Improving health through youth sports: is participation enough?

The health benefits of engaging in regular physical activity are widely known: enhanced cardiorespiratory fitness, increased muscular strength and endurance, and favorable cholesterol and other profiles. Nevertheless, particularly in youth sports programs run by volunteer, and perhaps inadequately trained, coaches, many youth may not realize the health benefits of sports participation due to a number of factors, among them, inappropriate coach-child ratios, limited space, or mismatched expectations between coaches and those of children and their parents. There are specific strategies that can be implemented to ensure that youth receive the maximize benefits from participation in sports. These strategies are presented in the following areas: frequency, intensity, and duration; cross-training or complementary exercise; access points; utilization of space and time; nutrition; and rest. For instance, with regard to the frequency of physical activity, some sports, including soccer, basketball, and singles tennis, require extensive physical effort over an extended period of time, while others, such as baseball and football, have a lot of downtime. Thus, in order for children and youth to meet the recommendation of participating in moderate or vigorous physical activity at least four times per week, sports programs need to have opportunities for all athletes to practice hard. Finally, the author discusses the point at which participation in sports might be too much, leading to significant injuries, frustration, and resentment.     

Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation

Recent policy frameworks for addressing the well-being of young people have increasingly adopted a prevention framework that emphasises age-relevant support, a social inclusion approach, targeted assistance for the most disadvantaged, and more avenues for the voices of young people. However, despite the increased policy commitments to youth consultation and participation, there is confusion about the operational implications of such commitments, and implementation across different program areas has been patchy. This paper provides a conceptual framework for understanding the various forms of youth participation, ranging from information exchange to more open and self-managed participation; and the associated rationales for various forms of participation. It is argued that there are three main rationales for greater voice and participation of young people across a variety of institutional settings and policy areas. First is the argument that young people have the right to be nurtured, protected and treated with respect, and where appropriate be involved and consulted. Secondly, it is argued that improvement of services for young people requires their views and interests to be well articulated and represented. Thirdly, it is asserted that there are developmental benefits arising from participation, for both the individuals themselves and for civil society as a whole.     

What mattered ten years on? Young people's reflections on their involvement with a charitable youth participation project

Youth work in England is experiencing ongoing rapid and significant change, fuelling debate about its very function. This paper contributes to this debate by presenting original research on what young people themselves prioritised as significant in-service provision and highlights the longer-term impact that engagement with a voluntary sector organisation can have on the lives of vulnerable young people. Drawing on qualitative interviews with ten former youth participants involved in youth participation projects, the findings presented in this paper suggest that participants felt the support they received was, in many cases, ‘transformative’. However, they primarily defined their experiences and the impact through their relationships with individuals supporting them, through the sense of achievement and ability to effect change they developed and through finding a voice to affect community decisions.     

What is a problem?

Among others, the term “problem” plays a major role in the various attempts to characterize interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, as used synonymously in this paper. Interdisciplinarity (ID) is regarded as “problem solving among science, technology and society” and as “problem orientation beyond disciplinary constraints” (cf. Frodeman et al.: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010). The point of departure of this paper is that the discourse and practice of ID have problems with the “problem”. The objective here is to shed some light on the vague notion of “problem” in order to advocate a specific type of interdisciplinarity: problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. The outline is as follows: Taking an ex negativo approach, I will show what problem-oriented ID does not mean. Using references to well-established distinctions in philosophy of science, I will show three other types of ID that should not be placed under the umbrella term “problem-oriented ID”: object-oriented ID (“ontology”), theory-oriented ID (epistemology), and method-oriented ID (methodology). Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to these distinguishable meanings. I will then clarify the notion of “problem” by looking at three systematic elements: an undesired (initial) state, a desired (goal) state, and the barriers in getting from the one to the other. These three elements include three related kinds of knowledge: systems, target, and transformation knowledge. This paper elaborates further methodological and epistemological elements of problem-oriented ID. It concludes by stressing that problem-oriented ID is the most needed as well as the most challenging type of ID.     

What is Adult Attachment?

This paper explores the concept of adult attachment. Although attachment theory is now getting a great deal of attention, there is not yet a clear picture of what it means to be attached in adulthood or what the clinical applications of the approach might be. Using Bowlby’s distinctive ethological-evolutionary framework and updating it with findings from neurobiology and attachment research, it is proposed there is an attachment behavioral system that operates throughout the lives of adults and that this changes the way we understand our clients’ distress and carry out psychotherapy.

What is a complex?

This essay evaluates the question of the ‘complex’ in a range of scientific, political and psychoanalytic contexts, asking not only where lines of connection and demarcation occur among specific distributions of meaning, value, theory and practice; but also probing the psychoanalytic corpus, notably Freud’s writings on the notion of a ‘complex’, in order to reframe various implications of the idea that this term tends to resist its own utilisation as both an object and form of analysis.     

What is algorithmic governance?

This article contributes a coherent framework to the rich literature emerging in the field of algorithmic governance while also resolving conflicting understandings. Tracing the history of algorithmic governance to the broad architecture of the universal Turing Machine, the article identifies a common thread of critical concern in the literature on algorithmic governance: the growing institutional capabilities to move contestable issues to a space of reduced negotiability, raising questions of social asymmetry, inequity, and inequality. Within the social context of algorithmic governance, the article highlights three general areas of concern where the social negotiability of processes is threatened: the problem of power (surveillance), discrimination (social bias), and identification (system identity).     

Stakeholder participation in evaluation: How important is diversity?

Participatory evaluation seeks in part to promote exchanges of perspective and experience among diverse program stakeholders. Diversity in such exchanges is viewed as integral to the substantive and political strands of the participatory process. Yet, using the grounded experience of two participatory evaluation case studies, we offer some challenges to this ideal of diversity and suggest that when action is the desired outcome, somewhat less rather than more diversity of stakeholder participation is actually desired.