The Long Awaited Olympic Bid Project Post

Transcribing interviews, I have an inexplicable affinity for this particular task.  This could be surprising due to its time consuming nature, but I find listening to various opinions in the same setting to be interesting.  That being said, transcribing the focus groups for the Olympic Bid Project offered me the perfect opportunity to see a variety of opinions regarding one specific class.  Furthermore, I had a unique outtake on this task because I was familiar with the class and project.  So without further anticipation, here are my thoughts after fully transcribing all three of the focus groups.

Setting the scene: I transcribed the focus group of only males first (FG1), followed by the focus group of only females (FG2), and ended with the combined males and females group (FG3).  Each transcription was finished within one or two days, so there was not a significant lag time between transcribing the beginning and the end of a particular focus group.

Similarities between groups: I wanted to start with the similarities because there are considerably fewer.  There was not really a point on which all three groups whole heartedly agreed.  The only general agreement was the Olympic Bid Project was one of the most difficult projects the students had encountered, yet also one of the most rewarding upon completion.  Throughout the semester, the project required time, organization, teamwork, and planning, but the end project offered a sense of pride and accomplishment.

Differences between groups (in no particular order):

1)      2-member groups or 3-member groups: Interestingly, everybody in a 2-person group thought two people was the best option. Five of six individuals from 3-member groups were convinced three people was the way to go. Rationale: members from the smaller groups thought communication and setting up meetings around schedules would be more difficult with three people. Meanwhile, members from the larger three person groups thought the work load would have been too much with only two group members. While the larger groups did concede that meeting and coordinating was difficult, the smaller groups did not feel the work load was too great to handle by only two people.

2)      Random city, random group: General consensus was that random group was acceptable. However, two of three groups were against random city due to the Denver situation. Denver didn’t win, though, so potentially not as much of an advantage as initially perceived.

3)      Does the project fit to the class? Two of the focus groups say yes, the third focus group thinks otherwise. I would posit a similar reasoning was applied but from two different perspectives.  The group which said no (FG2) cited the project had to do only with the Olympics while the class dealt with international sport management generally. Therefore, the Olympic Bid Project should essentially be an assignment in a class of its own which deals specifically with Olympic ideals, Olympism, the Olympic Movement etc. FG1 and FG3 determined the project did fit with the class because the idea of the Olympics brought together the entire concept of various international sports and was a way to tie all the individual countries and sports systems together into one unified concept.

4)      Project focus: All of the groups agreed the Olympic Bid Project was a competitive project and the goal was to win the bid.  However, FG1 and FG3 seemed to discuss primarily the legacy of the Olympic Games and the overall meaning of this mega-sport event in relation to their city while FG2 discussed the logistical aspect of the project.  FG2 was very focused on the actual approaches and methods which were utilized to complete the project considerably more than FG1 and FG3.

5)      Homework: There was some difference in opinion as to whether the additional homework in the class was necessary considering the breadth of the project. This seemed to vary more on an individual level as opposed to on a focus group level. Some individuals thought the reading summaries were busy work while others believed they were a good tools to ensure readings were completed on time in order to facilitate class discussions.  Generally, the focus groups seemed to agree the country and article presentations were both conducive to the class.

6)      Point distribution of the project: The focus groups tended to agree the written portion should receive a greater percentage of the points comparatively to the verbal presentation.  The reasoning was also consistent: this bid book should be given greater consideration due to the amount of time and preparation spent creating it.  However, one member of FG2 disagreed and thought the presentation should be worth more.  Since all the bid books had similar information there was less likelihood for variation.  Meanwhile the presentations could have varied greatly between groups depending on what the group deemed important.

These were the main points which I noted during my focus group transcriptions. I am sure that something will strike me in later weeks, in which case I will just have to create another post.  So maybe there will be more Olympic Bid transcription posts/discussion to look forward to in the future.

The Process of Collaboration

I wanted to consider everything over the last two weeks (January 19-29) in one post because the primary projects have been relatively similar.  Last week, the two priorities were editing the manuscript for a book chapter and beginning to make adjustments to the Response Rate manuscript.  Both of these projects carried over into this week. A third manuscript was also added to the project queue. However, instead of taking a project based approach to this post, I think the two focus phrases will be collaboration and learning experience.  

The last couple weeks have been very interesting because I am truly getting to experience the logistics of collaboration.  While this is quite common in academia, it can also pose a challenge. With so many differences between authors (style, content, ideas, experience) it becomes imperative to be on the same page and reach an agreement regarding the direction of a project. Now I understand the potential implications on overall outcome if collaborators have different visions. Moving a paper forward becomes more arduous because edits take longer and significantly more communication and discussion is necessary. Learning experience: how to diplomatically approach collaboration issues. 

I have also come to realize that collaborations over longer distances may cause projects to be pushed to the bottom of the priority list (seemingly forgotten), but then they unexpectedly resurface with a need to be right at the top of the list. This discontinuity is difficult for me because I prefer to be immersed in a project until it is relatively close to completion. Learning experience: be ready to work on any project at any time...even when you least expect it. 

Finally, the entire collaboration process has emphasized that there are some aspects of work and research which cannot be completely under my control. These situations require taking a step back and reassessing the situation. Learning experience: flexibility is necessary.  

On another note, I am trying to figure out/understand, in my spare time, why there are so many different ways to format a manuscript. I have come to the conclusion there may be no sufficient answer to this question. However, my second conclusion is that Chicago Style is rapidly becoming one of my least favorite formatting styles.  

Beginning of Spring Semester 2015

The first two weeks of a semester are always a dynamic time, for me, as I attempt to return to a routine, establish class schedules, and determine a general day-to-day balance.  An additional part of finding that equilibrium is learning the overall timetable of GA projects.

From an initial perspective, this semester looks to be quite different from the fall semester.  When I began working with Dr. G, many of the projects he had in progress were in the editing and revision stages. So I did little to no work with data collection or literature reviews.  This semester there are considerably more projects in their genesis, so I am getting the opportunity to participate in Dr. G's work from a new angle.

At this point, there are three primary research projects which are underway to which I have contributed:

1) Internal grant proposal for sport-for-development research 
I believe being able to see the strenuous process of obtaining a grant has been invaluable.  This is an integral part of the research process and being able to better understand the support and connections necessary to write a successful grant is eye-opening.  All of this in addition to being able to convey the entire purpose and breadth of a project in a concise (5-page for these circumstances) manner.

2) Response Rate manuscript
I have had a difficult time proposing potential adjustments to this manuscript. In other situations, such as with the Brand Authenticity article, seeing new paths to conceivably pursue with the manuscript seemed more natural.

3) Olympic Bid Project focus groups 
This is one of the most interesting collaborations for me because this the first time I have been directly involved with organizing focus groups for data collection.  However, this task has also proved challenging due to scheduling conflicts and considerations for each of the participants.

In addition to the research oriented endeavors, I have had the opportunity to be involved with certain aspects of the classes Dr. G teaches.  Most recently, I read an article entitled Sport without Management. This was one of the most thought provoking and challenging articles I have contemplated. I think it would be fascinating to compare this piece of work with the article written in response by Bob Stewart, Sport without Management: A Response. Furthermore, I believe these two articles might provide a stimulating classroom debate. 

Review of Well-Being Festival Preliminary Letter of Inquiry

In my last blog post I reflected upon the Well-Being festival preliminary budget that Dr. Giannoulakis had given to me for review.  In this blog post, I will provide my review for the second document: a preliminary letter of inquiry (PLI).

Lack of Research:

Dr. G and I have discussed this already but it is important that any proposal submitted to a potential sponsor be equipped with research to support the project's goals and expected outcomes.  In the first sentence, it is stated that the Sport Administration Graduate program at Ball State looks to provide students "with experiential learning opportunities that are grounded in sport administration theory."  One or several theories should definitely be included regarding how the students will be engaging in experiential learning and how the participants at the Well-Being festival will be engaged.  Now that Dr. G has submitted a case study of the "inspiration behind this project" in Greece, the National Cancer Survivors Day event can be used to describe analogous goals to the Well-Being festival in Muncie.

Sustainability of Event:

Any time that one embarks on a new project that could be replicated in the future, it is critical to explain the structure of how the event will be sustained.  The only sustainability measure mentioned within this proposal is that of money from the first event being earmarked for future festivals.  I believe that further information can be given on the Grant Members to explain why this event can be sustained even without the existence of all current Grant Members in the future.  This is extremely difficult without an inaugural event as a foundation, but any future signs of support from either the Grant Members or other entities will paint a better picture of sustainability.

Estimates and Specifics of Promotion and Collaboration

I found the "Population" section to be quite intriguing, but I think the section would have been more powerful with estimations of specific group sizes.  Obviously without a previous event it would be difficult to gauge exact attendance, but by looking at similar events and comparing the community populations, one could formulate a ballpark range of participation from residents, schools, and volunteers alike.  I also think that there should have been more specific information on how the organizing committee would staff volunteers and perform presentations in local schools.  Providing some more specific information on how the event would be organized will give a potential sponsor a much stronger sense of the initial discussions about the event.

To summarize, I felt that the proposal (with its 2,000 characters per section limits) did quite a good job of providing the first snapshot of the project as a whole.  Adding a sentence or two on the points mentioned above and cutting out a few unnecessary words could help make this proposal even stronger.

Review of Well-Being Festival Budget

In Week 3 of our collaboration, Dr. G shared with me his plan for organizing and executing a Well-Being Festival to be held in Muncie in Spring 2015.  The event would be held ideally at the Minnetrista gathering place in Muncie and would feature several events throughout this one-day multipurpose event focusing primarily on four major pillars: physical activity, wellness education, alternative therapies, and entertainment.  Not only would the event be a Ball State-sponsored event, but it would be an experiential learning opportunity for students in Dr. G's event management course who would take on the management of the event.

To give me a deeper understanding of the plans for the event, Dr. G shared with me a preliminary budget and grant proposal.  I have provided my feedback for the preliminary budget below, and will give my feedback on the grant proposal in a future blog post. The overall budget for the event is projected to be $20,000.

Budget-

Graduate Student:  This area of the budget ($2,000) interested me because I was curious if this would be a graduate student hired solely for the purpose of this event or whether it would be a current graduate assistant within the sport administration or other department that would have an additional amount added to his or her stipend.  Based on the current pay structure among Ball State graduate assistants (between $750 and $1,000 for 20 hours per week) monthly I wonder if this graduate student would be hired for a two-month period or whether the student's employment would be stretched out over several months.  I think that this is an important distinction to make not only in the sponsorship search process but also in the hiring process as applicants will want to know important details about the job (e.g. start and end date, pay structure, day-to-day tasks).  Currently, the daily tasks of this graduate student are not detailed within either document presented other than the broad description of "event design and planning activities."  I think that by further outlining the specific duties of the position will significantly aid in hiring the right candidate and acquiring adequate sponsorship monies.  Example tasks for the graduate student might be facilitating meetings among student leaders, establishing relationships with each non-Ball State entity (Minnetrista staff, Police, EMTs, Volunteer Coordinator), and documenting specific dates of task completion to assist the planning of future events.

Non-personnel Capital/Equipment:  I did not understand this section of the budget.  There were no details indicated in the budget explanation or grant proposal regarding the meaning of this section.  The only explanation I can infer is that included in this section would be items coming in such as food and beverage donations and other items that would help offset the current $20,000 of projected expenditures.

Operating Cost:  This section was well-detailed considering that the event that is still 10 months away.  Clearly there have been inquiries made to specific organizations to gather projected cost figures for the 10 items (categories) listed on the budget.  While detailed in some portions, there were several questions that arose as I reviewed this section of the preliminary budget.

- In the case of poor weather, would the outside area and tent costs still be charged?
- Along the same lines, would there be a back-up indoor location to move the outside area and tent events to?  The Muncie Fieldhouse (less than a mile away) should be a consideration.
- I agree with the marketing expenses ($2,000) for the event, but I would be curious how much of that total could be trimmed with free advertising.  I see no mention of social media within either document.  Could this be a primary task of the funded graduate student?  As for radio announcements, that would be most cost-effective as radio ads are the cheapest among TV, newspaper, and radio.  However, which radio stations would be chosen?  Could there be an arrangement made for a live broadcast opportunity?  How about a collaborative effort with WCRD, Ball State's student radio station?
- I would be very careful with the competition digital timing and athlete chips for whatever running/cycling event is held.  The distinction here would be if there was a significant amount of competitive athletes in the event or not.  If the event(s) was more of a walk/run than a true race, funds specific to accurate timing could be allocated elsewhere.
-  After seeing the "food & beverage for sponsors and invited guests" listed at $2,000 that made me curious as to whether or not participants would be receiving meals and or beverages during the day's events.  If so, would these items be purchased?  Or would a donation from a sponsor be expected here?  Another item to consider is the refrigeration and storage of food and beverage items both before and after the festival.
- Clearly some work was done on the Risk Management section to determine costs.  An explanation for the difference in officers needed later in the festival compared to earlier should be provided.
-  How will the Posters listed under Marketing Expenses differ from the Signage listed under the Venue Management section?
-  Does Minnetrista have its own sound system?  If so, perhaps the primary announced events could be held indoors or outside if the system is portable.  If the $3,000 figure was determined based on one of the larger sound companies in Muncie, I would inquire WCRD, the campus radio station.  I worked in college radio for three years and people that work at a station usually know the locals who have their own sound systems that might charge less than $3,000.
-  Why would transportation be needed if the entire event was held at or near Minnetrista?
-  Along with the road closure application and event permit, I would also look into any sort of food or beverage permits.  I'm sure Minnetrista would be aware of the existence of any such permits needed to provide food and beverage to the public.

First Take: Sport For Development

While I've gained some preliminary knowledge on the concept of sport as an agent of change through my work with the Ball State Sport for Social Change project, this past week has been my first chance to dive into literature on the research area of Sport for Development (S4D).   While there have been some similarities in research methodology, S4D is clearly separate and is becoming an area with growing interest within sport management.

After reviewing the NASSM Conference abstracts of the presentations on S4D that Dr. G attended, I collected 34 various articles that were not already part of the database that Dr. G had started earlier this year.  One tell-tale sign for me that S4D research is becoming more and more sought after within the sport management field is the presence of S4D articles in some of the more noteworthy journals in the field (i.e. Journal of Sport Management, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Journal of Sport and Social Issues).  This appears to be the case only recently as the research area has just seemed to gain some more prestige in the last five to seven years.  Similar to other research areas, a few "experts" appear to have emerged in the field such as Fred Coalter, Richard Lerner, Nico Schulenkorf, and Jon Welty Peachey.

As I was gathering articles there were a few common themes, theories, and similar research areas that stood out to me:

- Positive Youth Development: This is understandable as the development of youth (especially adolescents) is crucial for overall well-being of society.  The focus of the studies on Positive Youth Development (referred to as PYD in some literature) was primarily on the overall effectiveness of programs and not on youth perceptions which seems logical as research on children is less common due to IRB approval etc.

- Social Capital: There were several articles that incorporated social capital theories and analyzed the presence of social capital within S4D situations.  I also noticed a common thread between social capital and community development within the S4D literature, primarily focusing on whether S4D programs took the entire community into consideration and whether communities seemed more peaceful following S4D implementation.

- The Three Models of Sport Development: These three models (which is further detailed in the Newland and Phillips NASSM abstract) are the Long Term Athlete Development model (Canadian Sport for Life, 2012), Pyramid Model of Sport Development (Green, 2005), and Sport Development Pyramid/Continuum (Eady, 1993).  When looking specifically at the development of an athlete throughout an entire lifespan, these three models popped up often within the literature.

-  Focus on Disadvantaged Groups: Many of the single case studies or in-depth qualitative studies looked at how certain disadvantaged groups within a society or community were impacted by a S4D initiative.  There were two studies in particular (Sherry, 2010; Welty Peachey, Lyras, Borland, & Cohen, 2011) that studied soccer programs intended for the homeless which I found to be very interesting and unique.

Aside from the S4D literature, I am continuing to learn more and more about the research database program Mendeley and I am excited to share some of the nuances of the program with Dr. G upon his return from Greece!

Consistency in Presentations and Literature

In the third week of my collaboration with Dr. Giannoulakis I've had the opportunity to really dive into previous research on several topics, review a pair of presentations that Dr. G gave at the NASSM conference, and familiarize myself with some literature review software.

Reviewing and Synthesizing Literature

For the Olympic Bid, Skate for a Cause, and Well-Being Festival projects, I've been gathering several peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles.  With most of the Skate for a Cause literature being non-peer-reviewed, I spent a good chunk of the week looking into the review of literature for the Olympic Bid project.  I've already come across 17 peer-reviewed articles with research pertaining to Olympic bidding, the Olympic Games, the use of focus groups in sport management studies, and the benefits of experiential learning.

I was pleased to find several studies that used focus groups to evaluate class projects similar to how Dr. G has started conducting research for the Olympic bid study.  After reviewing the literature, I can say with quite a bit of confidence that Dr. G's study will be the first of its kind to look at a graduate course in International Sport.  I also found several articles that analyzed specific Olympic bids (i.e. Vancouver, Lake Placid, Cape Town) and how the media viewed the bids, how the economy was impacted by the bids, and what the legacy of the bid would be.  After going through the transcription of the third focus group, I definitely could see similarities between the project the students completed and the actual Olympic bid process.

I am still hoping to tackle more of the Well-Being Festival research in the final hours of my week, but I also put together an 11-page summary of the most important information I gleaned from my research on Ryan Sheckler, the Ryan Sheckler Foundation, and Skate for a Cause.  While Sheckler's charitable contributions in and of itself could make for an interesting research article, I still think that looking at multiple action sports participants and their works of charity could provide more interesting information on, for example, how perceptions of participants change when they raise money for a specific cause.  Perhaps it might even be interesting to look at how skateboard and other action sports companies (i.e. etnies, DC,Vans) capitalize on sponsorship from charity events.

Presentation Review

Much like the difference in quantitative and qualitative research from Week 1, I found Dr. G's presentation style to be quite different than what I had more often than not witnessed over the last few years of college.  Dr. G's self-described "Zen" approach to presentations was quite present as the PowerPoint slides that he used were very image-heavy and, as I reviewed the presentations alone in my office, I found myself lacking specific details that a presenter would give orally.  However, being familiar with Dr. G's research on health and fitness in Greece, I was able to gather enough information to make a few content and formatting changes that, hopefully, contributed to the flow of the presentation.

I also reviewed a short presentation on an undergraduate career development course and an accompanying handout.  I thought that both the presentation and handout were put together nicely and I only suggested a handful of small changes.  I have saved the handout for future reference as I would really like to use a handout for future presentations rather than just printing off my PowerPoint slides.

Mendeley and EndNote

Finally, Dr. G tasked me with exploring two literature review programs; Mendeley and EndNote.  While EndNote branded itself as the "industry standard software tool" for literature management, citations, etc., I found Mendeley to be a bit more user-friendly and I have stored all of the Olympic bid literature in Mendeley already.  There are some minor issues with the uploading of files as at times the details of the articles can get a bit jumbled, but I really find the organization of the main page, the ability to have multiple tabs open, and the ease at which one can use tags and keywords to be extremely helpful in the management process.  I have long been a paper reader, but with the discovery of Mendeley, I am going to give the paperless route a chance for the remainder of peer-reviewed literature that I gather for Dr. G and also for my upcoming Thesis work.