Triathlon Australia’s high performance structure. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... theory terms, it is a good example of a system that became less isomorphic. A growing body of research in the development of sport has identified factors that are successful for obtaining elite level success. For example, De Bosscher et al. (2009b) noted that due to the increasing number of nations that strive for success on the international sport stage, there was increasing need to identify factors that led to high performance success. In their work, De Bosscher et al. (2009b) identified nine factors – at the level of society (macro); sport organisation policy (meso); and the individual (micro) levels that lead to high performance success. Although their analysis revealed that over 50% of the determinants of success were society level variables (social constructions) that were seemingly beyond the control of sport organisations, they report that many nations continue to invest strategically in high performance programming and activities that may render the uncontrollable factors irrelevant. Thus, models of sport development are becoming more similar in design and structure. What is clear from the work in the development of sport thus far is that it would seem that sport organisations (with the exception of those described by Palm, 1991) are becoming increasingly (in institutional theory terms) isomorphic. This suggests that sport organisations are subject to socially constructed value systems and institutional pressures to structure their business activities in a similar manner. Further, at the level of high performance, sport organisations nationally and internationally have concentrated on improving the same business or organisational factors that are important in success – and moreover, are circumventing those that they cannot control. It seems that the sport of triathlon offers a unique context in which to view the development of sport via a lens of institutional theory due to a range of institutional nuances that seem to resist the isomorphism that is typically observed in sport development in other sport settings. To that end, this study seeks to examine two phenomena within triathlon. First, to better understand how TPOs have risen in legitimacy for themselves in triathlon, and second, to critically examine the subsequent model of sport development that has emerged. The overall aim, then, is to better understand the impact of these changes on the sport of triathlon specifically, and on sport development more generally. While models for sport delivery in general are quite different in Australia (Hoye & Nicolson, 2011) compared with the US (Bowers et al., 2011), triathlon is delivered similarly in both countries (Newland & Kellett, 2012). Triathlon then provides an excellent setting to compare how entities that exist outside the traditional sport system structures in either country, like TPOs and LCs in this case, influence the development of triathlon and represent new models of sport development. For the purposes of this research, two cities within the US and Australia that have an active triathlon culture and event calendar were chosen for comparison. The researchers are aware that there are a variety of stakeholders involved in the development of triathlon. In Australia, the federal legislative body responsible for policy development and government funding allocation for all sports is the Australian Sport Commission. Elite development is also governed by various Institutes of Sport in Australia. Arguably, the USOC and NCAA may be similar types of organisations in the US setting. But, for the purpose of this study these entities were not included as while each are vital for sport development in both countries, they do not actually deliver events or races on behalf of the sport as TPOs and LCs do. The parameters for inclusion in this study are further detailed in Section 4. Traditionally, the creation of policies and resulting structures to implement activities, and programmes associated with sport development are the responsibility of national GBs. In this study, the GBs of interest are Triathlon Australia (TA) and USA Triathlon (USAT). The mission of TA is to, ‘‘ensure the existence of quality participation opportunities and pathways within the sport of triathlon’’ through building a sustainable and prosperous organisation by enabling innovation and collaboration (TA, 2012). Additionally, TA envisages growth in participation in triathlon through provision of leadership (by TA) in creating increased opportunities, while sustaining international success in high performance through the provision of effective and efficient coach and athlete pathways (TA, 2012). While mass participation is part of its mission, TA’s website only provides a limited number of statements about the ‘best way to get involved in the sport’. Meanwhile the high performance programme is well documented with links to the national and state programme as well as a figure illustrating the high performance pathway (see Fig. 1). Triathlon is unique compared with other sports in Australia in that TA outsource the management of its events, as well as the formulation and delivery of sport development clinics to TPOs, rather than developing and producing the product in house. Triathlon Australia (2012) sanctions events to ensure their safety and fairness and provide liability and personal accident insurance for athletes. However, other than enforcing the rules, there is not much additional involvement with any triathlon events staged across the country. In comparison, the mission of USAT is to ‘‘encourage, support and enhance the multisport experience in the United States’’ (USAT, 2012). It must be noted that USAT oversee a range of multi-discipline sports (including triathlon) hence the lack of emphasis on the sport of triathlon in its mission statement despite the name of the GB being specific to Triathlon – that is USA Triathlon. For high performance, USAT is responsible for selecting and training the athletes that represent the US in international competition, while for mass participation, they foster participation through the sanctioning of triathlon events and clubs (USAT, 2012). Like TA, USAT pays merely lip service to mass participation, as its website illustrates the focus on high performance with links to programmes and pathways for elite development. USAT has published a figure that illustrates these pathways (see Fig. 2). USAT, like TA, only produces the championship events and depends on private companies to deliver all other events and development activities. The sanctioning process is similar to that in Australia in that USAT ensures safety and fairness of events while providing liability and personal accident insurance to athletes. Using an interpretivist approach, we used a case study design to investigate two separate triathlon-specific cases in Australia and the United States (Cavaye, 1996). It is considered suitable to use case study analysis when exploring a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2009). The locations chosen for case study in this research were deemed relevant due to the community’s highly active involvement in the sport of triathlon, providing an excellent opportunity to explore development of the sport. Therefore, the proposed research method is not only appropriate, but also justified for exploring and drawing comparisons across the two countries. Using two case studies provides a means to develop theory through literal replication when the cases are similar and theoretical replication when they contrast (Yin, 2009). As the objectives of this study are to explore how TPOs have developed legitimacy in the sport of triathlon in terms of sport development, and to better understand the resulting emerging model of sport development in both Australia and the US the proposed methodology is further supported. To achieve this goal, Austin, TX in the US and the cities of Port Phillip and Frankston (Melbourne, Australia) were considered to be exemplar cases due to each of them being highly active triathlon communities. Table 1 below further highlights how each of the stakeholders included in this research are involved in triathlon. The participants of the study included representatives from TA and USAT and a range of TPOs and LCs in Australia and USA who each were instrumental in their organisation’s role in development and delivery of triathlon. Representatives included one individual from each of TA and USAT, a representative from two TPOs in each of Australia and the USA, and a representative from two LCs in each of Australia the USA. The TPO representatives were chosen based on their numerous offerings for triathlon in the area. In both countries, the TPOs delivered similar sized and number of triathlons. The LC’s also represented areas that were highly active for triathlon events. The ten participants were interviewed, each interview lasting no more than 60-min. Ethics approval was obtained to conduct this research. In order to understand the role the various organisations played in sport development and delivery of triathlon, this study examined data from two sources. First, publicly available documentation from TA and USAT, TPOs, and LCs was gathered. The publicly available documentation included the organisations’ promotional materials and website information, which included annual reports, mission statements and general information about the organisation. These data were selected to best reflect the organisations’ operations regarding sport development and delivery and how they represented themselves to stakeholders. Second, purposive sampling (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used to identify key representatives from each of TA, USAT, TPOs, and LCs involved in the development and delivery of triathlon to conduct semi-structured interviews in order to better understand the emergent models of sport development from each stakeholder’s own perspective and to understand and identify alternate views and ...