DISCUSSION

It is no surprise that the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the way SfD organizations conduct business, at least temporarily, if not permanently. Although many of these forced changes were negative (e.g., less access and engagement of participants, restrictions to in-person programming), the current study attempted to focus not only on what happened and how SfD organizations reacted, but also what positives or innovative practices may have resulted from the forced changes. At such a pivotal change point in the life of many SfD organizations, what did administrators learn that will make them a stronger organization that can better serve participants into the future?

As noted in the Impact and Adjustment umbrella of findings, access, inclusion, content, and engagement were all strongly impacted by the pandemic. Interestingly, though, there were both positive and negative resulting actions, with some organizations noting that the changes resulted in more participants, new programming strategies, and altered ways of serving their youth. Similarly, in the Keys to Long-term Success umbrella of themes, organizations recognized that they have become stronger program deliverers, partners, and leaders through the challenges they faced and overcame during the pandemic. In March of 2020 the United Nations suggested that two keys to surviving the pandemic would be collaboration and creativity (United Nations, 2020a), both of which emerged clearly as findings in this study.

In terms of collaboration, scholars have historically talked about the importance of partnerships in SfD, though often alluding to strategic public-private or government-NGO partnerships focused on sustainability of individual SfD programs (e.g., MacIntosh et al., 2016; Schulenkorf, 2017; Svensson & Hambrick, 2019). The United Nations, in considering sport an important catalyst for reaching its Sustainable Development Goals, specifically talks about strategic partnerships in SDG17. They note, “Sport can catalyze, build and strengthen multi-stakeholder networks and partnerships for sustainable development and peace goals, involving and bringing together the public, governments, donors, NGOs, sport organizations, the private sector, academia and the media” (United Nations, 2020b, p. 10). What successful partnerships look like, however, is not specified by the UN, but the current study sheds light on this topic, especially related to collaborating with other SfD organizations.

Partnerships and collaborations are nothing new to SfD, yet most SfD research in this area focuses on collaborating with organizations outside of SfD, such as funders, academics, governments, or non-sport NGO’s (e.g., Marlier et al., 2020; Welty Peachey & Cohen, 2016; Welty Peachey et al., 2018). Some of the organizations in the current study talked about partners that come from outside of sport, such as funders who adjusted support levels to support programmatic needs, or a domestic violence specialty group that was able to provide curriculum around this topic. However, most of the collaborations highlighted in the interviews were with other SfD organizations in South Africa.

Svensson and Loat (2019) discuss collaboration as ‘bridge-building,’ discussing SfD partnerships broadly, including collaborations forming outside of and within SfD. But generally, there has been a lack of focus around how SfD organizations can better collaborate and/or partner with other SfD organizations for the advancement of all youth and constituents. Welty Peachey et al. (2018) outlined some of the reasons collaborations might present challenges (e.g., competition for resources, unequal power relations, misaligned goals), yet the current study suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic may have brought out more strategic thought around SfD’s being more collaborative, rather than competitive, with one another. In short, there are challenges, but the positive outcomes likely outweigh the negatives, so finding models that work will be key. The current study makes a strong case for a model that might be a good starting point: Communities of Practice.

The South African community of practice that served as the population for this study is clearly seeing positive results in terms of collaboration within SfD. The group, which meets via Zoom once per month, typically leans on its own ‘experts’ within the group to share best practices and lead discussions around challenges they are facing. The result has been a network of like-minded individuals who can support one another as needed in creating strong programming and assessment. As an example, outside of the community of practice monthly calls, participants in this study mentioned contacting other program administrators from within the group to share mental health resources, brainstorm ideas for stay-at-home programming, discuss how to shift funding to meet participant needs, and even consider sharing resources for collaborative projects. These are relatively simple ideas that are having great impacts within programs and are happening simply because the community of practice exists under the belief that everyone will become stronger through teamwork and collaboration.

For SfD deliverers who do not have a formal community of practice or may work in an area far from other SfD organizations, some models exist that can serve as a guide for those hoping to better embrace the current study’s findings. BeyondSport attempts to bring together SfD organizations across the globe to develop a more sustainable, collaborative movement (BeyondSport, 2021). Its newsletter shares job openings, best practices, and stories of success that can be beneficial to others doing similar work. Although this organization provides valuable resources and support to enhance collaboration, it might feel too global for some who want to make local connections that might be more culturally relevant. Initiating a local community of practice may be a jumping off point. This does takes leadership, management, and initiative from a few to get it going, but it could pay dividends into the future, as indicated by the current study. Ultimately, partnerships within SfD may lead to fully collaborative programming or even joint organizations who can serve more participants through more activities; the possibilities are limitless but certainly more attention needs to be given to the idea of within-SfD collaborations, as they appear to have greatly helped the organizations in the current study.

Another important implication for SfD practitioners relates to the creativity and innovation findings. Innovative practices and underpinnings are familiar to SfD. Svensson and colleagues have explored innovation in SfD extensively related to how internal conditions support innovation (Svensson & Mahoney, 2020), the impact of external stakeholders on innovation (Svensson & Hambrick, 2019), outcomes of social innovation (Svensson et al., 2020), and leadership’s impact on innovation (Svensson et al., 2019), among other topics. Dixon and Svensson (2019) note that a unique balance of structure and flexibility is important to the success of SfD organizations. This type of leadership, difficulty balancing two competing needs, may play a role in innovation and creativity emergence within SfD organizations. Similarly, Ratten (2020) posits the entrepreneurial spirit, often linked to innovation and creativity, has the potential to play a central role in SfD’s re-emergence from COVID-19. The current study’s findings demonstrate the importance of creativity in SfD managing through and beyond the pandemic.

Interestingly, the statements made by participants in the current study related to creativity and innovation felt, at times, like realizations the organizations came to as a result of the need brought on by the pandemic. Statements such as “Something that I’ve really learned is that our team actually has a lot more to offer,” “I think it just strengthened the sense of resilience and innovation and creative problem solving that we have,” and “I speak for all of us in my organization when I say we’re really proud of how we innovated during that time of national disaster” demonstrate the almost unexpected nature of these realizations. Participants talked about ‘hidden talents’ emerging and taking ‘pride’ in how they had been able to adapt. These comments indicate that perhaps the levels of creativity needed to manage through the pandemic were always there, but not fully utilized until they were most needed. Svensson and Mahoney’s (2020) organizational conditions for social innovation and Svensson et al.’s (2020) antecedents to social innovation indicate important internal factors that promote innovation, such as leadership, infrastructure, and financial resources, among others. The current study raises the question of development versus emergence of social innovation. That is, how much might an organization’s culture of innovation emerge through a necessity for change, such as that created by the pandemic?

One of the major changes created by the pandemic related to new content and emerging social issues, specifically mental health challenges. Although awareness around mental health worldwide is on the rise, the pandemic certainly exacerbated the issue (Pearl, 2020; Pons et al., 2020), and previous scholars (Hughes et al., 2020), as well as the current study, have noted the need for SfD programs to integrate coping strategies into their curriculum. This is clearly a long-term commitment from the organizations and one that they feel will better support their participants even after fully emerging from the pandemic. The ability for these organizations to recognize and be open to changing issues and ways of supporting their youth falls in line with Ettekal and Agans’ (2020) call to “be intentional about discovering the needs, challenges, and opportunities that arise during the pandemic for youth and the practitioners who serve them” (p. 15). The organizations interviewed in the current study seemed strongly committed to this ideal.

Although nine of the ten organizations included in this study recognized mental health as an emerging participant need, not all were sure how to combat the issue or integrate it into their curriculum. They were all committed to helping, yet the strategy for doing so was less clear. The organizations presented levels of support ranging from more regular check-ins to see how participants were doing to consulting with mental health specialists on how best to permanently integrate prevention into their curriculum. Consulting with other SfD organizations on their strategies, indicative of the collaborative environment suggested above, may be an initial strategy for navigating through how best to support emerging needs.

It is important to note, beyond this, that mental health was the emerging social issue that manifested itself acutely during the pandemic. So, although improved support for mental health challenges is a take-away for SfD organizations, so too is the idea of being committed to a central mission while also leaving room for growth and development as an organization. Dixon and Svensson (2019) note, “the organization’s evolution through key points in its early life course provides evidence of the delicate balance needed between structure and flexibility in hybrid organizations” (p. 463). When a social issue among constituents emerges so acutely, there is a clear need to adjust and address it.

A final note related to the implications of this study has to do with the Global Theory of Change. The Global Theory of Change is not an academic theory, perse, but rather a theory used in practice when working with non-profit organizations across the globe. As previously noted, Internews, who conceptualized the Global Theory of Change, has worked with and utilized this framework in over 150 countries with non-profit partners focused on advancing society (Internews, 2020b). Their work, although media-focused, is not dissimilar to the work of SfD organizations across the globe, though the social element and delivery through sport differ. It also appeared a very practical encapsulation of the various aspects SfD organizations should be considering in approaching their work.

The authors considered more well-known and widely utilized SfD theories in conceptualizing this study but did not feel any of them truly fit the direct focus here on organizational change related to participant needs. For instance, Sport for Development Theory (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011) seemed to have too broad a focus. A hybridity model (Svensson, 2017) covers organizational change, but is focused both internally and externally, considering various dynamics at play; that did not seem appropriate given the focus here specifically on meeting the needs of participants exclusively, so we sought a narrower focus. This process continued and left the research team still searching, eventually landing on the Global Theory of Change. Its focus on four primary areas (access, content, inclusion, engagement), all of which are relevant and applicable to every SfD organization in thinking about reaching and serving participants, appeared ideal in constructing an interview protocol that would meet the needs of this study.

Theoretically, elements within the theory were interspersed throughout several theories that have been well used in SfD literature (e.g., Positive Youth Development, Lerner et al., 2005; Social Capital Theory, DeGraaf & Jordan, 2003; Sport for Development Theory, Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011). Practically, having implemented SfD programming in the field, the authors felt the foci of the Global Theory of Change aligned well with the purpose of SfD in serving participants. Therefore, this theory, and specifically the content areas of access, content, inclusion and engagement, served as a guide to this study. Although much more work needs to be done to determine its long-term effectiveness as a theory applied in SfD, the results of the current study indicate that it hit the mark, evidenced by the follow up interview question of “are there any other major areas we did not discuss that you would like to include?”. None of the organizations interviewed suggested additions. Given that, the Global Theory of Change worked well as a foundation for the interview guide here, though there is certainly more work to be done in advocating for it as a potential theoretical guide in SfD.

Directions for Future Research

There are many future directions to take this study. Depending on how long restrictions remain in place from the pandemic, there is continued information we can glean from how SfD organizations continue to adapt. Beyond the pandemic, however, there will certainly be times of drastic change and uncertainty in the future, and better understanding some of the major takeaways from this study would be worthwhile. For instance, how do organizations create collaborative partnerships that are successful and how can SfD’s shift from seeing themselves as competitive for limited resources and rather collaborative for the greater good? Bridge-building research provides some initial strategies (Svensson & Loat, 2019), but this is worthy of future exploration.

In terms of creativity and innovation, what makes an organization innovative and how does the leader’s impact influence this? Although the current study indicated strategies that seemed to be successful in navigating the pandemic, they did not dial deeply into the ‘how,’ which is a critical next step. Some respondents briefly mentioned leadership within the culture of the organizations as playing a role, which is a topic explored in the SfD literature (e.g., Svensson et al., 2019; Svensson et al., 2020; Welty Peachey & Burton, 2016). The current study provides evidence that organizations were acutely tuned into change during the pandemic, so better investigating the ‘how’ of what worked well is warranted. In addition, in terms of change, how do originations remain structured yet flexible, mission driven yet responsive to changing needs? Some emerging needs occur acutely, while other are the result of mission-shift over time. Understanding how innovation plays a role in these questions warrants further study.

Theoretically, the need for diverse theories in SfD continues (Haudenhuyse et al., 2020; LeCrom et al., 2019; Welty Peachey et al., 2019). As noted by Schulenkorf et al. (2016), a small number of theories (e.g., positive youth development, social capital) are widely used in SfD literature. Schulenkorf and Spaaij (2015) state:

A major challenge for SDP researchers, then, is to develop and apply theory that is meaningful and revealing within the particular context under study, while refraining from over-using, recycling, or salami-slicing concepts for studies that add minimal theoretical or practical value (p. 73).

The theory used in the current study has yet to be academically validated but provided a very practically applicable starting point for the interviews conducted. Testing or reconceptualizing it in a way one might approach a scale development project (validation, for example), should be considered with the Global Theory of Change, and perhaps even other untested theories that might lay a solid groundwork for SfD.