capital needs to be transferred to other domains.

Comment 6: I am very sympathetic of “the purpose of this article was to (re-)open the conceptual debate on transferability and present empirical insights into how transference might occur through SBIs” by shifting focus from skills to capital. But this needs to be done through a more precise use of the concept(s) of capital.

 Response 6: A paragraph has been added to the conclusion to highlight/reinforce earlier arguments around the need to shift from thinking about skills to capital, which I hope addresses this suggestion.

Comment 7: Also, the combination of Becker and Freire is innovative, considering not least the normative underpinnings of their scholarships respectively. Perhaps this can be acknowledged? Are there any inconsistencies between the economical approach (of Becker) and the holistic approach (of Freire)?

Response 7: This is a very good point and one that I have agonized over, both in terms of the original submission and the revision. Clearly, there is some conflict between Becker’s ‘rational-choice’ view of education and Freire’s more holistic/liberating perspective which could be examined. However, after much reflection, I felt that opening this debate would require more attention than I could adequately give it in this paper, and I was also struggling to find an appropriate place in the paper to make this debate without interrupting the overall flow of the paper. So, respectfully I have not addressed this point, but it is one that I will certainly consider in future/on-going work related to this (and other similar) project.

 Comment 8: I don’t follow the presentation of the procedures of analysis. The reference to Charmaz seems to indicate a grounded theory approach. Is the analysis of thematization done through a grounded theory approach? Supposedly, the deductive phase followed the predefined theoretical frameworks; but it is little unclear how the move from the inductive thematization to the deductively thematized order were performed. Perhaps a little more detail can be provided?

 How does the analysis move from the empirical data comprised by discourse/narrative (epistemology) of respondents to findings of capital transference (ontology)? This can be presented in the methodology section, but needs to be clear throughout the analysis.

Response 8: A grounded theory approach was not intentionally or explicitly applied, merely the Charmaz reference was used to signpost the analysis approach undertaken. The Methods section has been amended to provide more specific detail around the data analysis approach as requested (lines 324-336).

Comment 9: This may be a matter of formatting, but it is somewhat confusing to see were transcripts presented begins and ends. I understand from reading, but it is difficult to go back and forth in the text.

 Response 9: This has been amended throughout the Findings and Discussion section and is hopefully now easier to decipher.

Comment 10: Line 331. The intervention examined is called Drive your future, but in the excerpt, it is bracketed as “the golf intervention”. Does the respondent talk about Drive your future?

 Response 10: A good observation and this has been amended throughout to refer the specific SBI under examination.

Comment 11: To conclude, I think it is important that this study is published and that it becomes published as a good and thorough analysis. I think it has every potential. But I think more could be done to theory and methods in order to strengthen the article.

Response 11: Thank you again for the encouraging words and helpful suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you again for the chance to review this manuscript. The author(s) have responded in text to my suggestions, and I have examined the revised manuscript, and I conclude that the manuscript have developed in the desired direction. Still, I think there is greater potential in theorizing the key concept “capital” in order to make a strong contribution to the field.

 

If “human capital” refers to “knowledge, skills and attitudes”, it seems that capital is resources that can be used more or less instrumentally in different sites (in sport, beyond sport); what then is the shift from skills to capital in the debate. Do we not remain in a skills-paradigm if capital being defined as a set of skills? And does not the question of transference remain in that respect, if so? What is “capital”? Can the author(s) be a bit more theoretically precise? How does it differ from skills, more concretely? The author(s) should be very clear about the difference between skills and capital and connect their argument to the sport sociology literature. I think that the problem that remain in the manuscript and which needs to be solved in order to make a substantial contribution, is to further develop the concept of capital theoretically. If that is done, the paper will definitely contribute to shifting the debate from skills to capital.

 

To conclude, from my point of view there is only one comment remaining from the previous round of review. Surely, the editor can assess if this is an important thing to address before publication. As a reviewer I would stress the importance of not only making the paper publishable, but also to make a conceptual contribution, and it is with that in mind that I underline the comments about theorizing capital.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Thank you again for the chance to review this manuscript. The author(s) have responded in text to my suggestions, and I have examined the revised manuscript, and I conclude that the manuscript have developed in the desired direction. Still, I think there is greater potential in theorizing the key concept “capital” in order to make a strong contribution to the field.

 If “human capital” refers to “knowledge, skills and attitudes”, it seems that capital is resources that can be used more or less instrumentally in different sites (in sport, beyond sport); what then is the shift from skills to capital in the debate. Do we not remain in a skills-paradigm if capital being defined as a set of skills? And does not the question of transference remain in that respect, if so? What is “capital”? Can the author(s) be a bit more theoretically precise? How does it differ from skills, more concretely? The author(s) should be very clear about the difference between skills and capital and connect their argument to the sport sociology literature. I think that the problem that remain in the manuscript and which needs to be solved in order to make a substantial contribution, is to further develop the concept of capital theoretically. If that is done, the paper will definitely contribute to shifting the debate from skills to capital.

 To conclude, from my point of view there is only one comment remaining from the previous round of review. Surely, the editor can assess if this is an important thing to address before publication. As a reviewer I would stress the importance of not only making the paper publishable, but also to make a conceptual contribution, and it is with that in mind that I underline the comments about theorizing capital.

 

Response 1: Many thanks to the reviewer for their consideration of the previous amendments and for highlighting the comment above. On reflection, a greater theoretical distinction between skills and capital would no doubt strengthen the main argument in the manuscript and I have addressed this in lines 166-186. I have also revisited this again in the Conclusion (line 657-659). For ease, all 'new' revisions are in blue font (to make them distinct from the previous revisions in red).