Within this article, the authors explore the extent to which the administrative and governance hierarchies, rules, and processes of two English national governing bodies (NGBs) reproduce or resist gender segregation and male dominance within their leadership and governance. Drawing on Bourdieu’s theory of practice, the authors expand upon current literature to better understand the workings of gender power relations at the structural level of organizational practice. Semistructured interviews with male and female leaders were supplemented by an analysis of formal documents. The authors found that gender power relations privileging men were simultaneously conserved and resisted within the two NGBs. While resistance to male-dominated leadership and governance was evident, transformational organizational change was lacking. This highlighted the limitations of strategies being primarily driven through top-down, policy-based approaches. The authors end the article by emphasizing the importance of a combined approach at the structural, cultural, and individual levels to enable sustainable and transformational organizational change.
Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author: Jordan Matthews x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Gender, Leadership, and Governance in English National Governing Bodies of Sport: Formal Structures, Rules, and Processes
Lucy V. Piggott and Jordan J.K. Matthews
Countermovement Jump and Isometric Strength Test–Retest Reliability in English Premier League Academy Football Players
Matthew Springham, Nav Singh, Perry Stewart, Jordan Matthews, Ian Jones, Charlie Norton-Sherwood, Dominic May, Jamie Salter, Anthony J. Strudwick, and Joseph W. Shaw
Purpose: To examine the test–retest reliability of countermovement jump (CMJ) and isometric strength testing measures in elite-level under-18 and under-23 academy football players. Methods: A total of 36 players performed 3 maximal CMJs and isometric abductor (IABS), adductor (IADS), and posterior chain (IPCS) strength tests on 2 separate test days using dual force plates (CMJ and IPCS) and a portable strength testing device (IABS and IADS). Relative (intraclass correlation coefficient) and absolute (coefficient of variation, standard error of the measurement, and minimal detectable change [MDC%]) reliabilities for 34 CMJ, 10 IABS, 10 IADS, and 11 IPCS measures were analyzed using between-sessions best, mean, and within-session methods. Results: For all methods, relative reliability was good to excellent for all CMJ and all IADS measures and poor to good for all IABS and IPCS measures. Absolute reliability was good (ie, coefficient of variation < 10%) for 27 (best) and 28 (mean) CMJ variables and for 6 (IABS and IADS) and 2 (IPCS) isometric measures. Commonly used CMJ measures (jump height, eccentric duration, and flight-time:contraction-time ratio) had good to excellent relative reliability and an MDC% range of 14.6% to 23.7%. Likewise, commonly used isometric peak force measures for IABS, IADS, and IPCS had good to excellent relative reliability and an MDC% range of 22.2% to 26.4%. Conclusions: Commonly used CMJ and isometric strength measures had good test–retest reliability but might be limited by their MDC%. Rate-of-force-development measures (for all isometric tests) and impulse measures (IPCS) are limited by poor relative and absolute reliability and high MDC%. MDC% statistics should be considered in the context of typical responsiveness.
