No abstract

Jeanes (2020) Sport coaches as policy actors: an investigation of the interpretation and enactment of disability and inclusion policy in swimming in

In this study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight Victorian swimming coaches to examine the discourses of disability1 and inclusion that they expressed in relation to their current coaching practices. Analysis specifically pursued links between neoliberalism, ableism, elitism, classification and inclusion in coaching, with the intention of exploring what discourse relations are possible, imaginable and practical within what have been referred to as neoliberal-ableist times. Findings reveal that coaches replicate and reproduce elitist, ableist assumptions about the body and sport. The discussion prompts a consideration of how rationalities and techniques of inclusion are limited under the prevailing political context.

Recent research has focused on athletes with physical disabilities, and as such, there is a marked void in the research literature surrounding athletes with intellectual disabilities (ID). In the context of Australian Swimming, athletes with an ID may have difficulty following directions, remembering strategies and staying on task. Coaches will likely include an athlete with ID out of obligation. These athletes are often subject to neglect; however, these behaviours are in-part guided by coaches' attitudes towards these athletes. The purpose of this study was to begin exploration into coaches' attitudes towards athletes with ID within the Australian context. Coaches were grouped (Group 1: Always; Group 2: Sometimes; Group 3 Never) according to recent (< 5 years) experience of including people with an intellectual disability in general settings. Multiple one-way analyses of variance between-groups found that Group 1 (p= .017) (M = 3.29) were more likely to have positive attitudes when compared with group 3 (M = 2.81). Group 1 were more likely (p= <.001) to have more favourable beliefs towards perceived confidence (M= 3.33) when compared with Group 2 (M = 2.68) and Group 3 (M = 2.36). Findings highlight the need for improved coach education to meet the needs of all participants in Government funded sports.

No abstract