Does Size Matter?

As introduction to the second analytical theme, successful integration should not directly relate to size of the non-dominant group relative to the mainstream group. Informed by the definition of integration adopted for our research, integration in sport should result in the engagement and valuing of less dominant athletes, in this case para sport athletes, in equitable and meaningful ways. However, size did matter in the context of our research. The second theme Does Size Matter? addressed relative size in the context of some of the daily realities of this large sporting event, as experienced by members of the relatively small para sport contingent.

Sally is a health care professional with several decades of involvement with community- based para sport and multiple Paralympic Games experience. During her interview, Sally identified the size of the Games and the commitment of CGF, as integral to the process of integration:

Integration is good and works well here. It works here at Commonwealth Games because the Games are small. Olympics and

Paralympics cannot be integrated due to numbers. CGF is also committed to integration and limits the number of sports. This keeps the

Games small and I think this is why integration works for Commonwealth Games.

However, as the data demonstrated, maintenance of a small Games also requires decisions around who matters to the Games, who is represented at the Games, and how those with minority status experience the event. Some members of the para sport delegation including Kevin, a para sport athlete competing in table tennis expressed concern about inadequate representation of para sport and athletes in the décor of The Village.

There are so few posters or banners of para sport in The Athletes’ Village. I looked and looked and can’t find my sport.

Other members of the para sport contingent remarked that they did not see para sport athletes or events reflected during Opening Ceremonies.

I thought Opening Ceremonies were great but didn’t see much about us [para sport athletes]. (Todd, track cycling)

Dame Louise Arbor, President of Commonwealth Games Federation (CWG) proclaimed at OC “We are proud to champion inclusivity and accessibility for all.” In response to these remarks, a para sport insider commented:

Have you seen any volunteers with a disability? I haven’t. I thought these Games were going to be integrated for everyone…everyone

meaning athletes, spectators, volunteers. (Alan, lawn bowls)

Observational data and field notes of the first author confirmed the lack of para sport imagery in The Athletes’ Village and the small number of visible volunteers with impairment:

I have walked this Village end to end for almost 10 days now. Very few banners on the fences of The Athletes’ Village depict para sport. I have

seen only two of the seven para sports represented in the banners erected by GOLDOC; power lifting and wheelchair racing. As well, I

have only seen one volunteer with an obvious impairment. I see her almost daily working The Athletes’ Lounge.

Jake is a retired Paralympic athlete who was employed as part of his country’s sport administration staff at the Games. When questioned about his experience of the

integrated high-performance environment, Jake reinforced the concerns about the number of para athletes and their opportunities for agency and resistance:

Integration, real integration of para sport and able-bodied sport, requires input from para sport athletes as full and valued stakeholders.

For integration to work, there needs to be a balance of conflict and collaboration between the stakeholders and CGF. How can such a small group of athletes effectively ‘rock the boat’ at a Games like this?

If we can’t make some noise, ask questions, “rock the boat” at a Games like this, we won’t achieve real integration. We all know that a

“good crip is a quiet crip” and I bet most para sport athletes are just grateful to be here.

Jake’s opinion suggests that the small size of the para sport contingent directly impacted para sport solidarity and collective agency, limiting this minority group’s ability to ‘rock the boat’.

During one interview, Sally an experienced para sport medicine professional also discussed the administrative decisions around integration:

CGF is also committed to integration. CGF limits the number of sports and keeps the Games small. I think this is why integration works for

Commonwealth Games.

Sally linked the success of the integrated model to the small number of sports, once again illustrating that size does matter. In contemporary locations of integrated high-

performance sport, integration exists for ‘for some and not for all’. Her comments support the necessity of committed leadership for integration in sport to be authentically realized. CGF’s conviction and commitment to integration represented by several sport administrators was evident in the field notes of the first author:

I have met several senior sport management people who are committed to the integrated model for sport. These are experienced sport administrators. They are passionate in their language and deeply committed to the values of CGF and of these Games. These people are

seasoned sport administrators who lost their rose-coloured glasses years ago. They seem united by a conviction that equity in sport is a noble pursuit and the integrated model for sport a vehicle to do so. As I

headed to Gold Coast for these Games, I was rather cynical regarding the integrated model and suspicious that integration of para sport was an act of tokenism. However, as I leave the Games, I am cautiously optimistic. CGF seems driven by its values and may have the potential

to evolve and deliver an equitable, integrated Games. There are problems, substantial ones, that must be solved including the exclusionary nature of classification. However, with the political will I

have witnessed, there might just be a way.