YOUTH SPORT AS A CONTEXT FOR ENHANCED SOCIAL CAPITAL AND FAMILY RELATIONS By Guilherme Hebling Costa A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Kinesiology - Master of Science 2021 YOUTH SPORT AS A CONTEXT FOR ENHANCED SOCIAL CAPITAL AND FAMILY ABSTRACT RELATIONS By Guilherme Hebling Costa While there are studies that suggest sport to be a fertile ground for the development of social capital, the youth sport context has been largely overlooked. Being involved in their children’s sports participation may provide parents opportunities to establish connections and develop social capital. Furthermore, sport may also provide bonding opportunities for parents and their offspring, potentially enhancing the parent-child relationship. The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between parental involvement in youth sport, social capital, parent-child relationship, and subjective well-being. This study employed an explanatory sequential design. Participants responded to a demographic survey followed by psychometric instruments assessing the aforementioned variables. To further assess the relationship between variables, a subsample was recruited for interviews. Participants had been considerably involved in youth sport and, though this influenced the parent-child relationship, it did not have the same effect for parent’s social capital. The results of this study are consistent with the literature on sport parenting suggesting that parental involvement may enhance the parent-child relationship. The same cannot be stated for its potential to enhance one’s social capital, as there are person-context features that are likely to moderate this process, such as the overall climate, community characteristics, membership to social groups, and individual dispositions. In conclusion, while youth sport may have potential to enhance parent’s social capital, this will only occur within certain conditions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I am extremely grateful to have been part of the Institute for the Study of Youth Sport, whose history and members have been nothing short of inspirational. More specifically, I am thankful for my fellow students who made me feel at home and my adviser Dr. Karl Erickson for being there every step of the way. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents and family for providing me with absolutely everything I needed to be where I am today. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .…………………………………………………………………. LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I ...…………………...…………………………………………….…… INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….…….. CHAPTER II ….…………………………………………………………………... LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………………………. Social Capital .…………………………………………………………………. Network/Structural Perspective ….………………………………………….. Communitarian/Cognitive Perspective ...…………………………….……….. Correlates of Social Capital ..…..………...……………………………………… Mental Health ….……………………………………………………………… Physical Activity ……...……………………………………………………..... Well-Being ………...………………………………………………………….. Social Capital in Sport ………….………………………………………………. Methodological Considerations ……….……………………………………… Social Capital …………………………………………………………………. Network/Structural Social Capital ………..…….…………………………... Cognitive/Communitarian Social Capital …………………....…………….. Parent-Child Relationship ………………..……………………………….... Mixed-Method ………………...……………………………………………… CHAPTER III …………………..………………………………………………….. METHOD …………………………………………………………………………. Procedure ……………...………………………………………………………. Participants ……………………………………………………………………… Measures ………………………………………………………………………... Demographic Survey …………………………………………………………. Youth Sport Involvement …………………………..………………………… Social Capital …………………………………………………………………. Well-Being ……………………………………………………………………. Parent-Child Relationship ……………………………………………………. Semi-Structured Interview ………………………..…………………………... Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………… Quantitative ………………………...………………………………………… Qualitative ……………………………………………………………………. Data Collection ………………….………………………………………….. Qualitative Analysis ………………………………………………………... CHAPTER IV ……………….………………………………..……………………. RESULTS ………………………………………………...………………………. Quantitative Results ………………….…………………………………………. vi 1 1 5 5 6 7 9 10 11 11 12 13 16 16 16 18 19 20 22 22 22 22 25 25 25 25 26 26 28 28 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 iv Qualitative Results ………………………………...……………………………. Participants ……………………………………………...……………………. Thematic Analysis - Results …...……………………………..………………. Youth Sport Context ……………………………….……………………….. Potential for Positive Youth Development …………………..…………… Pervasive & Lurking Competitiveness …………………………………… Family Dynamics ………………………………..………………………….. Family Bonding Through Sport ………………………………………….. Sport-Related Interactions .……………………………….………………. Connection to Other Sport Families & Community ……………….……….. Youth Sport Provides Social Connections & Resources ………….……… Negative Social Interactions ……………………………………………... CHAPTER V …..…………………………………………………………………… DISCUSSION ………………………………………............................................ Parent-Child Relationship ………………………………………………............ Social Capital …………………………..………….….………………………… Contextual Features ………………………………….………………………... Competitive Environment …………………………………….……………. Small Community ………………………………….………………………. Person-Based Features ……………………………………………….……….. Membership to Dominant Social Groups …….…...………………………… Reasons for Parental Involvement in Youth Sport …………….…………… Beliefs Regarding the Role of Youth Sport ……………….……………….. Methodological Considerations & Future Directions ………………….…….. Limitations ……………………………................................................................ Conclusion …………………………………….………………………………... APPENDICES ……………………………………………………...……………..... APPENDIX A: Social Capital Measure ………………………………………….. APPENDIX B: Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire ………………….…….. APPENDIX C: The Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale …………….……. APPENDIX D: General Well-Being Scale ……………………….……………… APPENDIX E: Semi-Structured Interview Guide ……………………….……….. APPENDIX F: Institutional Review Board ……………………….……………... REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………... 36 36 37 39 39 39 40 40 42 44 44 46 50 50 51 54 55 55 56 58 58 58 60 61 64 65 68 69 71 73 75 81 83 84 v LIST OF TABLES ………………………. 23 ………………………………….. 32 …...………………………. 33 Table 1. Frequencies of demographic variables of study sample Table 2. Frequencies of youth sport-related variables Table 3. Pearson correlations between continuous variables Table 4. Multiple regression results Table 5. Subsample’s involvement in youth sport Table 6. Themes & subthemes …...……………………….……………………….. 35 ……...……………………………… 37 …………………………………………………………. 38 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For a long time, sports have been credited as a unique cultural and social context with the potential to foster human development and strengthen communities (Coakley, 2011; Seippel, 2006). According to the United Nations (2003), sports may provide opportunities for social interactions, acquisition of important life skills (e.g., leadership, confidence), and even contribute to mitigate ethnic divisions. In recent years, the notion of community building has been increasingly discussed through the lens of social capital theory (Lin, 2001). While economic and human capital refer to, respectively, material possessions and the value placed on one’s skillset, social capital alludes to resources that are embedded and accessed within social networks (Johnson, 2016). Social capital has been conceptualized in a slightly different manner by its most well- known theorists. Both Bourdieu and Coleman’s work adopts a network/structural approach to social capital, highlighting the value of an individual’s social network and how these may lead to other forms of capital (e.g., cultural, human, and economic) (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988). Therefore, social capital may be thought as the resources associated with a durable network of relationships of mutual acquaintance which “entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word” (Bourdieu, 1986). On the other hand, Putnam (2001) adopts a cognitive/communitarian approach to social capital which focuses on relational factors. This author argues that social features, such as generalized trust and reciprocity, may increase levels of civic engagement and participation in community groups (Basset & Moore, 2013). While Putnam’s perspective emphasizes community-level outcomes, it also acknowledges the importance of social networks, with social 1 capital manifesting both in formal (e.g., labor union) and informal (e.g., peers and friends) ways (Putnam, 2001). Sport has been suggested to be a promising strategy for enhancing social capital as it could potentially foster a sense of belongingness and community identity (Collins & Kay, 2003). This is not surprising considering the associational and interactive nature of most sports, which may involve not only athletes, but other participants such as volunteers and spectators. In fact, Tonts (2005) found in his study that the three most valued aspects of sports participation were (1) social interactions, (2) health and fitness, and (3) community bonding. Such findings suggest that sport participation is not only motivated by potential health-related outcomes, but also by its social features. While the role of sport in building social capital has begun to garner some attention, the youth sport context has been largely overlooked. Youth sport may prove to be a particularly interesting context for enhancing social capital due to its capacity to involve not only young athletes, but also adult stakeholders. Parents may be considered to be gate keepers of their offspring’s sport participation and are normally the ones responsible for their socialization into sport. These important social agents play several formal (e.g., coaching, fundraising, refereeing) and informal (e.g., transportation and financial support) roles, suggesting that a certain degree of parental involvement is crucial for youth sport to function properly. Being involved in their children’s sports participation may also provide parents opportunities to socialize with peers as they attend practices and games (Kim et al., 2020). Moreover, taking on more formal roles within youth sport may require parents to coordinate their actions and frequently interact with one another. 2 Recently, Kim and colleagues (2020) examined the social networks of community-based youth sport parents using a roster format survey. Their analysis indicated that parents in all programs displayed denser networks at post-season, suggesting that the youth sport context can contribute considerably to parents’ social networks, which in turn has been linked to greater emotional, social, and physical support (Nicholson & Hoye, 2008; Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). In addition to providing opportunities for social interactions with peers, youth sport may also contribute to the parent-child relationship. Dorsch and colleagues (2009) explored parents’ socialization into organized youth sports by conducting interviews with twenty-six sport parents. Participants indicated experiencing a range of behavioral, cognitive, and affective changes as a result of being a sport parent. Parents not only described interacting and networking with peers, but also having additional bonding opportunities with their offspring which enhanced the parent- child relationship. Considering that open communication, showing an interest in the child’s activities, and having both common interests and shared experiences are important characteristics of a positive parent-child relationship (Woodman & McArthur, 2017), it is not surprising that being involved in their child’s sports experiences has the potential to enhance parent’s relationship and communication with their offspring. This may be particularly relevant for first- time sports parents who may use this context for family bonding and connecting with other families in the community (Dorsch et al., 2014). Both an enhanced sense of social capital and a positive family relationship have been suggested to contribute to one’s subjective well-being (Cramm et al., 2013; Christens et al., 2013; Clair, 2012; Myers, 2003; Nieminen et al., 2013). While the definition of well-being has been somewhat elusive, most researchers agree it involves the presence of positive affect and absence of negative affect, perceived quality of life, and positive social functioning (Diener, 3 2000; Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Well-being has become an important topic in public health as it represents a valid population-based measure that has been associated to several physical and mental health outcomes (Boehm & Kubzansky, 2012; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Steptoe, 2019). While children and adolescents are the main beneficiary of the positive outcomes provided by youth sport, (Eime et al., 2013), their participation may also result in indirect benefits for their families (i.e., parents). The youth sport context may provide ample opportunities for social interactions between all parties involved (e.g., children and parents) and be seen as a means to enhance individual social capital, strengthen family relationships, and foster well-being. With all this in mind, the purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the youth sport context on individual social capital and family relations. Specifically, this study aims to: 1. Examine the relationship between parent’s youth sport involvement, social capital (cognitive and network), and parent-child relationship. 2. Examine the impact of social capital and parent-child relationship on parent’s perceived well-being. 3. Explore environmental and individual factors that may be involved in the association between youth sport involvement, social capital, and parent-child relationship. 4 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Sport has historically been credited as an important sociocultural context instilled with the potential to foster positive human development through the acquisition of life skills (Gould & Carson, 2008; Holt, 2007) and strengthen communities (Seippel, 2006). Sport represents a pervasive recreational pass time where people from different wakes of life can meet, exchange information, and learn from one other. Thus, this context could potentially be used for improving community capacity building and increasing both social inclusion and civic engagement (Long & Sanderson, 2001). In fact, the basic idea behind Olympism is that, through the combination of culture and education, sport can foster a way of life based on the respect for universal and fundamental ethical principles. The United Nations has stated: Sport brings individuals and communities together, highlighting commonalities and bridging cultural or ethnic divides . . . provides a forum to learn skills such as discipline, confidence and leadership, and it teaches core principles such as tolerance, co-operation and respect . . . can cut across barriers that divide societies, making it a powerful tool to support conflict prevention and peace building efforts . . . [and] promote[s] social integration and foster[s] tolerance, helping reduce tension and generate dialogue. (2003, p. i) Therefore, it seems the potential for sport to bring people together and revitalize communities lies within its social features, such as opportunities for social connections. These human connections have been associated with improved physical and mental health (Townsend & McWhirter, 2005), and have been posited to give rise to a specific form of capital. 5 Social Capital Social capital refers to a type of currency, which may be economic (i.e., money and material possessions), human (i.e., one’s skillset), cultural (i.e., knowledge and education), or social (i.e., one’s social network). In the last few decades there has been an increased interest in understanding how social connections may improve one’s quality of life and community functioning (Lin et al., 2001). This question has been analyzed through the lens of social capital, which suggest that one’s social networks may provide access to different forms of resources. While there is no consensus as to a specific definition of social capital, the World Health Organization (Rocco & Suhrcke, 2012) generally defines it as “the degree of social cohesion which exists in communities”. While this definition emphasizes social capital at the community level, it may also be applied to the individual level. Furthermore, most social capital theorists agree this concept involves understanding networks, social norms, reciprocity, and social norms. Social capital may be found in highly formal (e.g., unions) and informal (e.g., pick-up soccer) structures. Although slightly different, both refer to networks in which trust and reciprocity may be built amongst individuals (Putnam, 2001). Furthermore, social capital is commonly distinguished between bonding and bridging. While the latter refers to connections between individuals with a similar background and values, the former refers to connections between those with distinct backgrounds. Three of the more important social capital theorists credited with improving our understanding of this concept are Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam. While the first two emphasized the importance of assessing social networks, the last emphasized relational factors, such as social norms, perceived trust, and reciprocity (Lin, 1999). 6 These different conceptualizations of social capital have resulted in two distinct but related approaches to studying the concept (Legh-Jones & Moore, 2012). The network approach examines one’s patterns of social connections and the resources available through these. This approach focuses on the structural dimension of social capital by assessing one’s social participation in both formal and informal groups, such as neighborhood gatherings and community associations. Participation in organizations may facilitate the development of one’s social network and consequently provide access to important resources (Swaroop & Morenoff, 2006; Szreter & Woolcock, 2004; Uphoff et al., 2013). The communitarian approach focuses on the community level effects of one’s social connections and how this leads to increased civic engagement and community mobilization. This approach assesses social capital through cognitive features, such as perceived trust, reciprocity, and social support (Bassett & Moore, 2013). Network/Structural Perspective The major influence on the network/structural perspective comes from Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman, both of whom had a more instrumental view of social capital. According to Bourdieu, through conscious and/or unconscious investment strategies, individuals build a network of relationships characterized by durable obligations (e.g., feelings of respect and gratitude) increasing one’s social capital and guaranteeing access to other forms of capital, such as human or economic (Coalter, 2007). For example, through one’s connections, it may be possible to get a job opportunity. Therefore, social capital may be thought of as the resources associated with a durable network of relationships and mutual acquaintance, in other words, it entitles one to credit in all 7 its senses. Thus, the level of social capital depends on the size of one’s social networks and the resources embedded and accessed within. Coleman also suggested that the end goal of social capital is to gain access to other forms of capital. However, this author emphasized how social capital could be beneficial for youth development. According to his view, social capital may be seen as: Resources that inhere in family relations and in community social organization and that are useful for the cognitive or social development of a child or young person. These resources differ for different persons and constitute an important advantage for children and adolescents in the development of their human capital. (Coleman, 1994, cited in Coalter, 2007, p. 541) In line with Bourdieu and Colemans ideas, the network/structural approach examines one’s patterns of social connections and the resources available through these. This approach commonly measures social capital by analyzing the size, range, intensity, and diversity of one’s network connections, and both the quantity and quality of resources embedded within. Essentially, the idea is that through social connections it is possible to capture other people’s resources. Three layers of social connections have been identified by Lin (1986) based on their quality and intensity. The outer layer reflects shared identities which provide a general sense of belongingness, although individuals do not necessarily interact with one another (e.g., church, social club). The intermediary layer, which characterizes the majority of social connections, reflects the sharing of information and resources, though not everyone directly interacts with one another other or share the same position within the network. The inner layer reflects social connections based on shared affect and reciprocal support, characterizing closer relationships. 8 Many studies have suggested that engagement in the community, especially for youth, may have a positive influence on their level of community involvement later in life (Perks, 2007; Zaff et al., 2003), as this creates more opportunities for the acquisition of life skills, the development of positive relationships, and a sense of agency (Eccles et al., 2003). Using a survey design, Perks (2007) assessed the relationship between youth sport participation and community involvement as an adult. Adults who were active in either community-based sport or recreational programs were more likely to have been involved in youth sport. Furthermore, having been involved with sport as a youth displayed a positive and significant relationship with a participation in a variety of community. Such results suggest that that sport participation, especially during childhood and adolescence, may instill a sense of community and foster social capital. Communitarian/Cognitive Perspective The major proponent of communitarian/cognitive perspective is Robert Putnam, whose conceptualization of social capital is more relevant at the community level. Putnam argues that social capital both enhances and maintains democracy, and when in decline, deteriorates general trust in government, social cooperation, and civic engagement (Putnam 2000) Within this perspective, social capital is defined as “features of social organizations such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 2000). Such a definition implies social capital is a by-product of both social interactions and psychosocial mechanisms. Putnam’s definition of social capital consists of five factors: (1) Community networks in terms of density and range; (2) civic engagement, referring to involvement in community activities; (3) local civic identity, which refers to a sense of belonging and solidarity between 9 people; (4) reciprocity and cooperation, as in feeling a sense of obligation to help others; and (5) the degree of trust amongst individuals. Aligned with Putnam’s conceptualization, the communitarian approach explores social capital based on the cognitive constructs/resources (e.g., reciprocity, trust) available to social groups. This perspective is preoccupied with the social cohesion that holds networks together and has been commonly measured by assessing one’s perceived trust in others, social support, reciprocity, amongst others psychosocial constructs (Abbot & Freeth, 2008; Uphoff et al., 2013). Ueshima and colleagues (2010) examined the association between social capital and physical inactivity in a Japanese population. It was found that individuals with high levels of trust were less likely to be inactive, suggesting social capital may play a protective factor for physical health. Building on these results, Nieminen and colleagues (2013) examined the association of both structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital and health-related behaviors. These authors revealed that not only were networks and social participation associated with a range of health-related behaviors. More specifically, three features of social capital (i.e., trust, reciprocity, and social support) were independently associated with subjective health and well-being. Correlates of Social Capital Social capital has been linked to several social and health outcomes (Bassett & Moore, 2013; Moore et al., 2011; Verhaeghe & Tampubolon, 2012). Kawachi and colleagues (1999) suggested social capital may have an impact on health through three main mechanisms: (a) diffusion of health-related information, (b) social influences that encourage individuals to adopt healthier behaviors, and (c) restriction of undesirable and/or unhealthy behaviors. 10 Mental Health Individuals with extended networks may be more likely to have access to social support, which is beneficial for one’s mental health (Wang et al., 2018). In fact, studies have found the cognitive dimension of social capital to be associated with both depressive and anxiety symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder (Valencia-Garcia et al., 2012; Wind & Komproe, 2012). More recently, studies have shown that network dimensions of social capital are also associated with depressive symptoms (Bassett & Moore, 2013). Physical Activity A number of studies support to notion that social capital may have an influence on physical activity both at the individual and community level (Ali & Lindström, 2005; Ueshima et al., 2010). Social capital has been suggested to influence physical activity through (a) enhanced social control, which decreases the frequency of anti-social behaviors and, in turn increasing one’s sense of safety and the amount of time spent outdoors, (b) collective efficacy and mobilization, as people request access to facilities where they can be active, and, once again, (c) the diffusion of health-related information (Ueshima et al., 2010). In another study, Legh-Jones and Moore (2012) explored the relationship between network dimensions of social capital and physical inactivity in adults using a position generator approach, which assesses participants connections to others with specific occupations that vary in terms of prestige. It was found that those with lower levels of social capital were more likely to be physically inactive, while those with greater network diversity were less likely to be inactive. 11 Well-Being The study of well-being, which is aligned with the positive psychology movement, began as a reaction to the deficit reduction approach which permeated psychology at the time. During the 60’s, Warner Wilson presented one of the first reviews regarding subjective well-being, which characterized a happy individual as one who is young, healthy, well-educated, worry-free, married, religious, and has modest aspirations, though these results are based on limited data (Diener et al., 1999). Two perspective predominate in studies of well-being: hedonia and eudaimonia. Hedonia refers to subjective perceptions of happiness. Within this perspective, individuals are said to react differently to similar stimuli based on their own expectations, values, and biographical experiences. Therefore, while demographic variables are likely be related to well-being, the major focus is on the subjective element (Diener & Suh, 1997). Eudaimonia refers to one’s effective functioning. This perspective suggests that well-being and feelings of happiness are a result of fulfilling one’s full potential (Waterman, 1993). Although both perspectives have a slightly different focus, they still present considerable overlap and are highly correlated (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Subjective well-being is a phenomenon which consists of people’s affective responses (i.e., mood and emotions) and judgements regarding different domains (e.g., work, family) and life satisfaction. One of the more important finding from studies of well-being is the protective factor played by one’s social connections (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Indeed, those with close friends and positive family relationships are less likely to experience negative affect (e.g., loneliness, low self-esteem), suggesting social capital may impact subjective well-being both directly and through its influence on one’s health (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). 12 Social Capital in Sport Sport clubs and organizations have been argued to be an important context for the development of social capital due to its associational nature (Zakus et al., 2009). A sport team may be thought of as a type of network, as athletes are constantly interacting with coaches, teammates, opponents, and referees (Zakus et al., 2009). Moreover, it has been stated that sport may lead to lifelong social connections and provide opportunities for cooperation (Skinner et al., 2008). While there are a number of studies that link sport to social capital, the youth sport context has been largely overlooked. This is surprising, considering not only the large number of youth sport participants, but also the significant impact it may have on family’s daily lives (Côté, 1999; Hulteen et al., 2017; Turgeon et al., 2019). Furthermore, youth sport may be particularly important for developing social capital due to the involvement of several stakeholders, such as player’s families, which invest a considerable amount of time (e.g., attending games and practices) and financial resources in order to guarantee their child’s continued participation (Kim et al., 2020). In fact, it has been argued that parents are gatekeepers to their offspring’s participation, thus their involvement and support is crucial for youth sport to function properly. As parents become involved in their offspring’s sport participation, they will inevitably encounter other parents in similar situations with whom they may interact with. Furthermore, parents may eventually become more involved as they volunteer for certain roles (e.g., assistant coach, carpool, fundraising). Volunteering in youth sport may require them to coordinate their actions with other parents and adults involved in that context, potentially strengthening these social connections and the density of their networks. Employing a roster format survey, Kim and colleagues (2020) explored parents recalled networks at pre- and post-season. They found that 13 parent’s social networks had significant gains in density from pre to post-season for all sports studied, which may ultimately have a positive social, emotional, and physical impact on parents. It is noteworthy that, although this study assessed parent’s network within a limited timeframe, it was still sufficient to improve parent’s social capital. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that having more seasons as a sport parent may provide even more significant gains. Dorsch and colleagues (2009) explored parents’ socialization into their children’s sport participation. Through semi-structured interviews with twenty-six youth sports parents, it was revealed how their involvement not only led to the development of relationships with their peers, but also enhanced communication with their child, resulting in a healthier parent-child relationship. Specifically, parents described having more opportunities to interact and provide feedback to their children, while also being able to develop their peer network as they became more involved and knowledgeable about sport. These results suggest parent’s involvement in youth sport may not only enhance the parent-child relationship, but also foster social capital, at least in terms of network development. The results obtained by Dorsch and colleagues’ studies (2009, 2014) are in alignment with ideas stemming from family systems theory (Bornstein & Sawyer, 2006), namely, that a family is composed of subsystems (i.e., individuals and relationships) which both affect and are affected by other subsystems in a circular fashion. In other words, a change in one element within these subsystems, will result in changes to others (Golombok, 2002). As mentioned earlier, parents play a crucial part in the effective functioning of youth sport programs as they normally take on both formal and informal roles to facilitate their offspring’s participation. In fact, parents have reported the main purpose of organized youth sport is to provide positive and fun learning experiences (Costa et al., 2020), which makes it 14 reasonable to suggest they may be particularly motivated to be involved in these experiences. Youth may also perceive parental involvement in a favorable way. Trussell (2016) examined youth perceptions regarding their parent’s volunteerism in youth sport organizations. Underlying much of young people’s discourse was the value placed on having more opportunities to connect with their parents through moments of togetherness and development. In studies of mental health and well-being, family connectedness has been found to act as a protective factor for youth as it provides the steppingstone for a positive developmental trajectory (Crespo et al., 2009; Houltberg et al. 2012; Madge & Willmott, 2007). A healthy family has been characterized by quality time being spent together, having shared interests, effective communication, and a certain degree of adult (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2011). It has been argued that positive parenting involves providing autonomy and fostering self-regulation by supporting the child’s perspectives and self-expression (Ryan & Deci, 2018). Furthermore, it may also be fruitful to afford: (1) structure, which means by providing clear guidelines for proper behavior and reinforcing behavioral and social competence, and (2) involvement, which refers to cognitive and emotional resources that may lead to a an enhanced sense of safety and support (Grolnick, 2009; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). It is interesting to note the similarities between the characteristics mentioned above and Coleman’s (1988) application of social capital to the family environment. Family social capital refers to the relationships between parents and offspring, and may be assessed through five components: (a) family structure, (b) quality of parent child-relationship (e.g., time spent in shared activities), (3) interest in offspring, (4) parental monitoring (e.g., knowing offspring’s friends and respective parents), and (5) extended family support. 15 Social Capital Methodological Considerations Based on the previous literature review of social capital, it seems reasonable to suggest that, in order fully explore this concept without being negligent to its complex nature, it is necessary to assess both its structural and cognitive dimensions. The former requires the analysis of networks and resources available within, and one’s participation in both formal and informal activities. The latter involves examination of psychosocial factors, such as the perceived social trust and reciprocity that characterizes one’s network. It should be noted that, in general, scholars acknowledge the tenet that social capital is mainly network-based (Bourdieu, 1980, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000), thus the current study shall place considerable emphasis on social network analysis. Network/Structural Social Capital In the last two decades, scholars have begun to apply procedures and techniques stemming from Social Network Analysis (SNA) when examining social capital (Abbasi et al., 2014; Lakon et al., 2009). Such techniques are useful when exploring the content and patterns of connections in social networks and further understand the implications of these (Tabassum et al., 2018). SNA is frequently employed to identify influential (i.e., popular) individuals, also called ‘actors’, discover social hubs, and examine how resources flow within networks (Tabassum et al., 2018). A social network consists of the relationships that exist between a set of actors, which may vary between acquaintances and close bonds. Social networks are normally represented as graphs, which have two primary units: vertices and edges (Hansen et al., 2020). Vertices represent individual entities, such as people, organizations, or even countries. The connection 16 (i.e., relationship) between a pair of vertices defines an edge, which may represent several different types of relationships (e.g., friends, family, cooperation, flow of information) and is either symmetric (undirected graphs) or asymmetric (directed graphs). A pair of actors that exchange information in a bidirectional manner is an example of an undirected edge, while an employee who receives orders from their superior is an example of a directed edge. Edges may be further analyzed in regard to the value assigned to each of them (Hansen et al., 2020). Unweighted graphs are binary, that is, a relationship either exists or it does not. Weighted graphs provide much richer information, such as whether a specific connection is strong (i.e., close relationships) or weak (i.e., acquaintances) (Granovetter, 1977). Weighted graphs may be particularly useful in studies of social capital, as it allows researchers to examine not only the existing relationships, but also the flow of resources, such as information, goods, or social support. The predominant approach in studies of social capital is the use of a name-generating methodology, in which participants are asked to list people who they know and provide additional demographic and relational information. This is a person-focused approach as it provides information concerning significant connections independent of their hierarchical position (Verhaeghe & Li, 2014). The alternative is a position-generating methodology, which asks actors to list people they know who occupy specific hierarchical or occupational positions (e.g., politician, schoolteacher, waitress). This approach is structure-focused and is useful for better understanding an actor’s access to different levels of hierarchy (Moore & Kawachi, 2017). The type of measure employed varies according to the level of analysis to be conducted (Tabassum et al., 2018). Analyzing whole networks allows for an assessment of the overlying structure of that network and the properties that characterize it. The analysis of small units (i.e., 17 nodes) is used to identify keys actors in a network, by exploring measures of centrality (i.e., prestige), such as degree, density, and closeness, which provide information regarding the position occupied by an actor in the overall structure of the network. Therefore, to explore the structural/network dimension of social capital, sport parents’ networks and the resources available within will be assessed. Moreover, the amount of resources available will be used to measure the strength of each social connection. Thus, the current study will examine weighted network graphs using the notion of degree centrality (kV), which is a measure of the involvement of a specific node in the network and is calculated by summing their number of connections. As parents get involved in their offspring’s sport participation and interact with other adult stakeholders, they may develop both weak and strong social connections. Using SNA, it is possible to analyze not only the number of one’s social connections developed in the youth sports context, but also their strength, as some connections provide different types and quantities of resources. Cognitive/Communitarian Social Capital The cognitive/communitarian approach to social capital has been commonly measured using items from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods survey (PHDCN; Earls et al., 1997). The PHDCN is an interdisciplinary study led by the Harvard School of Public Health with the objective of understanding how demographic variables relate to juvenile delinquency, crime, and violence. It is composed of two sequential studies: (a) an investigation into the organizational, social, and economic structure of Chicago neighborhoods, and (b) longitudinal study of thousands of youth who provide information regarding the ever- changing circumstances of their physical and social environment. 18 The survey used in the PHDCN assesses neighborhood residents’ perceptions regarding the conditions and dynamics within their environment and consists of six sections: (a) social, economic, and demographic structure, (b) organizational/political structure, (c) informal social control, (d) social cohesion, (e) social disorder, and (f) cultural structure. For the current study items will be adapted from the ‘social cohesion’ section, which reflect one’s perceived trust in others and their level of reciprocity. As parents develop social connections within the youth sport context, those who volunteer for both formal and informal roles may be required to interact with other adult stakeholders, which may involve a certain degree of cooperation, trust, and reciprocity. Therefore, cognitive measures will allow for a better understanding of how parents develop social capital as they coordinate their actions in the youth sport context. Parent-Child Relationship Families consist of interconnected subsystems organized in a hierarchical structure of power and are further characterized by the notion of adaptive self-organization (Golombok, 2002). With this in mind, families strive to achieve a dynamic balance, especially as individuals mature and have new experiences. Such developmental changes result in the rise of new structures and dynamics (Cox & Paley, 2003) and subsequently impact the position occupied by each member of the family. Young children depend greatly on their parents not only for safety, but also healthy development (Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015). Research has highlighted the crucial role parents play in their children’s emotional, social, and cognitive development (Gadsden et al., 2016). Therefore, parents need to be proactive, involved, and 19 supportive, as they demonstrate appropriate levels of parental warmth (i.e., affect) and control (i.e., sensitivity) towards their young children. As children mature into adolescents, they experience developmental changes that lead to a potential restructuring of the parent-adolescent relationship, which would ideally require effective communication to be dealt with in a healthy manner (Casey et al., 2008). Woodman and MacArthur (2017) conducted semi-structured interviews with fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds regarding their perceptions of family connectedness. Their results revealed how adolescents not only valued when parents showed an interest in their activities, were present, and had shared interests/experiences (factors that may be provided by the youth sports context), but also appreciated effective communication, feeling comfortable when talking to parents, and having their perspective valued. Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest that parent-adolescent dyads that display healthy and effective communication are likely to possess a positive relationship. As parents get involved and support their offspring’s sport participation, they create opportunities for togetherness (e.g.., shared interests and experiences) and communication (e.g., sport specific interactions, emotional/behavioral feedback), which may result in an enhanced parent-child relationship. Considering the developmental differences and elements that characterize parent’s relationship and communication with children and adolescents, the current study will administer two separate psychometric instruments, which specifically assess the parent-child and parent-adolescent relationship. Mixed-Method Mixed method, which combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, have been increasingly employed in the social sciences (Mistry et al., 2016). While the latter is characterized by high generalizability, the former provides more in-depth understanding of a 20 certain phenomenon. Therefore, by combining both methods it is possible to extract much richer data and arrive at well-informed conclusions. (Creswell & Clark, 2018; Creswell, 2013). Researchers should be aware of their purpose and reasons for adopting such an approach. Mixed method has been employed for a variety of reasons, such as (a) to combine the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative analysis, (b) explain unusual or contradictory findings, (c) increase validity, reliability, and generalizability, and (d) data triangulation (Hesse-Biber, 2010). Therefore, this type of approach seems appropriate when investigating complex notions or underexplored topics, such as social capital within the youth sport context There are six primary mixed method designs which are categorized according to the interaction, priority, timing, and mixing of qualitative and quantitative elements: (a) convergent parallel design, (b) explanatory sequential design, (c) exploratory sequential design, (d) embedded design, (e) transformative design, and (f) multiphase design (Creswell, 2013). The current study will adopt an explanatory sequential design, which is characterized by a priority on the quantitative elements (i.e., surveys and questionnaires), with the purpose of the subsequent qualitative phase being to explain the findings that emerge from the initial quantitative phase. In summary, it seems that organized youth sport may have potential to enhance parent’s relationship with peers and enhance their social capital, while also improving the parent-child relationship. These improved connections with peers and offspring may concomitantly boost parent’s subjective well-being. 21 CHAPTER III METHOD Procedure After obtaining approval to conduct the study, convenience sampling was employed by sending an invitation letter to youth sport organizations explaining the nature and purpose of the study. Those that were receptive to the idea were requested to forward the invitation e-mail to all sport parents associated with the organization. Furthermore, snowball sampling was employed by requesting that parents, upon completion of all measures, forwarded the invitation e-mail to other sport parents they knew. After obtaining participant consent, the demographic survey, followed by the aforementioned measures, were administered in an online Qualtrics format at a single time point. Only participants who completed all measures were included in the final analysis. After analyzing the quantitative data, a subsample was recruited from the initial sample to participate in semi-structured interviews in order to explore the mechanisms that may link parental involvement in youth sport, social capital, parent-child relationship, and well-being. Participants Seventy-four participants were recruited from youth sports clubs and organizations located in the Midwestern United States. Participants were parents with at least one child who had been involved in organized sport for a minimum of one season. Frequencies regarding the current sample’s demographic variables are displayed in table 1. 22 Table 1. Frequencies of demographic variables of study sample Variable Gender Female Male Education High school or equivalent Some college Technical/junior college N (%) (N = 74) 58 (78.4) 16 (21.6) (N = 74) 1 (1.4) 8 (10.8) 1 (1.4) College or university 36 (48.6) Post-graduate degree Employment Full-time 28 (37.8) (N = 74) 62 (83.8) 23 Variable Type of community Suburb Rural Small city/town Urban Relationship status Married Divorced Single Other N (%) (N = 74) 35 (47.3) 16 (21.6) 14 (18.9) 9 (12.2) (N = 74) 63 (85.1) 5 (6.8) 4 (5.4) 2 (2.7) Family structure (N = 74) Table 1 (cont’d) Part-time Work and go to school Homemaker Other Prefer not to answer Race White/Caucasian White European Irish/English descent Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Asian Mixed 4 (5.4) 2 (2.7) 3 (4.1) 2 (2.7) 1 (1.4) (N = 74) 56 (75.7) 1 (1.4) 1 (1.4) 5 (6.8) 3 (4.1) 2 (2.7) 3 (4.1) Two-parent One-parent Other Parent of… Adolescent (age > 12) Child (age ≤ 12) 24 63 (85.1) 8 (10.8) 3 (4.1) (N = 74) 42 (56.8) 32 (43.2) Demographic Survey Measures Participants were requested to provide information regarding themselves (e.g., race and education), their offspring’s sport participation (e.g., number of sports), and the sport context in which they were involved (e.g., competitive vs recreational). Youth Sport Involvement Participants were requested to provide information regarding the level of involvement in their offspring’s sports participation. Different dimensions of parental involvement were assessed through the number of seasons in which they have played the role of sport parent and the frequency with which they attend their offspring’s practices and games. Furthermore, participants indicated the different types of youth-related volunteer roles they have been involved, such as assistant coach, fundraiser, and others. Social Capital Participants social capital was assessed by measuring each of its dimensions (i.e., network/structural and cognitive/communitarian). The network/structural dimension was analyzed through participant’s social networks (i.e., patterns of social ties between individuals). Participants listed people with whom they perceived to have a relationship with as a result of being a sport parent. In addition, participants specified the different types of resources (e.g., social, emotional, financial) available through each of their social connections by indicating their agreeableness with statements such as: “I can count on this person for emotional support when I am feeling sad or worried about something”. The cognitive/communitarian dimension of social capital was assessed by having participants indicate the perceived level of trust and reciprocity that characterizes each of their 25 social connections. This was achieved by having participants respond to two items from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Community Survey (PHDCN; Earls et al., 1997) deemed to represent the notion of trust and reciprocity. The PHDCN is an interdisciplinary survey that focuses on neighborhood social conditions, demographics, and several social capital related variables (Lochner et al., 2003; Sampson & Graif, 2009). Both items were slightly modified as to reflect individual rather than neighborhood connections and were set up on a four-point scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree) Well-Being Participant’s well-being was assessed with the General Well-Being Scale (GWB; Dupuy, 1978) developed during the 1970s for use in the US Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The GWB is a self-administered questionnaire that assesses one’s subjective well-being and distress and consists of 18 items spanning six dimensions: anxiety, depression, general health, positive well-being, self-control, and vitality. The initial 14 items are set up on a six-point response scale (e.g., frequency or intensity) and the remaining four items use a rating scale ranging from 0 to 10. Some example items include “Have you been in firm control of your behavior, thoughts, emotions, or feelings?” and “Has your daily life been full of things that are interesting to you?”. Scores on the GWB scale range from 0 to 110 and are differentiated between severe distress, moderate distress, and positive well-being. This questionnaire has been widely used in both clinical and large-scale population-based studies (Fish, 2011) with a reported coefficient alpha ranging from .90 to.95 (McDowell & Newell, 1987) Parent-Child Relationship As the age of participant’s offspring included in the current study was considerably inclusive, the quality of parent’s relationship with young children (≤ 12 years) or adolescents (≥ 26 12 years) was assessed using two different instruments. As children enter adolescence, their relationship with parents tends to become more horizontal due to their cognitive development and parents exerting less social control (Branje, 2018). Furthermore, adolescence is associated with developmental changes that require restructuring, negotiating, and managing the parent- adolescent relationship (Casey et al., 2008). Therefore, the quality of communication may be seen as sensible proxy when assessing the relationship between parents and adolescents. The Parent-child relationship was assessed with the personal relationship subscale from the Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire (Furman & Giberson, 1995), which measures the level of intimacy, companionship, and nurturance between parent and child from pre-school age to 12 years. This subscale consists of 10 items set up on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Hardly at all’ to ‘Extremely much’. Example items include “How much do you and this child go places and do things together?” and “How much do you and this child give each other a hand with things?”. Scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating a better personal relationship. This instrument has been reported to have an alpha coefficient ranging from .71 to .91 (Gerdes et al., 2003). Alternatively, the parent-adolescent relationship was assessed with the Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olson, 1985). This measure consists of 20 items set up on a five-point response scale ranging from “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”. Example items include “My son/daughter has a tendency to say things to me which would be better left unsaid” and “I find it easy to discuss problems with my son/daughter”. Scores range from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating positive communication. This measure has been extensively used in family communication studies (Bandura et al., 2011) and has a reported alpha coefficient ranging from .77 to .87 (Barnes & Olson, 1985). 27 Semi-Structured Interview In order to obtain a better understanding of factors that may influence the relationship between the youth sport context, social capital, parent-child relationship, and well-being, a subsample of ten participants were recruited from the initial sample to participate in semi- structured interviews. The interview revolved around topics such as their perceptions of their offspring’s sport participation and how this influences the parent-child relationship, their interactions with other parents, and the overall characteristics of the context in which they were involved. Quantitative Data Analysis Data obtained from the online survey and measures employed in the current study were analyzed using version 25 of the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Both dimensions of social capital were analyzed using social network analysis (SNA). Participant’s networks were analyzed using the concept of degree centrality, which refers to the importance of a specific actor within a network, and may be calculated by summing the value of each individual connection. As the networks within the current study also represent the flow of resources, they are considered weighted networks, meaning each connection may have more or less strength. Thus, degree was equivalent to the strength of one’s connections, in this case, the availability of resources. The structural dimension was assessed through participant’s networks and participation in youth sport. First, the strength of each one of participants’ connections was computed by attributing a number based on the availability of 5 different resources (i.e., emotional, instrumental, informational, financial, career-related) on a scale from one to four. Thus, a 28 specific connection was represented by a value that ranged from five to twenty. Subsequently, the values attributed to each connection were then summed to represent the total level of network/structural social capital that characterized participant’s network. The cognitive/communitarian dimension was assessed using a similar approach. However, as only two items (i.e., trust and reciprocity) were used to measure the cognitive/communitarian dimension of social capital, each one of participant’s connections were attributed a value from two to eight. Again, these values were summed to calculate the total level of cognitive/communitarian social capital that characterized participant’s network. As two different instruments were used to assess parents’ relationship with their offspring, z-scores were computed in order to standardize the scores of both instruments. Statistical analysis involving the parent-child relationship were calculated using standardized z- scores. Multiple regression analysis was conducted in order to understand how well the dependent variable may be predicted, and also vary, according to the independent variables. To explore the first purpose, dimensions of parental involvement (i.e., seasons as sport parent, number of volunteer roles, and attendance at both practice and competition) were entered as independent (predictor) variables, and both social capital and parent-child relationship, as dependent (outcome) variables. To explore the second purpose, social capital and parent-child relationship were entered as independent variables, while well-being was the dependent variable. Qualitative The current study employed an abductive approach when analyzing the qualitative data. The primary objective of such an approach is to generate novel theoretical insights by combining aspects of both inductive and deductive approaches (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). 29 Concepts that guided the subsequent semi-structured interviews were informed by the initial quantitative findings. Furthermore, as there is a scarcity of studies that have examined the interplay between social capital, the parent-child relationship, and well-being in the context of youth sport, it was expected that interviews could potentially give rise to unexpected findings and contribute to novel insights. Both deductive concepts and unexpected findings were explored through participants perceptions and experiences. Bryman (2006) made a call for researchers to explicitly state their rationale for employing a mixed method design (Bryman, 2006) and specify where both quantitative and qualitative approaches will be integrated during the process. The current study integrated both approaches (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) during the interpretation stage, as the qualitative phase was used to provide a deeper understanding of the relationships that emerged from the initial quantitative findings. Data Collection In order to further explore the potential relationship between parental involvement in youth sport, social capital, and the parent-child relationship, participants were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Online interviews were set up with individual participants at a convenient day and time. After reemphasizing their rights as participants and explaining the interview process, the researcher proceeded to explore participants experiences as a sport parent and their interactions with both peers and offspring. After each interview, the researcher immediately engaged in a reflective process, which resulted in notes regarding salient topics discussed by participants. The interview guide may be found as an appendix (Appendix E). 30 Qualitative Analysis The present study employed thematic analysis, which allows for the emergence of data- driven themes (Patton, 1990). The analysis consisted of a five-step process. Step-one included the researcher familiarizing himself with the data by transcribing interviews in full and carefully reading each several times. Step-two involved inductive coding as an iterative process, that is, raw data were given initial codes, which were subsequently reviewed after successive iterative readings/codings of the entire dataset. This resulted in numerous raw data units being recoded in a more appropriate manner. Step-three consisted of assessing all individual codes and grouping these into overarching themes, which then gave rise to higher order themes. Step-four involved employing a critical friend as a measure of rigor (Smith & McGannon, 2017). During this step, main themes and subthemes were presented to two critical friends who were unaware of the previous coding process and whose objective was to challenge the rationale underlying themes and subthemes. An overlap between certain subthemes was identified, which required the researcher to review the emerging structure and also provide more descriptive and representative labels in order for subthemes to represent clear and distinct ideas (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The fifth and final step of qualitative analysis involved theoretical coding, in which themes and subthemes were interrelated to provide a meaningful and coherent story (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 31 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Quantitative Results Frequencies regarding the current sample’s involvement in youth sport are displayed in table 2. Pearson product-moment correlations were conducted in order to explore the relationship between individual variables and are presented in table 3. Table 2. Frequencies of youth sport-related variables Variable N (%) Offspring sport participation N = 74 Single sport Multi-sport Sport context 29 (39.2) 45 (60.8) N = 74 School-based 11 (14.9) Variable N (%) Practice attendance (N = 71) N = 71 Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently 4 (5.6) 14 (19.7) 13 (18.3) 18 (25.4) Community-based 29 (39.2) Nearly always 22 (31) Competition Attendance N = 71 Often 4 (5.6) Nearly always 67 (94.4) Private club 34 (45.9) Perception of offspring’s N = 74 participation Recreational Competitive 25 (33.8) 49 (66.2) 32 Table 3. Pearson correlations between continuous variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Offspring age 13.52 3.22 2. Seasons as sport parent 12.26 11.01 .40** 3. Practice Attendance 3.45 1.30 -.22 .08 4. Competition/Game Attendance 4.94 .25 -.29* .01 -.01 5. Volunteer roles 3.42 1.26 .29 .22 .05 .07 6. Structural social capital 50.43 29.52 -.09 .14 .27* .11 .15 7. Cognitive social capital 14.77 8.97 -.12 .11 .26* .14 .17 .94** 8. Parent-offspring relationship - - -.02 -.16 .13 .17 .22 -.07 -.01 9. Well-being 64.58 3.63 -. 01 -.03 -.07 .22 -.01 -.03 .02 .02 Note. * indicates p < .05; ** indicates p < .01. - Parent-child relationship consisted of z-scores 33 Correlations indicated a positive and moderate association between offspring’s age and the number of seasons as a sport parent, and a negative and weak association between offspring’s age and parental attendance at their competitions. Moreover, a positive and weak relationship between parental attendance at offspring’s practices and both dimensions of social capital (i.e., structural and cognitive) was observed. Last, both structural and cognitive social capital displayed a strong and positive association, supporting the idea that, while these represent distinct dimensions, they are still highly correlated. Participants reported having more than one of their offspring involved in youth sport (M = 2.41, SD = 1.27), as the number of seasons they had been sport parents ranged from one to sixty (M = 12.56, SD = 11.08). Throughout their involvement as sport parents, participants reported having played different volunteer roles (M = 3.48, SD = 2.24) with the five most frequent being: (a) providing snacks, (b) carpooling, and (c) coach or assistant coach. (d) administrator, (e) team parent. Last, participants were able to establish small social networks (M = 5.01, SD = 3.09). The first purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between parental involvement in youth sport (i.e., number of seasons as sport parent, number of volunteer roles, attendance at practice, and attendance at competitions) and both their level of social capital (i.e., structural and cognitive dimensions) and the parent-child relationship. After assessing if the data met the necessary assumptions, three distinct multiple regressions were conducted (for predictor beta values see table 4). The first regression was used to test if parental involvement in youth sport predicted the structural dimension of social capital. The results indicated that the model was non-significant (F(4, 56) = 1.72, p = .16, r2 = .11), though attendance at offspring’s practices contributed significantly, which should be interpreted with much caution. The second multiple 34 regression was used to test if parental involvement in youth sport predicted the cognitive dimension of social capital. The results indicated this model was also non-significant (F(4, 56) = 1.72, p = .16, r2 = .11), though once again parental attendance at practice was a significant contributor. The third multiple regression was used to test if parental involvement in youth sport predicted the parent-child relationship. The results of the regression indicated that the four predictors accounted for 15.7% of the variance (F(4, 55) = 2.57, p = .05, r2 = .16). Only the number of volunteer roles played by parents contributed significantly to the prediction (β = .29, p = .03), while the number of seasons as a sport parent trended towards significance (p = .07). Table 4. Multiple regression results Seasons as sport parent Regression 1 β t p .09 .72 .47 Number volunteer .10 .78 .44 roles Regression 2 β t p .06 .46 .64 .12 .94 .35 Regression 3 β t p -.24 -1.85 .07 .29 2.30 .03* Attendance at .26 2.01 .04* .25 1.97 .05* .14 1.11 .27 practice Attendance .10 .80 .43 .14 1.09 .28 .15 1.23 .22 competition Note. * indicates statistical significance The second purpose of the current study was to assess if both social capital and the parent-child relationship would have an influence on participant’s well-being. A fourth and final 35 regression was conducted. The results indicated that this model was also non-significant (F(3, 60) = 1.33, p = .27, r2 = .015). It is worth noting that participants scores on the General Well-Being Scale suggested the sample was experiencing a stress problem (M = 64.58, SD = 3.63). Moreover, on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely), participants indicated that the current COVID-19 pandemic had a slightly negative impact on their well-being (M = 3.9, SD = 1.47). Qualitative Results Participants Participants were ten youth sport parents recruited from the initial sample for semi- structured interviews. All participants were female and had obtained a minimum of college/university degree, while half had a post-graduate degree. Eight of these participants were employed full-time, while one worked and went to school, and another preferred not to answer. Six participants identified as white, one as white/European, one as Irish/English descent, one as Asian, and one as Middle Eastern and Caucasian. Four participants resided in suburbs, four in a small city/town, and two in a rural community. Regarding their relationship status, eight participants were married, while one was divorced, and one was single. In relation to their family structure, eight participants were in a two-parent household, while two were in a one-parent household. Five participants had two offspring, four had three, while only one participant had a single offspring. Participant’s number of seasons as a sport parent ranged from two to forty-seven (M = 12.3). Six participants perceived their offspring’s participation to be mainly recreational, while four perceived it to be competitive. Descriptive statistics regarding their involvement in the youth sport context is displayed in table 5. 36 Table 5. Subsample’s involvement in youth sport Variable Attendance at practice Nearly always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Attendance at competitions Nearly Always Perception of offspring’s participation Recreational Competitive Type of youth sport context Community-based School-based N (%) (N = 10) 4 (40) 1 (10) 2 (20) 2 (20) 1 (10) (N = 10) 10 (100) (N = 10) 6 (60) 4 (40) (N = 10) 6 (60) 4 (40) Thematic Analysis - Results Through inductive coding, three main themes emerged: a) youth sport context; b) family dynamics; and c) connection to other sport families and community. Within these three main themes, 6 subthemes were identified (See table 6). 37 Participants discussed their perceptions regarding the youth sport context in which they were embedded. Participants identified that, while sport has potential to foster positive outcomes for their offspring, the oftentimes excessive competitiveness stemming from coaches and other parents could have a negative influence on the overall climate, which, in turn, had a negative impact on their experiences within that context. Sport and physical activity were considered beneficial to the parent-child relationship and an important part of family’s daily lives. Finally, in addition to influencing family dynamics, parents’ involvement as spectator and/or volunteers provided varying degrees of opportunity to connect with other sport families and a sense of belongingness within the community, which had an impact on parent’s social well-being. Table 6. Themes & subthemes Themes 1. Youth Sport Context 2. Family Dynamics 3. Connection to Sport Families & Subthemes • Potential for Positive Youth Development • Pervasive & Lurking Competitiveness • Family Bonding Through Sport • Sport-Related Interactions • Youth Sport Provides Social Connections & Community Resources • Negative Social Interactions 38 Youth Sport Context Participants described both positive and negative aspects of the youth sport context. While youth sport was deemed a fruitful context for fostering positive youth development, it was also frequently described as excessively competitive, which created challenges for parents and their offspring. Such contextual aspects would come to influence the types of social interactions that occurred within that setting, particularly between parents. Potential for Positive Youth Development. All participants discussed how they believed youth sport has potential to foster positive youth development by providing opportunities to acquire and practice life skills (e.g., teamwork, communication, and emotional regulation) while also establishing an active and healthy lifestyle. These positive outcomes not only encouraged parents to get their offspring involved in sport, but also to be involved themselves as spectators, volunteers, and “supporters”. One participant explained: “The joys [of being a sport parent] are seeing my kids, like, enjoy the sports that they're doing. But I also love to see that camaraderie and friendships that they've built through sports. And, so, just seeing them develop in different ways, whether it's through their skill or socially through their play, it's really, really cool.” Pervasive & Lurking Competitiveness. While sport was seen as an overall positive activity in which youth were engaged, participants highlighted how this context can have a detrimental effect on their experiences due to its increasing competitiveness. In such contexts, participants frequently encountered parents with contrasting perspectives regarding the role of youth sport (i.e., fun vs competition). Participants discussed how youth sport has become increasingly commercialized and complained that coaches do not always have youth and their family’s best interest at heart. Coaches frequently pushed youth and their families to specialize with the 39 promise of achieving some sort of success, normally, in the form of scholarships. While parents did not agree with the need to specialize at an early age, they frequently found themselves in a position that required difficult decisions to be made. One participant said: As he gets older, it can be more competitive because his baseball team is already, his coach is already saying, you need to pick a sport, like, you can't do soccer and baseball because the seasons conflict. I don't think he needs to be choosing his lifelong sport already, but… So, we're going to have to make some decisions, I think. Within youth sport, some parents were said to become excessively competitive themselves, which could possibly strain the parent-child relationship. One participant described her neighbor’s involvement: Let me introduce you to my friend. She's a hockey mom. I love her, but oh my god, her life is about pushing her athlete to be the most elite. His whole birth was a birth plan about creating a child to grow into the NHL. It's scary for me. And I love her all the same. But the conflict. You don't want to be at their dinner table. What it does to the kid. Family Dynamics Participants spoke of sport being an activity that provided the entire family with bonding opportunities both in unstructured and organized settings. Furthermore, participants described the many ways they supported their offspring’s participation in organized sport and how their sport- related interactions changed through time. Family Bonding Through Sport. Participants perceived sport to be a “family thing” which was passed down through generations. In fact, throughout their narratives, bonding opportunities through sport were not restricted to parent and child, but rather consisted of several family members, such as siblings, cousins, aunts/uncles, and grandparents. Parent’s own positive 40 experiences within sport created a desire for their offspring to have similar experiences, which led them to “nudge” them into sport. Several participants explicitly emphasized how children’s positive attitudes towards sports was passed on through generations. One participant explained: To me, if your parent was involved in sports in some level, then you're probably going to be more likely to be involved in sports at some level. Because they've either seen the advantage of it or they enjoyed that kind of thing. Such parental influences began at an early age, as participants reported engaging in unorganized sport in their backyards and spending time outdoors engaged in physical activities (e.g., hiking, swimming). One participant said: We try to do a lot. Just kind of fun in the backyard, kicking a ball around or getting out the mitts and the bat and going down to a park. We try to do that as a family… When the weather's right and it's not a pandemic. These bonding moments presented parents opportunities to improve their relationship with their offspring, while also instilling a positive attitude towards sport. Participants discussed how their offspring developing an interest in sports created additional opportunities for them to spend quality time together, especially when it involved a sport they themselves had an interest in: “But on the basketball side, I did grow up playing basketball and I liked playing basketball, so I do give my daughter some advice like boxing out”. Participants were able to bond with their offspring by both playing and watching sport. Such bonding moments gave participants opportunities to discuss not only sport-related topics, but also other aspects of their offspring’s life: “And we talk about the game, we talk about the players, the other team. Sometimes we'll talk about life, not just the sport. We might be talking about school or whatever”. 41 Sport-Related Interactions. Participants described the different ways in which they supported their offspring’s sport participation, which were sometimes referred to as “sacrifices”. Parental involvement and their interactions with youth athletes were said to change with age, as parents became less salient social agents compared to coaches and peers. This led to a restructuring of the parent-child relationship, as parents were required to take a step back, provide more independence, and be more straightforward regarding their offspring’s skills. Throughout this process, parents mentioned challenges such as scheduling multisport participation and balancing other aspects of the family’s life. All participants described how they were happy to be involved in their offspring’s sport participation and supported this in different ways, such as paying for equipment and fees, organizing equipment, driving them to venues, and even helping them improve sport-specific skills. One participant said: “Dad is very, very involved in sports as well. Very involved in A, very much encouraging them to play, and B, wanting them to do their best. And like, if there's things we can do, like, practices or camps or, like, pushing them to, kind of, kind of strive for that competitiveness.” Participants described how, at one point or another, they were “forced” to volunteer in order to “help out” and keep the program going, though they recognized this provided additional bonding opportunities with their offspring. One participant stated: I mean, I figure if you're going to be there anyway, you might as well be involved and help out and it's nice to kind of get to play with the kids and have a positive, I guess, influence and be a role model for them. 42 While sport provided a shared interest and moments of togetherness, participants discussed how their involvement changed as their offspring matured and/or progressed in sport. Younger children were described as more dependent, while older children and adolescents strived for more independence. Participants also noted that coaches and peers became more salient social agents within sport, though they believed their involvement was still seen in a positive manner. One participant said: They get a little bit more competitive and they're more focused on their friends. And I think that’s how it should be. And they're not looking out to see who's watching them on the sidelines. I'm not hearing, like, “mom did you see that goal?”, like I would when they were little and, you know, their focus was more on the parents. I think they want to impress their friends and they want to impress their coach. And us seeing it is a bonus, but they will also get just as excited to tell us about it later. Furthermore, participants spoke of how, at an early age, they simply wanted their children to develop a love for sport and enjoy themselves. As children matured, parents became more honest and direct about the need to commit and engage in deliberate practice if they wanted to progress in sport: I used to just do, like, ‘love of the game’, but now I'm, you know, I just… I level with her about… Because she'll say, “oh, I want to play college” and I'm like, “you're not college material”. Like, “you don't dribble on your days off”. So, I'm not… I don't indulge her into thinking she can just play once in a while and then make a team. Participants discussed how supporting their offspring’s sport participation also posed challenges, such as financial and time constraints. Such barriers made it difficult for parents to consistently be present during practices and competitions, which may have limited their 43 opportunities to interact with both their offspring and other parents. Participants described scheduling issues when more than one child was involved or when children played multiple sports: “The challenges, I think, are wanting to get them involved in and let them try so many things. But then, like, scheduling and being able to get them to sport and be able to manage the different sports”. In addition, participants sometimes struggled when negotiating their offspring’s sport participation and balancing other aspects of their lives (e.g., school, church). One participant stated: “it’s hard to help the kids have a balance and there is a struggle. It's important to try to find the type of team that has the involvement that you and your children can do and navigate”. Connection to Other Sport Families & Community Participants spoke of how their involvement in youth sport provided opportunities to connect with other families and establish a connection with the community. Furthermore, while parents discussed how their social connections provided access to resources and enhanced their social well-being, there were still conflicts that emerged due to the competitive context of youth sport. Youth Sport Provides Social Connections & Resources. Participants discussed how their attendance at youth sport practices and games provided opportunities to interact with other parents on the sidelines. Some discussed how they looked forward to seeing their peers on game days, while others were able to develop stronger bonds which enhanced their social well-being. One participant explained: I've made some lifelong friendships. I mean, we did baseball for the first time this year during COVID and it was actually the best. I don't know if my kids enjoyed it, but it was good for my soul. Just having the connection with other parents. 44 In some cases, these connections carried over into other social settings (e.g., barbecues, birthdays, book club). Such connections were said to provide participants with different forms of social support (i.e., informational, emotional, and instrumental). One participant expressed: And kind of from that same group that started out as just the soccer moms, we do, like, if somebody has a baby or surgery, we bring them meals. There's a lot of, you know, kind of, we’ll run errands for each other. We've done CSA’s together where we share and produce. A lot of things like that. Participants described how youth sport can be a strategic path into the community for newcomers as it provides opportunities to meet and interact with other families. In addition, all participants perceived youth sport to have potential to bring people together around competitions and foster a sense of belonginess and pride within the community. One participant stated: And I think it [youth sport] does, like, instill a sense of pride, like, in the community and in the kids that are playing the sports to do the best they can for their team and to represent everybody well. And I can tell just from, like, you know, they’re still little, but when we go to the high school football games and stuff like that… It's, you know, the whole community kind of comes together and supports the teams. Some parents discussed how youth sport provided opportunities to meet a more diverse group of people. One participant explained: But I will tell you this. I'm… I'm obviously… I'm a white woman and my daughter is biracial, but she is… You would not look at her and say she is biracial. You’d look at her and say she's a black girl. And for me sports have allowed her to be around more black girls and black parents. And, like, there has been more connections that I've had with, like, black families because of sports or even girls of color… And so, there's been this 45 kind of, I don't know, a deeper connection to parents of color in the community that I don't get outside of just being in my neighborhood or whatever While the youth sport context was considered to be a space with potential to connect distinct social groups and mitigate racial tensions, not everyone takes advantage of such opportunities. One participant who identified as white and was married to an African American lamented: One thing that I would note though, is that with everything that's happened about racial relationships in America… I was thinking about back to the soccer team experiences and it’s, like, that would be a good chance for people of different races to intermingle and become friends. And what's really sad is, I’m looking back and thinking about it. I made several friends with African American parents. But to be honest, when I look back, I was pretty… Sometimes I was really about the few people that really made an effort to reach out and to connect. Participants also described how youth sports are an asset to local communities, especially when accessible and inclusive programs are available: I think it [youth sport] is so very important for our community, especially if you can get something that is equitable and available for all income levels. I think it's so uniting. I think sports can be one of those things that can bring people of all kinds of backgrounds together. And East Lansing, I think, does a great job of just making it accessible for all people and to have that availability for kids, just to play and be kids. Negative Social Interactions. While participants discussed how small communities are capable of fostering a strong bond between local residents, these connections made it difficult for newcomers to infiltrate and obtain information regarding youth sport programs for their offspring: “I've 12-year-old twin boys. And ever since we've started sports, because we moved 46 here five years ago, I feel like it's hard to infiltrate into the whole thing, the who's who or whatever”. Participants described how these strong bonds gave rise to cliques which often resulted in instances of favoritism and, consequently, limited other children’s opportunities: I think the thing about sports that's also frustrating, if you're not from the community… I think you tend to be overlooked… your kids tend to be overlooked or not given the fair shake based on their abilities. It's more based on who you know. Such experiences were deemed to be negative not only for children, but also for their parents. Moreover, some participants described feeling pressured to be “ideal parents”, and consistently offered their time and resources in order to feel part of the group: And then there's also sometimes that pressure to be, like, one of the best parents, who comes to every game. And there's always some pressure to make sure you contribute to coaches’ gifts and stuff like that, where that can get pricey. Curiously, though their involvement in youth sport provided social connections which made resources available, the pressure to be “ideal parents” sometimes pushed participants to spend their individual resources in order to fit in. One participant explained: I would feel guilty if I didn't contribute because I'm a single mom. And a lot of the parents around here are dual income, not hoity-toity, but… So, then I would feel like I had to do more to show, like, “Hey, look at me, my daughter can hang”. So, I would buy more than other people would buy even though they were making double incomes and I was the single mom. Participants also discussed how there are different types of parents within the youth sport context. Participants described parents’ that had contrasting perspectives regarding the role of 47 youth sport (i.e., fun vs competition). Different beliefs sometimes gave rise to negative social interactions such as gossip, eye-rolling, and even verbal altercations, which ultimately diminished the group’s social cohesion. Such experiences were said to cause stress and discomfort for other parents. Discussing the consequences of a fallout between volunteer parent- coaches, one participant affirmed: “People were a little bit more cautious about who they talked to and who they stood by then in any other season. It was a little bit… Yeah. A little bit less casual”. In summary, parents’ chose to involve their offspring in sport and made efforts aimed at facilitating their participation due to the belief that this context can foster positive physical and psychosocial outcomes. However, the oftentimes excessive competitiveness within youth sport can have a negative impact on parents’ relationship with their offspring and interactions with other adult stakeholders (i.e., parents and coaches). Sport was considered an important aspect of family’s daily lives and frequently involved not only parents, but also other family members (e.g., cousins, grandparents). Such family influences began at an early age through unstructured sports play and outdoor activities, which ultimately instilled in youth a positive attitude towards sport. This shared interest resulted in more frequent bonding opportunities for parents and their offspring, which allowed them to discuss different aspects of their children’s lives (e.g., school, friends) and inculcate life lessons. The manner in which parents were involved in their offspring’s sport participation changed as children matured. First, youth strived for more independence and became more preoccupied with peers and coaches, requiring parents to take a more hands-off approach. Second, parents were also required to become more honest about the need to commit if they were 48 to compete at higher levels. Last, parents also faced challenges negotiating their offspring’s sport participation and balancing other aspects of their lives (e.g., school, church). Within the youth sport context, participants were able to develop social connections with other parents as they interacted on the sidelines. Some of these connections developed into friendships which carried over into other contexts, which ultimately provided access to social support. This not only facilitated parents’ involvement in sport, but also made them feel part of the local community. While youth sport was seen as a pathway into the community, some issues did arise. Families that were new to the community faced challenges when obtaining information regarding accessible youth sport programs and found it difficult to infiltrate that context due to cliques made of parents who were born and raised within the community. Such cliques sometimes resulted in parent coaches playing favorites, which limited other youth’s participation. Furthermore, the competitive side of youth sport posed additional issues, such as conflicts between parents with contrasting perspectives and values. 49 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between the degree of parental involvement in their offspring’s sport participation, social capital, the parent-child relationship, and one’s subjective well-being. Specifically, the first purpose was to explore the influence of parental involvement on participant’s level of both structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital and the parent-child relationship. The second purpose was to assess if participant’s level of social capital (i.e., structural and cognitive) and the quality of the parent- child relationship would predict subjective well-being. The final purpose was to gain a better understanding of the relationship, or lack thereof, between the aforementioned variables through semi-structured interviews. Taken together, the integration of both quantitative and qualitative results suggests that parental involvement in their offspring sports participation may have an influence not only on the parent-child relationship, but the family as a whole. Families played an important role in fostering positive attitudes towards sport and physical activity from an early age not only by engaging in unstructured sport play, but also providing different forms of support as children transitioned into organized sport. While parents considered volunteering in youth sport as an obligation, this ultimately had a positive impact on the parent-child relationship as their involvement provided a shared interest and additional bonding. However, there were still challenges to be faced as children matured and/or progressed through sport, such as balancing their participation and other activities. Moreover, while parents were only able to develop a limited number of social connections, these still provided access to certain resources such as emotional and instrumental 50 support. The current sample was embedded in what they considered to be an oftentimes excessively competitive youth sport environment, as coaches, and even some parents, pushed for early specialization. This competitiveness was also said to give rise to conflicts as parents had different perspectives regarding the purpose of youth sport. Moreover, participants perceived small communities to be auspicious for the development of close-knit groups of parents that were born and raised within the community, sometimes resulting in cliques and families feeling excluded. Therefore, parental involvement in youth sport was not enough for enhancing one’s social capital. Parent-Child Relationship Participants discussed how youth sport had a positive impact not only on the parent-child relationship, but the entire family’s dynamic. While the current study focused on one parent’s involvement in only one offspring’s sport, it likely only scratches the surface as, on average, participants had more than one child and were frequently involved in different sport contexts. Sport also had a significant impact and played an important role for families and their daily functioning. Similar to past studies (Dorsch, 2009; Knight et al., 2016), parent’s own developmental histories and positive experiences within youth sport encouraged them to have their children be involved, and consequently, influenced their offspring’s inclination towards sport. Participants suggested that unstructured sport play, which frequently involved several extended family members, was children’s first experiences in sport. Within this safe space, children were able to develop positive attitudes towards sport and physical activity. Such results are consistent with other studies that have demonstrated how “sporting cultures” are passed down through generations both through beliefs and behaviors (Wheeler, 2011). In addition, by engaging in sport and physical activities from an early age, it is possible that children were not 51 only able to develop positive attitudes, but also a sense of competence, which is crucial for long- term sport participation (Stodden et al., 2008). Previous studies (Dorsch et al., 2009) have suggested that parents that lack a background in sport may feel restricted in their involvement, as they are unable to provide sport-specific advice or feedback, though they may still provide other forms of support. As children transition into organized sport, parents face novel experiences and challenges. Consistent with previous studies (Côté, 1999; Harwood & Knight, 2015; Knight et al., 2016), participants described how youth sport participation required considerable parental involvement as children are highly dependent on them for financial, organizational, and logistical reasons. This required parents to invest a considerable number of resources and also face stressors, such as not being there for their children due to other commitments (e.g., work). In fact, parents suggested they frequently made sacrifices for the sake of their offspring’s sport participation, such as spending Mother’s Day watching youth soccer games. While volunteering for different roles within youth sport was considered to be a sacrifice, parents were able to further their connection with their offspring through a fun and enjoyable activity. While volunteering was not initially seen in a positive light, parents recognized how this may provide additional bonding opportunities, especially when volunteering in a sport that they themselves had played when they were younger, as they were able to provide sport-specific feedback and advice. Such behavioral manifestations of supportive parental involvement are relevant for the parent-child relationship as youth may perceive this as a demonstration of affect and parents showing an interest in their activities. Parental involvement was described as dynamic and changed as participant’s offspring matured and/or progressed through sport. At an early age, parents are responsible for 52 developmental tasks such as fostering a “love for sport” by providing a safe and fun environment for children to develop physically and socially. However, as children mature into adolescents, not only do they strive for more autonomy and independence, but also peers and coaches become more salient social agents. Such changes may pose an additional challenge for sport parents, as this may require restructuring the parent-child relationship. Parents are sometimes required to take a step back, though it is still necessary to negotiate their offspring’s sports participation and help them find a balance between sport and other important life domains. This may be particularly challenging when youth sport coaches attempt to push kids into a specialization pathway without consideration of the family’s position. Moreover, parents themselves tended to become more competitive and “brutally honest” concerning their offspring’s sport participation. As children grew older, participant’s perspective regarding the role of youth sport shifted from that of providing a fun and enjoyable activity to a more performance-oriented activity, which required youth to frequently engage in deliberate practice. The notion of dynamic and ever- changing parental roles in youth sport is consistent with the classic qualitative study conducted by Côté (1999), which suggested the manner in which parents interact and support young athletes evolves as youth transition between different stages of sport participation (i.e., sampling, specializing, and investment years), Furthermore, participants suggested that as children matured and/ or progressed in sport, parents tended to become increasingly competitive and attempted to live vicariously through their offspring. Curiously, it was always other parents that displayed negative behaviors. While some participants did admit to sometimes behaving poorly on the sidelines, they quickly became aware of how this behavior was detrimental and, eventually, became more supportive. Knight and colleagues (2016) suggested that some parents are simply more aware of how their behavior 53 may impact their offspring and, thus, attempt to self-regulate in order to be more supportive. In the current study, participants also described learning what constitutes appropriate sideline behavior by observing other parents. Interestingly, participants also suggested that within parent dyads, mother and father may play different roles regarding their offspring’s sports participation. Fathers were described as more competitive and pushing youth to be more competitive, while mothers were considered to be the one’s responsible for picking up the pieces and providing emotional support. While being a sport parent is no easy task, overall, it does provide parents with additional opportunities to interact and communicate with their offspring not only concerning sport-related topics, but also other aspects of their lives. Parents need to be aware of the impact their involvement may have on their offspring’s experiences within sport as this may influence short and long-term participation. This is important not only as sport may provide their offspring with opportunities for positive youth development, but also potentially enhance the parent-child relationship. Social Capital The results of the current study suggest that participants were considerably involved within the youth sport context. However, they were only able to establish a limited number of social connections, though this still provided access to different forms of social support. This is consistent with other studies that have shown that the influence of youth sport on parent’s social connections is only modest, though enough to instill a feeling of connectedness (Hoye et al., 2012; Kim, 2020) The ambiguous results obtained from the quantitative and qualitative approaches suggest the question of whether youth sport is an effective means of enhancing social capital is far more 54 complex than predicted. Therefore, assessing social capital through a person-context fit is likely to provide more accurate information concerning under which conditions social capital may potentially be influenced by one’s involvement in youth sport. Contextual Features The results of the current study suggest certain contextual factors may moderate the relationship between parental involvement in youth sport and the development of social capital. Two prominent contextual features emerged as potentially influencing social capital: (1) competitive environment, and (2) small community Competitive Environment The sample in the current study was mainly involved in what they perceived to be a competitive youth sport context as almost half of participants had their offspring playing in private sport clubs and also indicated their participation to be competitive rather than recreational. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of participants indicated they were nearly always present at their offspring’s competitive games/events, while during practices their attendance was less frequent, suggesting competition was of more value. As youth sport has undergone a process of commercialization - quality community programs become scarcer, while private and expensive programs multiplied - participation has become increasingly competitive (Coakley, 2010, 2011). Such transformation has led to negative outcomes, such as the exclusion of certain social groups and negative parent interactions with both their offspring and other adult stakeholders (Coakley, 2010, 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that the current sample’s level of social capital, which implies cooperation and reciprocity, did not exhibit an association with parental involvement. In fact, participants in the present study made a point of discussing issues that stemmed from the highly competitive youth 55 sport context, even though this was not explicitly inquired during interviews. Youth sport was perceived to be excessively competitive as coaches consistently pushed youth and their families towards early specialization and some parents attempted to live vicariously through their offspring. Therefore, it appears that excessively competitive contexts may undermine the idea of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation for mutual benefit, limiting the development of parent’s social capital. This is further supported by the fact that participants who frequently attended their offspring’s sports practices, a more laid-back context when compared to competitive games, were more likely to enhance their social capital. Small Community Although all participants were able to develop modest networks which provided them access to resources, it was suggested that residing in small communities resulted in distinct experiences for newcomers and those who were born and raised within the community. Participants born and raised within the community suggested their socialization into youth sport was facilitated by the fact they already had long-term bonds with other parents they knew from overlapping contexts, for instance, school and church. Such dynamics suggest these parents may have more of the bonding type of social capital, that is, strong connections between individuals with similar backgrounds and values (Johnson, 2016; Kirkby-Geddes et al., 2013; Putnam, 2000). Bonding social capital is a double-edged sword; on one hand, it provides a strong sense of trust and reciprocity, on the other, it limits individuals’ opportunities to come in contact with new ideas and attitudes. Furthermore, bonding social capital may lead to the establishment of social cliques. Indeed, several participants perceived cliques to exist within youth sport. This was particularly noticeable as parent-coaches played favorites when selecting team rosters and allocating playing time for young athletes. Such social dynamics resulted in some youth being 56 excluded, which was deemed to be a negative experience for parents and their offspring. These issues were perceived mainly by participants new to the community and/or sport context, which, coupled with a lack of organization and coordination regarding youth sport, resulted in families struggling to infiltrate and navigate that context. While studies have suggested youth sport to be a strategic way to establish connections with other sport families within their community (Dorsch et al., 2014), it appears this is not as straightforward, as contextual factors are likely to determine how effective this strategy may actually be. It is possible that within sport programs that involve younger children, it is easier for parents to infiltrate and establish connections with other families. Though not always explicitly stated, sport programs for younger children tend to focus on providing fun and enjoyable experiences rather than fostering competition. Furthermore, youth sport was suggested to provide a space “unlike any other” for different social groups to interact, which could possibly even mitigate racial tensions. Such ideas are consistent with those proposed by Allport’s Intergroup Contact Theory (Pettigrew, 1998), which hypothesizes that, when different groups work together towards common goals, biases and stereotypes may be shattered. Furthermore, Harris (1998) argued that sport may be crucial for fostering civic engagement and has potential to go beyond gender, racial, and class boundaries, and, eventually, contribute to social capital. While such ideas suggest that youth sport has potential to bring people together and foster community cohesion, it is unlikely to be true for those involved in the many commercialized programs (i.e., competitive and expensive) that often exclude certain social groups and remain homogeneous (Coakley, 2010, 2011). Moreover, even within community- and school-based sport contexts, the idea of sport fostering social capital may not hold up, as participants in the qualitative phase of the current study suggested these are also 57 oft excessively competitive. In order to experience community-level benefits, such as enhanced social capital, youth sport programs need to be made accessible and inclusive to all. Person-Based Features The results also revealed how certain individual characteristics of youth sport parents may either stagnate or hinder the development of social capital within that context. Three person- based features emerged: (1) membership to dominant social groups, (2) reasons for parental involvement, and (3) beliefs regarding the role of youth sport. Membership to Dominant Social Groups Overall, the current study’s sample consisted of socially dominant groups (e.g., white, highly educated, two-parent household), which may have had a significant impact on the results. Indeed, as the importance of social capital lies within its potential to be converted into human, cultural, and economic capital, and also provide psychosocial resources that act as protective factors for one’s well-being (e.g., social support), this concept may be more salient for marginalized social groups that lack such resources and face a larger number of stressors (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Uphoff et al., 2013). Reasons for Parental Involvement in Youth Sport The reasons that motivate parents to involve their offspring and themselves in youth sport may also have an influence on the degree of social interactions and connections established within that context. Social capital is a by-product of social interactions and its development depends on individual and/or collective investment strategies with the purpose of establishing social connections that can eventually lead to resources (Bourdieu, 1986). In other words, if one does not perceive the usefulness of such social connections and, therefore, does not make an effort to develop these, it is unlikely their social capital will be enhanced. Participant interviews 58 suggested their involvement in youth sport was motivated solely by the possibility of their offspring experiencing positive outcomes (e.g., life skills and improved health) and that socialization with other parents was merely a side effect. In fact, while participants indicated having volunteered in several different ways, the majority suggested this was due to two main reasons: (a) they were either pressured and felt “forced to” volunteer, as most parents attempted to avoid the responsibility leaving vacant positions to be filled, and/or (2) they perceived volunteering as necessary to keep the program going, which ultimately allowed their offspring to continue involved and experience the positive outcomes of sport they craved. Thus, it seems most parents do not volunteer in youth sport for the greater good, but rather for their offspring’s own benefit. This may partly explain why parents, while certainly having opportunities to interact with a number of adults stakeholders throughout their involvement, only developed modest social networks within that context. It is interesting that parents affirmed that their goal was for youth to develop life skills and become well-rounded individuals. In fact, it has been argued that sport is an ideal context in which to learn skills that are necessary for enhancing social capital (and democracy), such as, communication skills, taking responsibility, and respect for others, (Jarvie, 2003). Thus, youth sport has the potential to enhance parent’s current and offspring’s future social capital. However, by being embedded in excessively competitive sport programs, not only is it unlikely youth will develop all these positive characteristics, but, ironically, may actually develop individualistic tendencies. Still, all participants suggested their connections within youth sport provided access to resources, though most of it consisted of instrumental support, such as organizing carpools and other sport-related activities. Some participants were able to establish stronger connections 59 which carried over into other contexts. This resulted in parents socializing through children’s playdates and birthday parties, lady’s night, CSA’s, and book clubs. Through these connections, participants had access to further resources, such as emotional (e.g., during adoption process) and informational support (e.g., parenting advice). This suggests that parents who made an effort and were able to establish stronger connections had access to more significant resources. Beliefs Regarding the Role of Youth Sport All participants discussed how youth sport may play a role in bringing people together. However, the results of the current study indicate that this does not always or automatically occur within the youth sport context. The reason may be that parents oftentimes have different perspectives regarding the role sport plays in their offspring’s lives. While some parents were simply perceived to have introvert personalities, others were excessively competitive and frequently displayed negative behaviors on the sidelines. Some parents were even said to have attempted to push teams that were embedded within a recreational context into more competitive sport leagues without considering the impact on other youth and their families (e.g., increased expenses). This suggests the need for sport programs to be very clear about their objectives and the expectations placed on parents. Otherwise, these contrasting views are likely to create conflicts between parents, and even potentially between parents and coaches, as some participants described becoming frustrated due to coaches’ lack of competitiveness and their offspring’s team losing games. In conclusion, while parents and society at large have strong beliefs regarding the potential of sport to bring about positive change and revitalize society, simply providing opportunities to play sport is far from sufficient. The positive outcomes associated with sport, especially at the social capital level, are likely to only arise under certain contextual conditions 60 and with some degree of intentionality. In other words, while involvement and participation within youth sport is a necessary condition, the manner in which this involvement manifests itself is likely to be the crucial ingredient. Therefore, efforts at implementing sport programs with the explicit goal of enhancing connections between those involved and, consequently, social capital, are direly needed. Methodological Considerations & Future Directions Previous studies have demonstrated that involvement in sport has the potential to create denser social networks and slightly enhance social capital (Cramm et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2020; Legh-Jones & Moore, 2012; Moore et al., 2011; Nieminen et al., 2013; Sampson & Graif, 2009). However, most of these have relied on quantitative methods, which are unlikely to capture the complexity of social capital, as the quality of interactions between individuals is not assessed. While it is clear that participation in social groups and activities is necessary for social capital to be developed, the results of this study suggest that the manner in which such participation is manifested is far more important. The first issue that arises from limiting the study of social capital to quantitative methods is that there is no measure developed with this specific purpose. To make matters worse, there is also no consensus on what proxy measures should be employed (Bassett & Moore, 2013; Putnam, 2001). Some studies have assessed social capital by quantifying participants membership to different community/social groups, while others have simply prompted participants to indicate the number of people with whom they have interacted. However, simply quantifying one’s connections or membership to groups does not account for the complexity of social interactions and, consequently, social capital. 61 Recently, Social Network Analysis has emerged as an interesting alternative when exploring social capital. However, without accounting for the strength of one’s social connections it is not possible to specify the nature of such connections, thus making it difficult to arrive at well-informed conclusions. In the era of social media, knowing other people’s names and background does not necessarily imply a close and reciprocal relationship. Moreover, surveys that probe participants for relational information regarding each of their connections may be problematic, as participants with larger networks will quickly find themselves performing a repetitive and tedious task, which is likely to result in fatigue and, potentially, less than honest responses. On the other hand, adding a qualitative component to social capital research may prove to be useful in capturing the nuances associated with such complex notions (e.g., social capital, socialization, community building) as these are likely to be influenced by contextual and individual characteristics. This is particularly relevant to consider when exploring how social capital may be influenced within specific (e.g., youth sport) rather than all-inclusive contexts. While the study of social capital within sport has made significant strides in recent decades, there are still many questions to be answered, especially within the youth sport context. The current study is exploratory in nature and is thus well positioned to further the study of social capital within youth sport by generating hypothesis that may be explored in the future. Indeed, the ambiguous results obtained suggest the development of social capital within specific contexts is more complex than initially thought. It appears there are several levels of influence that should be further explored, such as contextual characteristics, the overall youth sport culture (e.g., professionalization of sport), societal and individual beliefs, and individual dispositions (e.g., motivation, personality). 62 It would be valuable to assess such complex relations of mutual influence through a relational-development-systems lens (Lerner, 2006). Future studies would do well to employ change-sensitive designs and measures that explore person-context relations in more ecologically representative samples (Magnusson & Stattin, 2007). Furthermore, studies that explore the influence of individual dispositions and behaviors on the plasticity of person-context relations are needed (Magnusson & Stattin, 2007). One of the main challenges for future studies is employing more appropriate designs capable of capturing the quality of the social interactions that occur within youth sport, the strength of connections between individuals, and how these may change with time. Mixed- method designs are well positioned to advance the social capital literature. While discussing the different mixed-method designs is outside of the scope of this paper, the complementarity of both quantitative and qualitative allows researchers to determine relationships, asses the generalizability of their findings, and explore the nuances that characterize the processes involved (Creswell & Clark, 2018; Creswell, 2013). Exploring the experiences of different social groups should be high on the priority list as those who have the most to gain from the positive outcomes associated with youth sport and social capital, are rarely involved in scholarly research (National Institutes of Health, 2011). This may be easier said than done as marginalized social groups tend to be hard to reach, possibly due to negative stereotypes associated with research (National Institutes of Health, 2011). Nevertheless, research should stand for equity and inclusion; thus, it is imperative to advocate for those in less privileged positions. Another important step forward would be to explore characteristics of the contexts in which participants are embedded. While common place beliefs suggest the associational nature 63 of sports to be enough to foster social capital, the current study suggests this is not always the case. Interestingly, even interviewees that were mainly involved in school- and community- based youth sport contexts, suggested these can be quite competitive. Future studies would also do well to assess participants perceptions of the contexts in which they are embedded, rather than assume that a program labeled as ‘community-based’ implies positive interactions and enhanced social capital. Limitations Although the current study paves way for future studies regarding social capital in youth sport, it is not without limitations. First, the sample represented a rather homogenous group of well-educated and intact families and, thus, is not representative of different social groups and family structures. This is particularly relevant, as social capital may be more salient for marginalized social groups. Still, the qualitative phase of the study included a couple of participants that would not be considered to be part of socially dominant groups, at least in terms of ethnicity. These participants provided information regarding how demographic variables, such as race and nationality, may play a role in the development of social capital and suggested youth sport may provide opportunities for connecting with different social groups (e.g., African American community). Considering recent societal trends, exploring how sport and social capital may be used to mitigate racial and ethnic tensions may be a valuable avenue for future research. Second, both dimensions of social capital displayed a strong and positive correlation, indicating these may not be as distinct as previously suggested. Future studies would do well to further explore the factors that distinguish both structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital and consider if these should in fact be treated as two distinct concepts. Third, participants were prompted to discuss their offspring’s and their own involvement in youth sport throughout the 64 years, which may be subject to memory bias. This calls for more studies that explore social capital and the dynamic nature of parental involvement through longitudinal designs. Last, this study explored the parent-child relationship solely through the perspective of one parent. Ideally, future studies should attempt to triangulate data between parents, children, and, potentially, other family members. Moreover, this study only assessed the sport involvement of one offspring, though several participants indicated having two or more. Therefore, in order to fully understand the complexity of family dynamics, it is necessary to assess all their subsystems and their reciprocal influences within the family system (Golombok, 2002). Conclusion Sport has long been considered an ideal context in which positive human development and social connections may be fostered. The reason for such beliefs lies within the associational nature of sport, which involves several stakeholders and provides amble opportunities to interact and learn from others. Moreover, sport may foster positive outcomes such as the acquisition of life skills and improved health and is seemingly an activity that includes individuals from many wakes of life. Youth sport is considered to be particularly important as it constitutes an activity that is attractive to young people and, with some structure, is possible to include educational components. Thus, youth sport has the potential to create functional citizens and make a positive contribution to society. A peculiar characteristic of youth sport is its capacity to involve additional stakeholders, such as athlete’s family members. In particular, parental involvement in sport may have an impact on the parent-child relationship as they provide support for their offspring’s participation. Furthermore, the great number of youth and families involved in sport suggest this context may provide ample opportunities for social interactions and connections to 65 be established between stakeholders. Thus, in theory, sport may not only play an important role for the parent-child relationship, but also for the relationship between families, which may influence one’s social capital. The current study demonstrates that parental involvement in youth sport can indeed improve the parent-child relationship. This is particularly true when parental involvement is consistent, which includes providing support (e.g., emotional, organizational, logistical) and volunteering to keep sports functioning properly. The love for sport tends to be a passed on through generations, thus, creating frequent bonding opportunities, be it through organized or unstructured sport play. Nevertheless, being a sport parent is no simple task, as children’s maturation and progress pose challenges for parents and families, such as time and financial constraints, dealing with the pressure to specialize, and balancing other aspects of the offspring’s life. Thus, it is important for parents to be aware and adapt to these changing circumstances. While the results of the current study are consistent with the literature on sport parenting and the overall belief that sport may play a positive role in family dynamics, the same cannot be stated for its potential to establish connections between families and improve one’s social capital. While it is commonplace to suggest that sport brings people together, strengthen communities, and enhance social capital, the current study demonstrates that contextual and person-based features are likely to impact this process. In other words, while youth sport may have potential to enhance one’s social capital, this will only occur within certain conditions. Although there are likely to be many person-context features that influence the prospect of parental involvement in youth sport enhancing one’s social capital, the current study identified some initial relevant features: the overall climate (i.e., recreational vs competitive), community characteristics (i.e., size), membership to specific social groups, and individual dispositions (i.e., beliefs and 66 intentionality). Considering recent societal trends towards individualism and the professionalization of youth sport, it is not surprising that this context provided only a modest number of social connections and, thus, does not have much impact on parents’ social capital. In order for youth sport to enhance social capital, programs need to be accessible, inclusive, and explicitly adopt a communitarian approach, that is, emphasize ideals of neighborhood and kin, social justice, and local community-building (Jarvie, 2003). 67 APPENDICES 68 APPENDIX A: Social Capital Measure For each person you have previously named, please provide the following information. • Structural/Network Dimension: 1. I can count on this person for emotional support when I am feeling sad or worried about something. i. Strongly agree ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree 2. I can count on this person whenever I need some help (Ex: drive your child to practice). i. Strongly agree ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree 3. I can count on this person for general information (Ex: child-rearing advice). i. Strongly agree ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree 4. I can count on this person if I ever have any financial emergency. i. Strongly agree 69 ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree 5. I can count on this person to help out with my professional career (Ex: job interview, advice, connections). i. Strongly agree ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree • Cognitive Dimension: 1. This person can be trusted. v. Strongly agree vi. Somewhat agree vii. Somewhat disagree viii. Strongly disagree 2. This person and I are always willing to do favors and help each other out. i. Strongly agree ii. Somewhat agree iii. Somewhat disagree iv. Strongly disagree 70 APPENDIX B: Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire (PCRQ; Furman & Giberson, 1995) Please respond to the following questions about your child. Please mark “Hardly at all,” “Not too much,” “Somewhat,” “Very much,” or “Extremely much” according to how often the statement applies to your relationship with this child. Response: Hardly at all = 1 Not too much = 2 Somewhat = 3 Very much = 4 Extremely much = 5 1. How much do you and this child do nice things for each other? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How much do you and this child like the same things? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much do you and this child tell each other everything? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How much do you show this child how to do things that he or she 1 2 3 4 5 doesn’t know how to do? 5. How much do you and this child go places and do things together? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How much do you and this child give each other a hand with things? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Some parent figures and children have a lot of things in common, 1 2 3 4 5 while other parent figures and children have a little in common. How much do you and this child have things in common? 71 8. How much do you and this child share secrets and private feelings 1 2 3 4 5 with each other? 9. How much do you help this child with things he or she can't do by 1 2 3 4 5 him- or herself? 10. How much do you play and have fun with this child? 1 2 3 4 5 72 APPENDIX C: The Parent-Adolescent Communication Scale (Barnes & Olsen, 1985) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with EACH of the following statements about the general communication between you and your son/daughter. Response choices: Strongly Disagree = 1 Disagree = 2 Neither Agree Nor Disagree = 3 Agree = 4 Strongly Agree = 5 1. I can discuss my beliefs with my *** without feeling restrained or 1 2 3 4 5 embarrassed. 2. Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my *** tells me. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I am sometimes afraid to ask my *** for what I want. 1 2 3 4 5 4. My *** is always a good listener. 1 2 3 4 5 5. My *** has a tendency to say things to me which would be better left 1 2 3 4 5 unsaid. 6. My *** can tell how I’m feeling without asking. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I am very satisfied with how my *** and I talk together. 1 2 3 4 5 8. If I were in trouble, I could tell my ***. 9. I openly show affection to my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 73 10. When we are having a problem, I often give my *** the silent 1 2 3 4 5 treatment. 11. I am careful about what I say to my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 12. When talking to my ***, I have a tendency to say things that would 1 2 3 4 5 be better left unsaid. 13. When I asked questions, I get honest answers from my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 14. My *** tries to understand my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5 15. There are topics I avoid discussing with my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I find it easy to discuss problems with my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 17. It is very easy for me to express all my true feelings to my ***. 1 2 3 4 5 18. My *** nags/bothers me. 1 2 3 4 5 19. My *** sometimes insults me when she/he is angry with me. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I don’t think I can tell my *** how I really feel about some things. 1 2 3 4 5 74 APPENDIX D: General Well-Being Scale For each question, choose the answer that best describes how you have felt and how things have been going for you during the past month. 1. How have you been feeling in general? a. In excellent spirits b. In very good spirits c. In good spirits mostly d. I’ve been up and down in spirits a lot e. In low spirits mostly f. In very low spirits 2. Have you been bothered by nervousness or your “nerves”? a. Extremely so – to the point I could not work or take care of things b. Very much so c. Quite a bit d. Some – enough to bother me e. A little f. Not at all 3. Have you been in firm control of your behavior, thoughts, emotions, or feelings? a. Yes, definitely so b. Yes, for the most part c. Generally so d. Not too well 75 e. No, and I am somewhat disturbed f. No, and I am very disturbed 4. Have you felt so sad, discouraged, hopeless, or had so many problems that you wondered if anything was worthwhile? a. Extremely so – to the point I have just about given up b. Very much so c. Quite a bit d. Some – enough to bother me e. A little bit f. Not at all 5. Have you been under or felt you were under any strain, stress, or pressure? a. Yes – almost more than I can bear b. Yes – quite a bit of pressure c. Yes – some, more than usual d. Yes – some, but about usual e. Yes – a little f. Not at all 6. How happy, satisfied, or pleased have you been with your personal life? a. Extremely happy – couldn’t have been more satisfied or pleased b. Very happy c. Fairly happy d. Satisfied - pleased e. Somewhat dissatisfied 76 f. Very dissatisfied 7. Have you had reason to wonder if you were losing your mind, or losing control over the way you act, talk, think, feel, or of your memory? a. Not at all b. Only a little c. Some, but not enough to be concerned d. Some, and I’ve been a little concerned e. Some, and I’m quite concerned f. Much, and I’m very concerned 8. Have you been anxious, worried, or upset? a. Extremely so – to the point of being sick, or almost sick b. Very much so c. Quite a bit d. Some – enough to bother me e. A little bit f. Not at all 9. Have you been waking up fresh and rested? a. Every day b. Most every day c. Fairly often d. Less than half the time e. Rarely f. None of the time 77 10. Have you been bothered by any illness, bodily disorder, pain, or fears about your health? a. All the time b. Most of the time c. A good bit of time d. Some of the time e. A little of the time f. None of the time 11. Has your daily life been full of things that are interesting to you? a. All the time b. Most of the time c. A good bit of time d. Some of the time e. A little of the time f. None of the time 12. Have you felt downhearted and blue? a. All the time b. Most of the time c. A good bit of time d. Some of the time e. A little of the time f. None of the time 13. Have you been feeling emotionally stable and sure of yourself? a. All the time 78 b. Most of the time c. A good bit of time d. Some of the time e. A little of the time f. None of the time 14. Have you felt tired, worn out, used up, or exhausted? a. All the time b. Most of the time c. A good bit of time d. Some of the time e. A little of the time f. None of the time Circle the number that seems closest to how you have felt generally during the past month. 15. How concerned or worried about your health have you been? Not concerned at all 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Concerned 16. How relaxed or tense have you been? Not concerned at all 10 8 6 4 2 0 17. How much energy, pep, and vitality have you felt? Very Concerned 79 Not concerned at all 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Concerned 18. How depressed or cheerful have you been? Not concerned at all 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Concerned 80 APPENDIX E: Semi-Structured Interview Guide OPENING QUESTION: “Could you tell me what it is like being a sport parent?” GUIDING QUESTION: “Tell me about your children’s sports participation.” - About what age did your children get involved in organized sports? - Are there specific reasons for their involvement? - What is the role/importance of organized youth sports for your children? - What sports have your children been involved in? GUIDING QUESTION: “Tell me more about your involvement in youth sports.” - What has been the extent of involvement from day one? - Do you attend practices? Tell me about a normal practice day (From drive to the venue, actual practice, and drive home). - Do you attend competitions? How are competitions like for you? - What roles have you volunteered for? What was required of you? - Are there benefits to being a youth sports volunteer? - How were your interactions with other volunteers? Any conflicts? GUIDING QUESTION: “How are your interactions with other sports parents?” - Mainly positive or negative interactions? Why? - What are your perceptions of other sports parents? 81 - What do general interactions between parents look like? Cooperation or individualism? - Are there any cliques? - Do sports transitions enhance or diminish social network? - Being involved in several youth sports context enhances social network? - Do you have opportunities to meet other sports families? - How is your relationship with those that are closest to you (nodes mentioned in survey). GUIDING QUESTION: “What does your relationship with your children look like?” - How do you perceive your relationship with your children? - What do you believe your involvement in youth sport means to your children? - Do you think your involvement has brought any benefit to your relationship? - Any sports-related communication? Sports-related advice/feedback? - What is your communication-style? - Are there situations in which conflicts may arise? - What is the overall impact of sports on the family’s daily lives? 82 APPENDIX F: Institutional Review Board EXEMPT DETERMINATION Revised Common Rule November 5, 2020 To: Karl Erickson Re: MSU Study ID: STUDY00005321 Principal Investigator: Karl Erickson Category: Exempt 2(ii) Exempt Determination Date: 11/5/2020 Limited IRB Review: Not Required. Title: Youth Sports as a Context for Enhanced Social Capital and Family Relations This study has been determined to be exempt under 45 CFR 46.104(d) 2(ii). Institutional restrictions to in-person human subject research activities conducted by MSU employees, MSU students, or agents of MSU are in place, but MSU is phasing in human research that has the potential for in-person interactions with participants, using a Tier approach. Restrictions to in-person interactions with human research participants by MSU employees, MSU students, or agents of MSU are in place until the activity is permitted under a Tier and a Human Research Plan for a Safe Return is approved. Visit http://hrpp.msu.edu/COVID- 19/index.html for the restrictions, Tiers, forms, and the process. 83 REFERENCES 84 REFERENCES Abbasi, A., Wigand, R. T., & Hossain, L. (2014). Measuring social capital through network analysis and its influence on individual performance. Library & Information Science Research, 36(1), 66-73. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2013.08.001 Abbott, S., & Freeth, D. (2008). Social capital and health. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(7), 874-883. doi:10.1177/1359105308095060 Ali, S. M., & Lindström, M. (2005). Socioeconomic, psychosocial, behavioural, and psychological determinants of BMI among young women: differing patterns for underweight and overweight/obesity. European Journal of Public Health, 16(3), 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki187 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Young Australians: Their health and wellbeing. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/14eed34e-2e0f-441d-88cb- ef376196f587/12750.pdf.aspx?inline=true Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2011). Impact of family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life. Applied Psychology, 60(3), 421-448. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00442.x Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent-adolescent communication and the circumplex model. Child Development, 56(2), 438. doi:10.2307/1129732 Bassett, E., & Moore, S. (2013). Mental health and social capital: social capital as a promising initiative to improving the mental health of communities. Current Topics in Public Health. doi:10.5772/53501 Boehm, J. K., & Kubzansky, L. D. (2012). The heart's content: the association between positive psychological well-being and cardiovascular health. Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 655- 691. doi:10.1037/a0027448 Bornstein, M. H., & Sawyer, J. (2006). Family systems. Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development, 380-398. doi:10.1002/9780470757703.ch19 Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social notes provisoires. Actes de la Recherche em Sciences Sociales, 169(3), 2-3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Eds.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). Greenwood Press. 85 Branje, S. (2018). Development of parent-adolescent relationships: conflict interactions as a mechanism of change. Child Development Perspectives, 12(3), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12278 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877 Casey, B., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 111-126. doi:10.1196/annals.1440.010 Christens, B. D., Collura, J. J., & Tahir, F. (2013). Critical hopefulness: a person-centered analysis of the intersection of cognitive and emotional empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 170–184. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9586-2. Clair, A. (2012). The relationship between parent’s subjective well-being and the life satisfaction of their children in Britain. Child Indicators Research 5(4), 631–650, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-012-9139-5 Dupuy, H. (1978). General Well-Being Schedule. PsycTESTS Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t04083-000 Coakley, J. (2010). The “logic” of specialization. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 81(8), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2010.10598520 Coakley, J. (2011). Youth sports. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3), 306-324. doi:10.1177/0193723511417311 Coalter, F. (2007). Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration: ‘ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes’? Sport in Society, 10(4), 537-559. doi:10.1080/17430430701388723 Coleman, S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. Collins, M. F., & Kay, T. (2003). Sport and social exclusion. Routledge Costa, G. H., Wekesser, M., Wright, E., & Erickson, K. (2020). The relationship between socioeconomic status and youth sport participation [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University. Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 13(4), 395– 417. doi:10.1123/tsp.13.4.395 86 Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 193-196. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01259 Cramm, J. M., Dijk, H. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist, 53(1), 142-152. doi:10.1093/geront/gns052 Crespo, C., Kielpikowski, M., Jose, P. E., & Pryor, J. (2009). Relationships between family connectedness and body satisfaction: a longitudinal study of adolescent girls and boys. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(12), 1392-1401. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9433-9 Creswell, J. W., & Clark, L., P. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage publications. Diener, E., Suh, E., & Oishi, S. (1997). Recent findings on subjective well-being. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(1), 25–41. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276-302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276 Diener, E. (2000) Subjective well being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43 Dorsch, T. E., Smith, A. L., & Mcdonough, M. H. (2009). Parents' perceptions of child-to-parent socialization in organized youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(4), 444-468. doi:10.1123/jsep.31.4.444 Dorsch, T. E., Smith, A. L., & Mcdonough, M. H. (2015). Early socialization of parents through organized youth sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4(1), 3-18. doi:10.1037/spy0000021 Earls, F. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1997). Project on human development in chicago neighborhoods: community survey, 1994-1995. ICPSR Data Holdings. doi:10.3886/icpsr02766 Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular Activities and Adolescent Development. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00095.x Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for adults: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International 87 Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 135. doi:10.1186/1479-5868- 10-135 Fish, J. (2011). General well-being schedule. Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1139- 1140. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1939 Furman, W., & Giberson, R. S. (1995). Identifying the links between parents and their children's sibling relationships. In S. Schulman (Eds.), Human development: Close relationships in social-emotional development (pp. 95-108). Ablex Publishing. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Parenting Matters: Supporting Parents of Children Ages 0-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21868 Gerdes, A. C., Hoza, B., & Pelham, W. E. (2003). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disordered boys' relationships with their mothers and fathers: child, mother, and father perceptions. Development and Psychopathology, 15(2), 363-382. doi:10.1017/s0954579403000208 Golombok, S., Brewaeys, A., Giavazzi, M., Guerra, D., Maccallum, F., & Rust, J. (2002). The European study of assisted reproduction families: The transition to adolescence. Human Reproduction, 17(3), 830-840. doi:10.1093/humrep/17.3.830 Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 58-78. doi:10.1080/17509840701834573 Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 164-173. doi:10.1177/1477878509104321 Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143-154. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143 Hansen, D. L., Shneiderman, B., Smith, M. A., & Himelboim, I. (2011). Social network analysis: Measuring, mapping, and modeling collections of connections. In D. Hansen, B Shneiderman, M. A. Smith, & I. Himelboim (2nd Ed.) Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL (pp. 35-51). Morgan Kaufman. Harris, J.C. (1998). Civil society, physical activity, and the involvement of sport sociologists in the preparation of physical activity professionals. Sociology of Sport Journal, 15(2), 138- 153. 88 Harwood, C. G., & Knight, C. J. (2015). Parenting in youth sport: A position paper on parenting expertise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 24 –35. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well–being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435-1446. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1522 Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. Guilford Press. Holt, N. L. (2007). Positive youth development through sport. Routledge. Houltberg, B. J., Henry, C. S., & Morris, A. S. (2012). Family interactions, exposure to violence, and emotion regulation: Perceptions of children and early adolescents at risk. Family Relations, 61(2), 283-296. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00699.x Hoye, R., Nicholson, M., & Brown, K. (2012). Involvement in sport and social connectedness. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212466076 Hulteen, R. M., Smith, J. J., Morgan, P. J., Barnett, L. M., Hallal, P. C., Colyvas, K., & Lubans, D. R. (2017). Global participation in sport and leisure-time physical activities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine, 95, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.027 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015) Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. The National Academies Press. Jarvie, G. (2003). Communitarianism, sport and social capital. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690203038002001 Johnson, L. (2016). What is social capital? In G. G. Alva, P. G. Gullota, & B. Martin (Eds.), Social Capital and Community Well-Being: The serve here initiative. (pp. 53-66). Springer. Kawachi, I. (1999). Social capital and community effects on population and individual health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08110.x Kim, A. C., Newman, J. I., & Kwon, W. (2020). Developing community structure on the sidelines: A social network analysis of youth sport league parents. The Social Science Journal, 57(2), 178-194. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2018.11.011 Kirkby-Geddes, E., King, N., & Bravington, A. (2012). Social capital and community group participation: Examining ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’ in the context of a healthy living centre in the UK. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(4), 271-285. doi:10.1002/casp.2118 89 Knight, C. J., Dorsch, T. E., Osai, K. V., Haderlie, K. L., & Sellars, P. A. (2016). Influences on parental involvement in youth sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 5(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000053 Lakon, C. M., Godette, D. C., & Hipp, J. R. (2010). Network-based approaches for measuring social capital. In I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social Capital and Health (pp. 63–81). Springer Legh-Jones, H., & Moore, S. (2012). Network social capital, social participation, and physical inactivity in an urban adult population. Social Science & Medicine, 74(9), 1362-1367. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.005 Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental Science, Developmental Systems, and Contemporary Theories of Human Development. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 1–17). John Wiley & Sons Inc. Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean, & W. M. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events, and depression (pp. 17-30). Academic Press. Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 467- 487. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467 Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press. Lochner, K. A., Kawachi, I., Brennan, R. T., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Social capital and neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine, 56(8), 1797-1805. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00177-6 Long, J., & Sanderson, I. (2001). The social benefits of sport: Where's the proof?' In C. Gratton & I. P. Henry (Eds), Sport in the city: The role of sport in economic and social regeneration (pp. 187-203). Routledge. Madge, N. & Willmott, N. (2007). Children’s views and experiences of parenting. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (2007). The person in context: A holistic-interactionistic approach. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 400-464). John Wile & Sons Inc. McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford. Mistry, R. S., White, E. S., Chow, K. A., Griffin, K. M., & Nenadal, L. (2016). A mixed methods approach to equity and justice research: Insights from research on children’s reasoning about economic inequality. In S. S. Horn, M. D. Ruck, & L. S. Liben (Eds.), Advances in 90 child development and behavior: Vol 50. Equity and justice in developmental science: Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 209-236). Elsevier Academic Press Moore, S., & Kawachi, I. (2017). Twenty years of social capital and health research: A glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(5), 513-517. doi:10.1136/jech-2016- 208313 Moore, S., Bockenholt, U., Daniel, M., Frohlich, K., Kestens, Y., & Richard, L. (2011). Social capital and core network ties: A validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra- and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health. Health & Place, 17(2), 536-544. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.12.010 Myers, D. G. (2003). Close relationships and quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 374-391). Russell Sage Foundation Publications. National Institutes of Health. (2011). Principles of Community Engagement. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/communityengagement/pdf/PCE_Report_508_FINAL.pdf Nieminen, T., Prättälä, R., Martelin, T., Härkänen, T., Hyyppä, M. T., Alanen, E., & Koskinen, S. (2013). Social capital, health behaviours and health: A population-based associational study. BMC Public Health, 13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-613 Nicholson, M, & Hoye, R. (2008). Sport and social capital. Butterworth Heinmann Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Perks, T. (2007). Does sport foster social capital? The contribution of sport to a lifestyle of community participation. Sociology of Sport Journal, 24(4), 378–401. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.24.4.378 Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41–51. World Health Organization. (2012). Is social capital good for health? A European perspective. https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/170078/Is-Social-Capital-good-for- your-health.pdf 91 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141-166. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719-727. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Sampson, R. J., & Graif, C. (2009). Neighborhood social capital as differential social organization. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(11), 1579-1605. doi:10.1177/0002764209331527 Seippel, Ø. (2006). Sport and social capital. Acta Sociologica, 49(2), 169-183. doi:10.1177/0001699306064771 Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.5 Skinner, J., Zakus, D. H., & Cowell, J. (2008). Development through sport: Building social capital in disadvantaged communities. Sport Management Review, 11(3), 253-275. doi:10.1016/s1441-3523(08)70112-8 Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1317357 Steptoe, A. (2019). Happiness and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 40(1), 339-359. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044150 Stodden, D. F., Goodway, J. D., Langendorfer, S. J., Roberton, M. A., Rudisill, M. E., Garcia, C., & Garcia, L. E. (2008). A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: An emergent relationship. Quest, 60(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483582 Swaroop, S., & Morenoff, J. D. (2006). Building community: The neighborhood context of social organization. Social Forces, 84(3), 1665-1695. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0058 Szreter, S., Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650-667. doi:10.1093/ije/dyh013 Tabassum, S., Pereira, F. S., Fernandes, S., & Gama, J. (2018). Social network analysis: An overview. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(5). doi:10.1002/widm.1256 92 Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 Tonts, M. (2005). Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(2), 137-149. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.03.001 Townsend, K. C., & Mcwhirter, B. T. (2005). Connectedness: A review of the literature with implications for counseling, assessment, and research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(2), 191-201. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00596.x Trussell, D. E. (2016). Young people's perspectives of parent volunteerism in community youth sport. Sport Management Review, 19(3), 332-342. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2015.09.001 Turgeon, S., Kendellen, K., Kramers, S., Rathwell, S., & Camiré, M. (2019). Making high school sport impactful. Kinesiology Review, 8(3), 188–194. doi: 10.1123/kr.2019-0015 Ueshima, K., Fujiwara, T., Takao, S., Suzuki, E., Iwase, T., Doi, H., . . . Kawachi, I. (2010). Does social capital promote physical activity? A population-based study in Japan. PLoS ONE, 5(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012135 UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Sport for Development and Peace. (2003). Sport as a tool for development and peace: Towards achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. http://www.un.org/sport2005/resources/task_force.pdf Uphoff, E. P., Pickett, K. E., Cabieses, B., Small, N., & Wright, J. (2013). A systematic review of the relationships between social capital and socioeconomic inequalities in health: A contribution to understanding the psychosocial pathway of health inequalities. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12(1), 54. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-12-54 Valencia-Garcia, D., Simoni, J. M., Alegría, M., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2012). Social capital, acculturation, mental health, and perceived access to services among Mexican American women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 177-185. doi:10.1037/a0027207 Verhaeghe, P., P., & Tampubolon, G. (2012). Individual social capital, neighbourhood deprivation, and self-rated health in England. Social Science & Medicine, 75(2), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.057 Verhaeghe, P., & Li, Y. (2015). The position generator approach to social capital research: Measurements and results. In Y. Li (Eds.), Handbook of research methods and applications in social capital. Edward Elgar Pub. Wang, J., Mann, F., Lloyd-Evans, B., Ma, R., & Johnson, S. (2018). Associations between loneliness and perceived social support and outcomes of mental health problems: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1). doi:10.1186/s12888-018-1736-5 93 Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 678-691. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.4.678 Wheeler, S. (2011). The significance of family culture for sports participation. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690211403196 Wind, T. R., & Komproe, I. H. (2012). The mechanisms that associate community social capital with post-disaster mental health: A multilevel model. Social Science & Medicine, 75(9), 1715-1720. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.032 Woodman, E., & Mcarthur, M. (2017). Young people’s experiences of family connectedness: Supporting social work practice with families and young people. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(3), 693-713. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx019 Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225-249. doi:10.1093/wbro/15.2.225 Zaff, J. F., Moore, K. A., Papillo, A. R., & Williams, S. (2003). Implications of extracurricular activity participation during adolescence on positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(6), 599-630. doi:10.1177/0743558403254779 Zakus, D., Skinner, J., & Edwards, A. (2009). Social capital in Australian sport. Sport in Society, 12(7), 986-998. doi:10.1080/17430430903053224 94