Engelli Sporcuların Objektifinden Spor Deneyimini Görmek: Engelleyici Faktörlerin Sosyo-Ekolojik Model Perspektifinden Analizi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, bedensel engelli sporcuların spora katılımlarında karşılaştıkları engellere yönelik deneyimlerini ve bu engelleyici unsurların bireylerin spora katılımlarını nasıl etkilediğini Sosyo-Ekolojik Model (SEM) perspektifinden fotoses yöntemi ile anlamaya çalışmaktır. Yorumlayıcı paradigmanın temel alındığı bu nitel araştırmada katılımcılar amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden ölçüt örnekleme yöntemine göre seçilmiştir. Çalışmada yaşları 20-42 arasında değişen, dördü tekerlekli sandalye atletizm ve yedisi tekerlekli sandalye basketbol olmak üzere 11 bedensel engelli sporcu yer almıştır. Araştırmada hazırlanan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu çerçevesinde yüz yüze ve odak grup görüşmeleri ile fotoğraf verisi olmak üzere üç farklı veri toplama tekniği kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde içerik analizi yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Analiz sonucunda bedensel engelli sporcuların spor deneyimlerini etkileyen kişisel, sosyal, çevresel, kurumsal ve politik faktörler belirlenmiştir. Kişisel engellerin temelde bedensel engelli sporcuların tekerlekli sandalye sporlarına uyum sağlama ve engellilik durumlarının yarattığı sorunlardan kaynaklandığı görülmüştür. Sosyal engellerin, prososyal davranış engelleri ve damgalamanın yarattığı toplumsal bakış açısı sebebiyle oluştuğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmada en çok vurgu yapılan çevresel engeller ise spor alanlarına ulaşımda kamusal alanların iyi tasarlanmamasından ve toplumsal yaşamda bireylerin bazı kurallara uymamasından kaynaklanan erişim engelleri üzerine temellenmektedir. Kurumsal engeller temasında spora ilişkin kaynaklara ulaşmada sürdürülebilirliğinin olmayışı ve sistematik yaklaşımların benimsenmediği görülmüştür. Politik engeller temasında ise toplumun engellilere yaklaşımı konusunda yeterince politikalar üretilmediği, medya etkisinin engelliler için yeterince kullanılmadığı belirtilmiştir. Sonuç olarak bedensel engelli sporcuların spora katılım deneyimini etkileyen ve SEM’in beş boyutunu da içeren çok faktörlü engeller bulunmaktadır. Bedensel engelli sporcuların karşılaştıkları bu engeller günlük hayatlarını etkilediği gibi spor hayatlarını da olumsuz etkilemektedir. Bu engellerin ortadan kalkması veya azaltılması durumunda engelli sporlarının daha fazla gelişim göstereceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Engelli Sporcu
• Engeller
• Sosyo-ekolojik model
• Spor
• bedensel engel

Seeing the Sports Experience Through the Lens of the Athletes with Impairment: Analysis of the Constraints Factors from the Perspective of the Socio-Ecological Model

Abstract

The aim of this study was to understand the experiences of athletes with a physical impairment regarding the constraints they face in their participation in sports and how these constraints affect their participation in sports from the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) perspective with the photo voice method. In this qualitative study based on the interpretative paradigm, the participants were selected according to the criterion sampling method, which is one of the purposeful sampling methods. Four wheelchair track and field athletes and seven wheelchair basketball athletes with a physical impairment (n=11) aged 20-42 years old included in this study. In the framework of the semi-structured interview form, three different data collection techniques were used in the collection of research data: face-to-face individual interview, focus group interview, and photographic data. Content analysis method was used in the analysis of the data. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that there were personal, social, environmental, institutional and political factors that affect the sports experiences of athletes with a physical impairment. It was found that those personal constraints were mainly caused by the problems of athletes' adaptation to wheelchair sports and their impairment. Social constraints were caused by prosocial behavioral barriers and the social perspective created by stigmatization. The most emphasized environmental constraints in the study were based on the access constraints arising from the poor design of public spaces in accessing sports facilities and individuals' failure to comply with certain rules in social life. In the theme of institutional constraints, it was observed that there were no sustainability and systematic approaches in reaching sports-related resources. In the theme of political obstacles, it is stated that there were not enough policies regarding the approach of the society to the individuals with a disability and the media influence were not used sufficiently for the the individuals with a disability. As a result, there are interrelated and multifactorial constraints that affect the sports participation experience of athletes with a physical impairment and include all five dimensions of SEM. These constraints faced by athletes with a physical impairment affect their daily lives as well as their sports life negatively. If these constraints were eliminated or reduced, it was thought that disability sports will develop further.

Keywords

• Disability athletes
• Constraints
• Socio-ecological model
• Sport
• physical impairment

References

1. 1. Albrecht, J., Elmose-Østerlund, K., Klenk, C., ve Nagel, S. (2019). Sports clubs as a medium for integrating people with disabilities. European Journal for Sport and Society, 16(2), 88-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2019.1607468
2. 2. Argan, M., Yılmaz, A., Argan, M.T., ve Yetim, G. (2020). Sesimi gören var mı? Fotoses yönteminin spor bilimlerinde kullanım potansiyeline ilişkin kuramsal bir çerçeve. Gazi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(3), 149-166.
3. 3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. 4. Burns, R.C., ve Graefe, A.R. (2007). Constraints to outdoor recreation: Exploring the effects of disabilities on perceptions and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(1), 156-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2007.11950102
5. 5. Burns, J. (2021). Inclusion and exclusion of elite athletes with disabilities. In D. Chatziefstathiou (Ed.) Routledge handbook of the olympic and paralympic games. Newyork, NY: Routledge.
6. 6. Chatfield, S.L., ve Cottingham II, M. (2017). Perceptions of Athletes in disabled and non-disabled sport contexts: A descriptive qualitative research study. The Qualitative Report, 22(7), 1909-1924. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2483
7. 7. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., ve Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 4(1), 95-107.
8. 8. Creswell, J.W. (2018). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri: Beş yaklaşıma göre nitel araştırma ve araştırma desenleri. ( M. Bütün ve S.B. Demir, Çev.). Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi. (orjinal yayınlanma, 2012)

9. 9. Cottingham II, M., Carroll, M., Lee, D., Shapiro, D., ve Pitts, B. (2016). The historical realization of the Americans with disabilities act on athletes with disabilities. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 26, 5-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jlas.2015-0014
10. 10. Crawford, J.L., ve Stodolska, M. (2008). Constraints experienced by elite athletes with disabilities in Kenya, with implications for the development of a new hierarchical model of constraints at the societal level. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(1), 128-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2008.11950136
11. 11. Darcy, S., Lock, D., ve Taylor, T. (2017). Enabling inclusive sport participation: Effects of disability and support needs on constraints to sport participation. Leisure Sciences, 39(1), 20-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2016.1151842
12. 12. DePauw, K.P., ve Gavron, S.J. (2005). Disability sport(2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
13. 13. Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., ve Peterson, G.L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College; IL: Champaign, Venture Publishing.
14. 14. Dwyer, J., Needham, L., Simpson, J.R,. ve Heeney, E.S. (2008). Parents report intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers to supporting healthy eating and physical activity among their preschoolers. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 33(2), 338-346. https://doi.org/10.1139/H07-195
15. 15. Engelliler Hakkında Kanun 2005. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2005/07/20050707-2.htm
16. 16. Engellilerin Haklarına İlişkin Sözleşme 2009. https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2009/07/20090714-1.htm
17. 17. Esatbeyoğlu, F., ve Karahan, B.G. (2014). Engelli bireylerin fiziksel aktiviteye katılımlarının önündeki engeller. Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 25(2), 43-55.
18. 18. Erdugan, F.E. (2010). Türkiye'de özürlü yoksulluğu ve mücadele politikalarının değerlendirilmesi: Ankara-Keçiören örneği. Ankara: TC Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı Yayınları
19. 19. Fleury, J., ve Lee, S.M. (2006). The social ecological model and physical activity in African American women. American journal of community psychology, 37(1-2), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-9002-7
20. 20. Freudenberg, P., ve Arlinghaus, R. (2010). Benefits and constraints of outdoor recreation for people withphysical disabilities: Inferences from recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences, 32 (1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400903430889
21. 21. Gençlik ve Spor Bakanlığı (2019). Stratejik plan 2019-2023. https://gsb.gov.tr/public/edit/files/strateji/2019-2023-Stratejik-Plan%C4%B1.pdf
22. 22. Ghimire, R., Green, G.T., Poudyal, N.C., ve Cordell, H.K. (2014). An analysis of perceived constraints to outdoor recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 32(4), 52-67.
23. 23. Grenier, M., ve Kearns, C. (2012). The benefits of implementing disability sports in physical education: A model for success. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 83(4), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2012.10598758
24. 24. Gürbüz, B., ve Henderson, K.A. (2014). Leisure activity preferences and constraints: Perspectives from Turkey. World Leisure Journal, 56(4), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2014.958195
25. 25. Gurkan, R.K., ve Kocak, F. (2020). Perceived constraints and facilitators of participation in physical activity by individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Physical Activity Review, 8(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.16926/par.2020.08.07
26. 26. Haegele, J.A., ve Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest, 68(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1143849
27. 27. Hammond, A., ve Jeanes, R. (2018). Federal government involvement in Australian disability sport, 1981–2015. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 35(5), 431-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2017.1337000
28. 28. Haslett, D., Choi, L., ve Smith, B. (2020). Para athlete activism: A qualitative examination of disability activism through Paralympic sport in Ireland. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 47, 101639, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101639
29. 29. Hoekstra, F., Roberts, L., van Lindert, C., Martin Ginis, K.A., van der Woude, L.H., ve McColl, M.A. (2019). National approaches to promote sports and physical activity in adults with disabilities: examples from the Netherlands and Canada. Disability and rehabilitation, 41(10), 1217-1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1423402
30. 30. Hutzler, Y., Chacham-Guber, A., ve Reiter, S. (2013). Psychosocial effects of reverse-integrated basketball activity compared to separate and no physical activity in young people with physical disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 579-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.09.010
31. 31. Ives, B., Clayton, B., Brittain, I., ve Mackintosh, C. (2019). ‘I’ll always find a perfectly justified reason for not doing it’: challenges for disability sport and physical activity in the United Kingdom. Sport in Society, 24(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2019.1703683
32. 32. Jaarsma, E.A., Dijkstra, P.U., Geertzen, J.H.B., ve Dekker, R. (2014a). Barriers to and facilitators of sports participation for people with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(6), 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12218
33. 33. Jaarsma, E.A., Geertzen, J.H., Jong, R., Dijkstra, P.U., ve Dekker, R. (2014b). Barriers and facilitators of sports in Dutch Paralympic athletes: An explorative study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(5) , 830–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12071
34. 34. Kang, M., Zhu, W., Ragan, B.G., ve Frogley, M. (2007). Exercise barrier severity and perseverance of active youth with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(2), 170-176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.2.170
35. 35. King, G., Lawm, M., King, S., Rosenbaum, P., Kertoy, M.K., ve Young, N.L. (2003). A conceptual model of the factors affecting the recreation and leisure participation of children with disabilities. Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics, 23(1), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v23n01_05
36. 36. Liu, Y.D. (2009). Sport and social inclusion: Evidence from the performance of public leisure facilities. Social indicators research, 90(2), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9261-4
37. 37. Lincoln, Y.S., ve Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, 30, 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
38. 38. Lyu, S.O., ve Lee, H. (2016). Latent demand for recreation participation and leisure constraints negotiation process: Evidence from Korean people with disabilities. Journal of Leisure Research, 48(5), 431-449. https://doi.org/10.18666/JLR-2016-V48-I5-6511
39. 39. Malterud, K. (2016). Theory and interpretation in qualitative studies from general practice: why and how?. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815621181
40. 40. Martin, JJ.. (2013). Benefits and barriers to physical activity for individuals with disabilities: a social-relational model of disability perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(24), 2030-2037. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.802377
41. 41. McLeroy, K.R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., ve Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401
42. 42. McLoughlin, G., Fecske, C.W., Castaneda, Y., Gwin, C., ve Graber, K. (2017). Sport participation for elite athletes with physical disabilities: Motivations, barriers, and facilitators. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 34(4), 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2016-0127
43. 43. Misener, L., ve Darcy, S. (2014). Managing disability sport: From athletes with disabilities to inclusive organisational perspectives. Sport Management Review, 17 (1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.12.003
44. 44. Mobily, K.E., ve Dieser, R.B. (2018). Seeking alternatives in therapeutic recreation/recreation therapy: A social/recreation community model. Leisure/Loisir, 42(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2017.1403860
45. 45. Mojtahedi, M.C., ve Katsui, H. (2018). Making the right real! A case study on the implementation of the right to sport for persons with disabilities in Ethiopia. Sport in Society, 21(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1225898
46. 46. Murphy, N.A., ve Carbone, P.S. (2008). Promoting the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical activities. Pediatrics, 121(5), 1057-1061. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-0566
47. 47. Noble, H., ve Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-based Nursing, 18(2), 34-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2015-102054
48. 48. Obrusnikova, I., ve Cavalier, A.R. (2011). Perceived barriers and facilitators of participation in after-school physical activity by children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23(3), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-010-9215-z
49. 49. Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability & Society, 28(7), 1024-1026. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.818773
50. 50. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636
51. 51. Richard, R., Burlot, F., Duquesne, V., ve Joncheray, H. (2021). “I had a dream: it was to play the games”. Sports socialisation processes of French paralympic athletes.European Journal for Sport and Society, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/16138171.2021.1878438
52. 52. Sarol, H., ve Çimen, Z. (2015). The effects of adapted recreational physical activity on the life quality of individuals with autism. The Anthropologist, 21(3), 522-527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2015.11891842
53. 53. Singleton, J., ve Darcy, S. (2013). ‘Cultural life’, disability, inclusion and citizenship: moving beyond leisure in isolation. Annals of Leisure Research, 16(3),183-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2013.826124
54. 54. Smith, B., ve Sparkes, A.C. (2012). Disability, sport and physical activity. A critical review. In N. Watson, A. Roulstone, & C. Thomas (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, London: Routledge.
55. 55. Smith, R.W., Austin, D.R., ve Kennedy, D.W. (1996). Inclusive and special recreation: Opportunities for persons with disabilities. (3rd Ed.), Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark Publishing.
56. 56. Sotiriadou, P., ve Wicker, P. (2014). Examining the participation patterns of an ageing population with disabilities in Australia. Sport Management Review, 17(1), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.04.004
57. 57. Stroud, N., Minahan, C., ve Sabapathy, S. (2009). The perceived benefits and barriers to exercise participation in persons with multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31(26), 2216-2222. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638280902980928
58. 58. Tasiemski, T., Kennedy, P., Gardner, B.P., ve Blaikley, R.A. (2004). Athletic identity and sports participation in people with spinal cord injury. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21(4), 364-378. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.21.4.364
59. 59. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2019). Türkiye sağlık araştırması. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Search/Search?text=engelli&dil=1
60. 60. Úbeda-Colomer, J., Ginis, K.A.M., Monforte, J., Pérez-Samaniego, V., ve Devís-Devís, J. (2019). Predicting physical activity in university students with disabilities: The role of social ecological barriers in the theory of planned behaviour. Disability and Health Journal, 12(4), 574-580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.06.008
61. 61. United Nations (2006) United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm
62. 62. Verdonschot, M.M., De Witte, L.P., Reichrath, E., ve Buntinx, W.H.E., ve Curfs, L.M. (2009). Community participation of people with an intellectual disability: A review of empirical findings. Journal of İntellectual Disability Research, 53(4), 303-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01144.x
63. 63. Wang, C., ve Burris, M.A. (1994). Empowerment through photo novella: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly, 21(2), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819402100204
64. 64. Wang, C, ve Burris, M.A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400309
65. 65. Wilson, N.C., ve Khoo, S. (2013). Benefits and barriers to sports participation for athletes with disabilities: the case of Malaysia. Disability & Society, 28(8), 1132-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.758034
66. 66. World Health Assembly 66, World Health Organization (2013). Disability: report by the Secretariat. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/105691
67. 67. World Health Organization, ve World Bank (2011). World report on disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf