Girls as the ‘New’ Agents of Social Change? Exploring the ‘Girl Effect’ through Sport, Gender and Development Programs in Uganda

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore how girls in Eastern Uganda experienced a corporate-funded sport, gender and development (SGD) martial arts program. This study used 19 semi-structured in-depth interviews, participant observation and document analysis. Results revealed that while the martial arts program increased the young women's confidence, challenged gender norms, augmented their social networks, improved their physical fitness and was useful for providing them with employment opportunities, the program also attempted to ‘govern’ their sexuality and sexual relations with boys and men by promoting individual avoidance and encouraging the use of self-defense strategies against potential abusers. To conclude, I argue that girl-focused SGD programs such as the one studied here impel young women to be the agents of social change and to cope with the potential resistance (e.g., from some of their family and community members) to their participation in SGD programs by building their self-esteem, confidence and self-responsibility. Despite this – and as the ‘new agents of social change’ – these young women still must navigate the structural inequalities that tend to marginalize their lives in the first place.

Biopedagogies and Indigenous knowledge: examining sport for development and peace for urban Indigenous young women in Canada and Australia

“…As is the case with other SDP elements, the emphasis is on individual responsibility for change rather than addressing structural disadvantage or cultural diversity (e.g., see Hayhurst, 2013). In the two cases described in this paper, these biopedagogical elements seep into each SDP program in various ways, which we discuss below, when it comes to preparing young people for future success or in discussions about health.…”

Exploring organizational capacity in a Sport for Development and Peace setting.

“…Hartmann and Kwauk (2011) Critical perspectives on the use of sport for social change. SDP includes a broad range of stakeholders, yet programs in the Global South are often driven by funding agencies from the Global North (Coakley, 2011;Hayhurst, 2009Hayhurst, , 2013Straume & Hasselgård, 2014), highlighting the increased functional neoliberalism in development as Western corporations are increasingly engaging in development programs (Darnell, 2007;Burnett, 2009, in press;Kay, 2012;Hayhurst, 2009Hayhurst, , 2013. Levermore (2008a) also noted many SDP programs are operated through partnerships whereby multi-national corporations or international sport federations fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) implementing these initiatives in local communities.…”

“…Similarly, Kay (2012) purports monitoring and evaluation procedures in SDP remain mostly influenced by funding requirements, emphasizing external accountability while limiting local internal program learning needs. In addition, SDP organizations often intend for individual participants to become change agents within their communities, yet do little, if anything, to address the broader structural inequalities that caused marginalization to begin with (Chawanski, in press;Hayhurst, 2013;Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). Thus, we need to recognize SDP programs may unintentionally further the marginalization of participants by failing to recognize broader social structures underlying the targeted social issues (Hayhurst, 2013).…”

“…In addition, SDP organizations often intend for individual participants to become change agents within their communities, yet do little, if anything, to address the broader structural inequalities that caused marginalization to begin with (Chawanski, in press;Hayhurst, 2013;Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013). Thus, we need to recognize SDP programs may unintentionally further the marginalization of participants by failing to recognize broader social structures underlying the targeted social issues (Hayhurst, 2013). In their argument for the importance of understanding local contexts in SDP, Levermore and Beacom (2012) highlighted how geographical regions are differ considerably at the political, cultural, and economic levels.…”

“…Lindsey and Grattan (2012) found SDP actors in Zambia reported uncertain financial capacity, especially in light of the global economic crisis. Others have noted many SDP organizations receive funding from international funding agencies such as governments, corporations, and sport governing bodies (Beacom, 2007;Giulianotti, 2011b;Hayhurst & Frisby, 2010;Hayhurst, 2013;Levermore, 2008a Structural resources capacity. The power imbalance among stakeholders (i.e., funding agencies and local stakeholders) often remains unchallenged in SDP (Burnett, in press), and is associated with top-down approaches (Burnett, 2009).…”