Search Results

Traditional sport norms and gender-based biases that are prevalent in the sport environment, both explicit and implicit, have contributed to a culture where sexual harassment and abuse is commonplace. This article examines how sport tolerates the development of this culture, and more importantly, how practices and polices can be utilized to transform sport’s culture to one that is inclusive and safe. Reform is needed in attitudes and norms towards gender bias and sexual violence that primarily, but not exclusively, targets girls and women in sport and is perpetrated by boys and men. The application of various theories from psychology is recommended as one strategy to rid sport of both a culture of misogyny and of those who resist change to achieve this objective.

The overall purpose of the present study was to examine hazing among university athletes in Canada. More specifically, athletes’ experiences with hazing behaviors, knowledge regarding hazing, perceptions of the nature of hazing, attitudes toward hazing, and exposure to hazing policy and prevention/intervention strategies were investigated. A total of 434 U Sports (formerly known as Canadian Interuniversity Sport) athletes from various varsity-level and club-level sports participated in the study. Results showed that 58% of athletes experienced at least one hazing behavior. Some athletes reported that coaches were not only aware of hazing behaviors, but also present while hazing behaviors occurred. Athletes who experienced hazing perceived more positive outcomes of hazing than negative, and did not report hazing incidents because they believed experiencing hazing was part of being a member of the team. A small percentage of athletes had participated in hazing prevention workshops. Implications of these findings pertain to education on hazing, hazing prevention strategies and interventions.

The sport literature yields little information concerning the available methods or processes coaches can use to obtain feedback about their coaching. This is unfortunate given that evaluative feedback about one’s coaching performance is useful in terms of providing direction for professional coach development (Mallett & Côté, 2006). As a follow-up to O’Boyle (2014), the purpose of this Best Practices paper is to offer a sample protocol for employing a 360-degree feedback system for coaches working in high performance settings. We draw on a review of the coach evaluation and 360-degree feedback literature, along with insights shared from Canadian intercollegiate head coaches to highlight some of the potential benefits and challenges of implementing a 360-degree feedback system in sport. We then suggest ‘best practices’ for effectively integrating this appraisal system and provide an example coach report to illustrate how feedback would be provided to a coach following a 360-degree feedback protocol. It is our hope that this sample protocol paper will encourage coaches, athletic directors, and other sport administrators to integrate comprehensive coach feedback practices in their sporting programs.

Purpose: The purposes of the current study were to identify risk profiles for nonadherence among children and youth (5–17 y) at the 6-month mark of the COVID-19 pandemic and to discuss similarities and differences between risk profiles identified in the current study and those identified at the 1-month mark of the pandemic. Methods: Data were part of a nationally representative sample of 1143 parents (M _age = 43.07 y, SD = 8.16) of children and youth (5–17 y) living in Canada. Survey data were collected in October 2020. Results: Results showed that 3.8% met all movement behavior recommendations, 16.2% met the physical activity recommendation, 27% met the screen time recommendation, and 63.8% met the sleep recommendation. Characteristics associated with nonadherence to all movement behaviors included low parental perceived capability to restrict screen time and decreased overall time spent outdoors. Characteristics associated with nonadherence to the physical activity and screen time recommendations included youth (12–17 y), low parental perceived capability to restrict screen time, decreased time spent outdoors, and increased screen time. Conclusion: Results emphasized the importance of parental perceived capability to restrict screen time and children’s and youth’s outdoor time and showed that pandemic-related factors have impacted children and youth differently.