Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • Author: Eric Anderson x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Ken Muir, Eric Anderson, Keith D. Parry, and David Letts

Rugby has traditionally existed as a leading definer of masculinity in British culture, which has included overt homophobia. However, cultural attitudes toward homosexuality have improved rapidly in the 21st century. To assess the impact of wider societal change on gay rugby teams, we employed a multiple methods investigation across five gay rugby teams in England. Results show that, whereas athletes once played for these teams to escape homophobia in broader rugby culture, this is no longer true. Affiliation with gay clubs is now primarily for social purposes, and gay rugby clubs now protect the physical safety of gay men from being less prepared to play the game, whereas before it was safety from homophobia. This research shows that gay rugby clubs have undergone an organizational shift in response to the increased social acceptance of sexual minorities.

Restricted access

Eric Anderson, Daniel Bloyce, Alan Bairner, Rob Beamish, Richard C. Crepeau, and P. David Howe

Restricted access

Jane Stangl, Brian Pronger, Michael A. Messner, Heather Sykes, and Eric Anderson

Restricted access

Adam J. White, Stefan Robinson, Eric Anderson, Rachael Bullingham, Allyson Pollock, and Ryan Scoats

Diversity and representation in sport governing bodies has become an issue for both public discussion and academic debate in recent times. Previous work has primarily centered on gender inequalities within the forever changing masculine terrain of sport. However, no work has yet examined the representation and participation of young people in the decision-making structures of sporting bodies. This paper holds up England’s Rugby Union for organizational analysis, using the notion of homologous reproduction as a heuristic framework. In doing so, it explores the reproduction of this governing body for the systematic exclusion of young people in decision-making processes over the last few decades. This framework is then twined with Article 11 of the United Nation’s Convention for the Rights of the Child, to make the case that the RFU desires homologous reproduction in order to avoid dealing with what youth are currently concerned with –head injuries. Given such a high proportion of rugby’s participants being under twenty-five years of age, we conclude the lack of young people within the decision-making process represents a form of willful discrimination.

Restricted access

Eric Anderson, Daniel Bloyce, Audrey R. Giles, James W. Martens, Fred Mason, Theresa A. Walton, and Joel Nathan Rosen

Restricted access

Kayla J. Nuss, Nicholas A. Hulett, Alden Erickson, Eric Burton, Kyle Carr, Lauren Mooney, Jacob Anderson, Ashley Comstock, Ethan J. Schlemer, Lucas J. Archambault, and Kaigang Li

Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy of energy expenditure (EE) and step counts measured by ActiGraph accelerometers (ACT) at dominant and nondominant wrist and hip sites. Methods: Thirty young adults (15 females, age 22.93 ± 3.30 years) wore four ActiGraph wGT3X accelerometers while walking and running on a treadmill for 7 min at seven different speeds (1.7, 2.5, 3.4, 4.2, 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 mph). The EE from each ACT was calculated using the Freedson Adult equation, and the “worn on the wrist” option was selected for the wrist data. Indirect calorimetry and manually counted steps were used as criterion measures. Mean absolute percentage error and two one-sided test procedures for equivalence were used for the analyses. Results: All ACTs underestimated the EE with mean absolute percentage errors over 30% for wrist placement and over 20% for hip placement. The wrist-worn ACTs underestimated the step count with mean absolute percentage errors above 30% for both dominant and nondominant placements. The hip-worn ACTs accurately assessed steps for the whole sample and for women and men (p < .001 to .05 for two one-sided tests procedures), but not at speeds slower than 2.0 mph. Conclusion: Neither hip nor wrist placements assess EE accurately. More algorithms and methods to derive EE estimates from wrist-worn ACTs must be developed and validated. For step counts, both dominant and nondominant hip placements, but not wrist placements, lead to accurate results for both men and women.