Discussion: From Research to Practice

The findings of this study revealed many interesting insights regarding the experiences of the integrated sporting environment for para sport insiders. The event has been

conceptualized as an opportunity to bring together able-bodied and para sport athletes to foster a more inclusive sporting environment. The research regarding social integration through sport (Berry, 1997; Hartmann, 2017) emphasizes that successful integration requires vision, strategic planning, commitment from leadership, adequate resources and systematic pursuit of the objectives. As the findings demonstrate, integration of high- performance sport comes with setbacks, constraints and opportunities, echoing the work of other scholars (Kitchin & Crosson, 2018; Legg, 2018; Misener & Molloy, 2018; Smith & Thomas, 2005; Sorenson & Kahrs, 2006). Foregrounding the perspective of important para sport stakeholders in our research also demonstrated several key disadvantages as well as potentialities for change within the integrated model for competitions.

5.5.1

Ableization of para sport events

We return to the powerful literal and figurative metaphor of ableization of para sport- “too many chairs at the table”. The social cost of the integrated model for high-

performance is substantial and significant (Darcy, 2019). For some this cost is too high, “wicked” in fact.

Ableization of para sport has evolved for many reasons. Classification has eliminated categories and competition opportunities for some para sport athletes, notably athletes

with II and greater impairment in pursuit of a more high-performance environment (Darcy, Lock & Taylor, 2017). This exclusionary practice has led to inclusion of less disabled or more able-disabled para sport athletes in elite competition (Pullen, Jackson, & Silk, 2016). By definition, “classification in (para) sport reduces the likelihood of one- sided competition, is essential to fair competition, and should have a positive effect on rates of participation” (Tweedy, 2010, p. 3). Within the integrated model, our research indicates that classification does negatively impact event sporting opportunities for specific groups of para sport athletes and failed to construct an equitable field of play. Classification has been used not only to exclude but subsequently include para athletes whose bodies represent the “right kind of disability”, sporting bodies that are most palatable for mainstream consumption (Pullen, Jackson, Silks, 2016, p. 4)

5.5.2

Event size as a constraint

The World Health Organization (WHO, 2011) estimates that 15% of the global population lives with disability. At Commonwealth Games XXI, 5.7% of the athlete delegation competed in para sport events. The inclusion of such a relatively small number of para sport athletes marginalizes their value as people and their credibility as high- performance athletes. A requirement of sporting integration is reciprocal adaptation of both groups where elements of each sporting culture persist within the resultant integrated community (Berry, 1997; Sorenson & Kahrs, 2006). Our research indicates that the small number of para sport athletes at these Games lacked sufficient agency to materially impact mainstream sporting culture, making adaptation by the dominant able- bodied culture unlikely if not impossible. This finding reflects what Kitchin (1998) has argued. Social gatherings are often constructed to ensure people with a disability are kept at the margins, and from the margins, they come to understand when/how they are out of place. In such circumstances, assimilation of the para sport contingent rather than

integration is the likely outcome and this concern was voiced by the para sport

stakeholders in our research. We contend that it is unlikely that 5.7% of the total athlete population could raise a collective voice; to protest, to collaborate, to agitate for

reciprocal adaptation, particularly given the divided voices of these athletes around integration (Marwell & Oliver, 1993).

Our work suggests that size of the para sport athlete contingent does matter. Size of this contingent did impact the process and experience of integration. Our findings illustrate the Games experience for some para sport insiders was marked by under-representation and limited agency. The remarks made by Louise Martin, President of Commonwealth Games Federation celebrating gender equity at these Games are relevant within the context of para sport inclusion. Equivalent representation of para sport athletes in

integrated models for high-performance sport is necessary to succeed in the creation of a truly integrated event.

5.5.3

Tensions around integration

We chose to include multiple, verbatim excerpts from interviews with para sport athletes and non-athletes to demonstrate the diversity of perspectives around integration. We wanted to explicitly privilege, hear, and consider these perspectives regarding the

integrated model used at this event. The dichotomy of perspectives around integration in sport of non-athletes and para sport athletes was an unexpected finding. Para sport athletes who were interviewed did not speak as one, in support or rejection of integration in high-performance sport. Given the breadth of bodily diversity of this sporting

community (seated, standing, neuro-atypical, visually impaired, intellectual impairment, acquired, congenital impairment) it is not surprising that these athletes experience sport in different ways. Athletes who endorsed the integrated model also differed substantially regarding their reasons for this preference. However common to those athletes who favoured integration was the value of belonging; to a team, a sport, a nation, the larger human family. Perhaps these athletes value integration in sport to construct preferred notions of disability and sport, as a steppingstone to equity in sport and in the world outside of sport (Mitchell & Snyder, 2015).

By contrast, non-athletes including sport administrators, health care professionals, coaches and Games volunteers spoke with a common voice, one voice that favoured the integrated model of sport. Earlier we suggested that non-athletes offered a voyeuristic experience of integration having watched rather than lived the integrated model of sport. As able-bodied, non-athletes, these participants did not possess a lived experience of integration, high-performance sport, and disability. Perhaps this positive bias and

presumption of benefit to para sport athletes reproduces hegemonic notions of sport. High-performance sport is synonymous with able-bodiedness. Therefore, inclusion of para sport athletes in a location dominated by able-bodied sport was considered a benevolent gesture for which these athletes should be grateful. Given the mixed perspectives regarding integration voiced by para sport athletes, we need to carefully consider the perspectives of these stakeholders regarding integration. The social relationships between people with impairment and able-bodied individuals has all too often served to reinforce structures of exclusion (Kitchin, 1998). Sport managers and administrators need to seek the necessary input from these important para sport stakeholders to understand the potentiality and approaches to integration.

The legitimacy of integrated and segregated models for high-performance para sport likewise present areas requiring further study. As demonstrated in our research, the social costs associated with integration are material, specifically the ableization of elite para sport. Athletes with greater impairment and II are affected substantially. Arguably these athletes are some of least powerful athletes in the arena of high-performance sport. Cognizant of the drawbacks and opportunities that are part of the integrated model for high-performance sport, integration has become possible and appropriate for some para sport athletes and not for others. When classification within this model excludes some of the least powerful within the para sport community, integration is reduced to rhetoric and becomes a fiction.