Athletes, Runners, and Joggers: Participant-Group Dynamics in a Sport of “Individuals”

Abstract

A figurational framework is employed to analyze aspects of the phenomenon of mass nonelite road running in Britain. More particularly, the paper explores the dynamics of identifiable participant-groups in a sport where, formally, all are in competition with all. The analysis of data derived, primarily from a series of interviews with a range of participants in Britain, indicates that there are three identifiable participant-groups involved in the sport. A distinction between “athletes” and others—a distinction between winners and losers—is widely recognized outside road running circles, but one between “runners” and “joggers” is not. This lack of general recognition gives rise to a tension between these groups, more acutely felt on the part of the runners, as they are faced with having to defend what they see as an important status difference.

A Qualitative Exploration of Participant Motives Among Committed Amateur Triathletes

“…From a descriptive perspective, motivations which emerged from the data were largely consistent with previous studies that have examined motives for participation in endurance sports such as running (Bond & Batey, 2005;Masters et al, 1993;Ogles & Masters, 2000;Smith, 1998;2000), cycling (Brown et al, 2009;LaChausse, 2006) and triathlon (Grand'Maison, 2004). Physical benefits such as weight loss, enhanced body image, and improved fitness were prevalent, along with maintaining physical and mental health, testing physical limits, ego involvement, competition, goal pursuit, social aspects, and friendship.…”

“…Clearly, training for a marathon is not a trivial event in the lives of either the runners or those with whom they have significant relationships. (p.135) Studies of participant motives in endurance sports have tended to centre mostly on runners (particularly marathon runners) (Bond & Batey, 2005;Masters et al, 1993;Ogles & Masters, 2000;Smith 1998;2000), and to a lesser degree, cyclists (Brown, et al, 2009;LaChausse, 2006). Despite the growth of triathlon, very few studies have sought to explore the motives of amateur triathletes (e.g.…”

How ‘social’ is recreational running? Findings from a qualitative study in London and implications for public health promotion

“…Crucially, they also perpetuate the basic assumption that there is indeed a 'social world' in evidence here in the sense that running fundamentally figures as collective. This is an argument that echoes Smith's (1998) study of runners in South Wales. Summarising his key findings, Smith suggests the distance running community can be divided up into three distinct groups; athletes, runners, and joggers with joggers being characterised by their dilettantish and un-committed (and by implication temporary) relationship to running.…”

“…If we took this approach, we would see that qualitative researchers have examined running in a range of different ways (Smith, 1998;Tulle, 2007;Shipway and Holloway, 2010;Nettleton, 2013;. However, there are also certain discernable commonalities to this work.…”

“…As is explained as the article develops the practice of running encompasses a broad range of activities; running might be undertaken in wide variety of places, involving significant variations in intensity, variations in duration, and incorporate a diverse range of purposes that may reach beyond a narrow definition of fitness. Some studies (Smith 1998;Cook et al 2015) have sought to draw a distinction between 'running' and 'jogging', drawing a clear categorical separation between the two. We have not found this a helpful distinction.…”