One-to-One Semi-Structured Interviews: Teamwork, Fun and Togetherness

On discussing the theme of teamwork with the individual interviewees, four were in agreement with the findings from the focus groups, reporting that the SO does indeed promote the concept of teamwork, togetherness and a sense of camaraderie and fun among the athletes:

‘That would be the norm as they are a team member, and there is a great sense of

‘sportsmanship’ there as well, not only sportsmanship but co-operation and communication’. (INT 5), ‘I absolutely agree with that…there is definitely a sense of belonging, just like in any club, they are part of something and identify themselves as a member, it is easy to see that in some of the photographs of the athletes. And they do enjoy it as well…they enjoy the companionship of their friends. I understand why the participants picked up on this…the athletes definitely enjoy being part of the SO’, (INT 1),

139

‘Yes, I agree they can learn key skills, for example, they learn how to make friends, be part of a team and I suppose when you think about it they learn how to have the ‘craic’ just like anyone else or any other sports team’, (INT 2),‘They can join in, regardless of their disability and just like any other sporting event you would see, they connect with the SO’(INT 3) and ‘There is a great sense of camaraderie, a great sense of fun among the athletes as well, they really enjoy it and get so much from it…it has to be experienced to understand this maybe’ (INT 2).

Martin (2015) claimed that participants in the SO are provided the opportunity to learn about the concepts of teamwork and friendship and which most people involved in sports get to experience. Such concepts and skills development can also support PWID to adapt into society in a more effective way as they start to understand some of the rules and norms expected. Hassan and Lynch (2015, p.256) further consolidate this point when they claimed ‘that the Special Olympics can enhance the social skills of participants, developing co-operation, teamwork and communication skills’.

On asking the interviewees why the focus groups interpreted the concept of inclusion within the confines of teamwork specific to the SO and the world of disability, the comments included:

‘That is interesting, I guess it is because they see them with their friends and they all have disabilities maybe but if PWID are to make friends with their non-disabled peers a lot needs to change in society, particularly attitudes to PWID.’

(INT 1) and ‘It’s probably because they know little about the SO or indeed anything about disability or maybe on viewing the images they just see a group of PWID together’ (INT 5).

However, one interviewee found this theme of particular interest and put forward their own interpretation and rationale as to why the focus groups interpreted the images in the way in which they did.

140

‘Yes, while the SO can promote a sense of teamwork, they don’t necessarily promote inclusion in the wider world for PWID. I fully understand why the focus groups spoke of inclusion within the confines of the SO. Society and often professional expectations need to be taken into account. Society would never expect a person without a disability to be engaging in the SO or anything similar to it. People without disabilities would not see themselves participating in such games. The SO segregates people with intellectual disabilities as you have to have an intellectual disability to participate. With other sports like the Paralympics, the competitions appear to be real, not fake like the SO. Having clowns on the sidelines and playing games such as pass the parcel where adults with disabilities win toys does not help either as they are reinforcing images where PWID are innocent and childlike and it appears the games are really only about participating and having fun and only for PWID’ (INT 4).

Interestingly, some research has found that the Paralympics are more akin to the Olympic Games as the focus is on competitiveness and ‘win at all costs’. Nixon (2016) stated that the principles of athleticism, athletic ability and competitiveness all apply to the Paralympics whereas the SO are based on the main principle of ‘participation’.

Grossman (2015) also suggested that by using images to portray PWID in an innocent, childlike manner will evoke stereotypical attitudes towards this minority group; whereas Storey (2009) stated that such images of athletes at the SO do more harm than good as they serve to reinforce negative images of people with disabilities. So while it was interesting to note that some focus group participants discussed that, through the process of teamwork and team sports, the SO were promoting a culture of inclusion, and when further teased out, they meant inclusion within the confines of the SO. However, evidence from this study suggests that some images of PWID participating in SO events are generally viewed positively with regard to the concepts of ‘teamwork’,

‘togetherness’, and ‘fun’. Focus group participants and interviewees also believed that teamwork and team sports can support a sense of ‘belonging’.

141

The same interviewee (INT 4) also questioned whether athletes were truly ‘happy’ as focus group participants described:

‘PWID do look happy in the photographs at the SO and I fully understand why your groups could see that. However, if we look at the larger picture and think of group homes and state institutions...PWID were always smiling. You must ask yourself were they truly happy? Does evidence not suggest that they were disempowered and dependent on services? How are SO defining and measuring happiness or quality of life as well? How are they measuring inclusion? How do they empower people? Just because someone is smiling does not mean that they are happy and have a good quality of life, especially in comparison to people without disabilities’ (INT 4).

Barton (2015) claimed that even in modern times many people with disabilities continue to be supported in a culture of dependency with limited opportunities for self actualisation. As such, they are disempowered and passive consumers of the services they avail of. Thomas and Woods (2003) suggested that while there is a lot of

‘normalisation’ and ‘inclusionary’ activities undertaken by disability organisations, much of it is delivered within the confines of what the service has to offer. Thus, while many PWID appear happy and experience some level of integration into their local communities, few experience true inclusion similar to that of their non-disabled peers.