![]() ![]() Nor, relatedly, has enough attention been drawn to ways in which Olympic education remains largely divorced from prevailing critical pedagogy debates and discourse, both in mainstream education and Physical Education. While scholars have raised concerns with the pedagogical, political and corporate underpinnings of Olympic education, such critiques have not halted the IOC’s dominance as a sport/physical education protagonist. In addition, this work has fortified the IOC’s moral legitimacy and educational colonisation, normalised Olympic education as sport ethics pedagogy par excellence, privileged sports’ roles in facilitating social change, homogenised complex value systems, sanitised social and cultural realities, marginalised alternate ways of being and knowing in sport, and obfuscated accountability, transparency and evaluation (Bullough, 2012 Kohe & Collison, 2019 Lenskyj, 2012). Concomitantly, these relationships afford the organisation political and economic leverage to extend their pedagogical push into new terrain. Such collaborations have yielded innovative ventures providing individuals, groups and communities with new access to creative educational enterprises (Chatziefstathiou, 2012b Naul et al., 2017). In this task the IOC have been aided by stakeholder alliances with international agencies, transnational organisations, corporate partners, national and local governments, philanthropists and charities. The IOC, alongside National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and National Olympic Academies (NOAs) invest in supporting and galvanising both the international proliferation of Olympic education programmes and the political power of the organisation as a sport/physical education force. While aspects of the educational output may be considered merit worthy, critique of Tokyo2020 space reveals ideological incongruities, stakeholder tensions, privileged production forms, and unquestioned consumption and compliance.Ĭontinued iterations of the Olympic Games, and extensive efforts by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to promote the Olympic movement, have sustained global development of educational initiatives. In doing so, we conceptualise L’Space Olympique a dynamic site in which Olympic thought attracts distinct stakeholder alliances, produces specific educational modes, and dictates certain forms of participatory action. Drawing primarily on key stakeholders’ network activity, and examinations of Yoi, Don! (Tokyo2020’s flagship project), we present a case study of Olympic education spatial arrangements. In this article, we employ a spatial theoretical perspective utilising the work of Henri Lefebvre to provide a means to understand educational stakeholders’ connections and activities related to the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games. Accordingly, and furthering scholarly criticism, greater interrogation of Olympic education stakeholder relations is warranted. Yet, institutional coalescence, mutually beneficial partnerships and meaningful experiences for end-users cannot be guaranteed. Delivery of Olympic education, however, is complex and requires considerable ideological and practical synergies between institutions at international, national and local levels. Pedagogical virtues notwithstanding, Olympic education development also serves to illustrate domestic and State acquiescence to the IOC’s political imperative to be a leading educational protagonist. Such initiatives draw on the moral idealism of Olympism underpinning the IOC and focus on sport and Physical Education (and other subject areas) as sites in which to teach personal responsibility, social values and civil responsibility. ![]() Perennial iterations of Olympic Games, and the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) contractual obligations upon host cities, have prompted development of wide-ranging educational initiatives. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |