Robert J. Paddick
Roy A. Clumpner
Karen P. DePauw
Although historical mention of horseback riding for individuals with disabilities can be traced through the centuries, programs of therapeutic riding were not established until the mid-1900s. Since its inception, horseback riding for the disabled has become diversified and increasingly sophisticated. As a result, the programs have a varying emphasis on riding as sport, recreation, education, or therapy. The literature contains articles describing therapeutic riding programs that include claims of medical and educational benefits for participants. Although the programs have existed for 30 years, interest in research on the benefits of horseback riding for the disabled is relatively new. Despite the progress made, it is critical that professionals in horseback riding for individuals with disabilities (a) collect empirical evidence supporting the claimed benefits, (b) develop appropriate evaluation instruments/tools, (c) identify effective intervention techniques, (d) provide for accessibility of publications/information from Europe, and (e) develop printed materials and audiovisuals for the health professional community.
Bradley J. Cardinal, Minsoo Kang, James L. Farnsworth II and Gregory J. Welk
Kinesiology leaders were surveyed regarding their views of the (re)emergence of physical activity and public health. Their views were captured via a 25-item, online survey conducted in 2014. The survey focused on four areas: (a) types of affiliation with public health; (b) program options and course coverage; (c) outreach programming; and (d) perspectives on integration. Member and nonmember institutions of the American Kinesiology Association received the survey. Responses were received from 139 institutional leaders, resulting in an overall response rate of 21.4%. Key findings included that the combination of physical activity and public health was seen as both a stand-alone subdisciplinary area within kinesiology and also an area that has a great deal of potential for collaboration, the acquisition of external funding, and further strengthening of community outreach and engagement. The survey results are placed in historical context and interpreted with various caveats and limitations in mind.
Although today some athletic events are organized by those without any administrative qualifications, much of modern sport management reflects the technocratic global culture from which it springs: formalized, institutionalized, and professionalized. Some recent critical assessments of our dominant philosophical influences have been extremely unkind to the administrative practices that they have spawned. Among the charges leveled is that management, in general, lacks a moral and epistemological base and is self-serving and antidemocratic. Much of this criticism is relevant to the management of modern sport. This paper presents an overview of the positions of philosophers Alasdair Maclntyre, John Ralston Saul, and Charles Taylor and examines management's relationship to sport in light of their critiques. A general philosophical framework is constructed upon which specific questions about specific activities of sport management can be asked and possibly answered. The results have implications for the education and work of sport managers.