Content uploaded by Brett Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brett Smith on Jul 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Struggling to Stay and Struggling to Leave: The Experiences of Elite Para-Athletes at the End
of their Sport Careers
Corresponding Author: A. Bundon (andrea.bundon@ubc.ca)
Assistant Professor, School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia (6081 University
Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z1)
*** Work was conducted while Andrea Bundon was a postdoctoral fellow affiliated with the Peter
Harrison Centre for Disability Sport in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health, Loughborough
University (United Kingdom)***
A. Ashfield (Arabella.Ashfield@eis2win.co.uk)
Performance Lifestyle Research Lead, The English Institute of Sport (299 Alan Turing Way,
Manchester, United Kingdom, M11 3BS)
B. Smith (b.smith.4@bham.ac.uk)
Professor, School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Birmingham
(Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom, B15 2TT)
V. Goosey-Tolfrey (V.L.Tolfrey@lboro.ac.uk)
Professor, The Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport in the School of Sport, Exercise and
Health, Loughborough University (Epinal Way, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom,
LE11 3TU)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge all of the athletes who participated in this
project and shared their stories in the hopes of improving the future retirement experiences of
para-athletes.
Funding
This work was funded by the Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport and the English Institute
of Sport.
Highlights:
• Some reasons for retirement are unique to para-athletes and targeted types of support are
needed.
• Earlier generations of Paralympic athletes struggled to stay in sport due to lack of funding.
• Current Paralympic athletes struggle to leave sport due to uncertainty about future
employment.
• Para-athletes were unprepared for the discrimination they encountered when seeking
employment.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the retirement experiences of elite para-athletes. Athletic retirement has
long been of interest to sport psychologists. With a few exceptions, little attention has been paid to
the retirements of elite athletes with disabilities. The research that has been done on para-sport
was conducted in the late 1990s and the context of Paralympic sport has changed in the interim.
DESIGN: An online survey was distributed to retired para-athletes (n=60) and qualitative
interviews were conducted with a purposive sub-sample (n=13). SAMPLE: The sample included
48 Paralympians (21 had medalled at the Paralympic Games) and 12 internationally competitive
para-athletes. The group included 39 males and 21 females and was diverse in age (22 to 77 years
of age), impairment history and impairment type (35 acquired impairments and 25 congenital
impairments), and sport (24 different para-sports). METHODS: Guided by a subjective and
transactional epistemological framework, data was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Although
most para-athletes leave sport for the same reasons as their able-bodied peers, certain reasons for
retirement, such as declassification, are unique to para-sport. Para-athletes facing these types of
retirements had particularly difficult transition experiences and could benefit from additional
support. Para-athletes also reported that the increasing professionalization of para-sport, combined
with uncertainty about post-sport employment opportunites for people with disabilities, made it
more difficult to retire. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the experiences of retirement that are
unique to para-sport will permit sport psychologists and other practitioners to provide better and
more targeted support to para-athletes.
Keywords: Para-athletes; Disability; Sport; Career Transition; Retirement
Struggling to Stay and Struggling to Leave: The Experiences of Elite Para-Athletes at the End
of their Sport Careers
Introduction
The reasons for and circumstances of athletic retirement have long been of interest to sport
psychologists and other practitioners. However, with a few notable exceptions, little work has
been done to understand the transitions out of sport of elite athletes with disabilities. The work
that has been conducted on the topic of how and why para-athletes end their sport careers was
carried out in the late 1990s, when the context of disability sport was significantly different (Legg
& Wheeler, 1998; Martin, 1996, 1999, 2000; Wheeler, Malone, VanVlack, Nelson, & Steadward,
1996; Wheeler et al. 1999). At that time, the Paralympic Movement (defined in this instance as the
informal collective of athletes, coaches, officials, sport leaders and others whose activities
culminate in the Paralympic Games [see Bundon, 2014]), was just entering what Howe (2008)
referred to as the third era of para-sport. This era is associated with a focus on high performance
sport and contrasted with earlier eras that emphasized sport for rehabilitation and sport for
participation (Howe, 2008). In this third era, the organization and delivery of Paralympic sport has
become more professionalized and dramatic increases in funding have occurred (Misener, Darcy,
Legg, & Gilbert, 2013). For example, UK Sport invested £72,786,652 in Summer Paralympic
Sports during the 2016 Rio Paralympiad compared to £10,075,602 in the lead up to the 2000
Sydney Paralympic Games (UK Sport, n.d.). This investment has changed not only how the
national sport governing bodies (NGBs) deliver para-sport programs but has also changed what is
expected of para-athletes with regards to time spent training and the achievement of podium
performances (Hammond & Jeanes, 2017). In research with able-bodied athletes, the singular
focus on winning has been reported to promote the formation of strong athletic identities, but
often at the expense of developing other aspects of the individual’s identity (Cosh, Crabb, &
Tully, 2015; Sparkes, 1998; Webb, Nasco, Riley, & Headrick, 1998). That exclusive investment
in sport has also been linked to less time invested in preparing for post-sport careers (Aquilina,
2013; Albion & Fogarty, 2005; Cavallerio, Wadey, & Wagstaff, 2017; Murphy, Petitpas, &
Brewer, 1996). Yet the implications of an increased focus on winning and a decreased focused on
post-sport planning have not been researched in connection with para-sport and the implications
for retiring para-athletes are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to explore how
the current organization and delivery of Paralympic sport are informing the retirement experiences
of elite para-athletes by answering the following research questions: (1) How are elite para-
athletes transitioning out of sport and into employment or education? And (2) How specifically do
disability and/or impairment impact upon this transition?
Athletic Retirement and Reasons for Leaving Sport
Within the sport psychology literature, different ways of understanding sport retirement
have been advanced and theories and models drawn from the fields of social gerontology and
thanatology comparing the experience to retirement from the workforce and/or a form of social
death (Blinde & Greendorfer, 1985; Blinde & Stratta, 1992). In contrast to these largely negative
portrayals of leaving sport, other scholars have described sport retirement as a form of rebirth
(Coakley, 1983). However, while these works focused on retirement as a sudden and immediate
break, more recent research has portrayed sport retirement as one of the many normative
transitions that happen over the course of an athletic career (Park, Lavallee, & Tod, 2013;
Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004). Understanding retirement this way, shifts the focus from the
specific moment in which a sport career terminates to more holistic explorations of the athlete’s
career including how experiences throughout that career shape and influence the decision to leave
sport and the emotions involved in this process (McEwen, Hurd Clarke, Bennett, Dawson, &
Crocker, ahead of print).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations such as work and study commitments, loss of
motivation, the politics of sport, decreases in performance, financial considerations, decreases in
enjoyment, age, injury and deselection have all been reported as reasons (able-bodied) elite
athletes terminate their sport careers (Lavallee , Grove & Gordon, 1997; Werthner & Orlick,
1986; Taylor & Olgivie, 1994). Sport scholars have subsequently sought to further understand
athletes’ experiences by creating categories that position retirement as voluntary or involuntary,
planned or unplanned, desired or undesired (Alfermann, Stambulova, & Zemaityte, 2004; Blinde
& Stratta, 1992; Lavallee et al., 1997). Yet these binaries have been called into question because
the distinction is not always clear and reasons for leaving sport are often interrelated (Alfermann,
2000; Fernandez, Stephan, & Fouquereau, 2006; Kerr & Dacyshyn, 2000; Taylor & Ogilvie,
1994). For example, while some athletes ‘involuntarily’ retire due to injury, others continue to
compete while injured until the pain impacts upon their enjoyment of the sport resulting in the
‘voluntary’ decision to stop. Recognizing this interplay between reasons for retirement, some
researchers have proposed models that move from binaries to concurrently acting push factors
(negatives experiences that drive athletes from sport), pull factors (attractive opportunities outside
of sport), anti-push factors (attachment to the current situation, ie. the sport career) and anti-pull
factors (perceived costs and risks about life after sport) (Fenandez et al., 2006).
In addition to academic engagement with the topic, the past few years have seen many
high profile athletes go public about their retirement struggles and a renewed public interest in
athletic retirement as part of a broader societal conversation about athlete welfare and wellbeing
(Duhatchschek, 2016, August 29; Rumsby, 2017, May 9). The result has been increased scrutiny
of the high performance sport sector “rais[ing] challenging questions about whether the current
balance between welfare and winning is right” (Grey-Thompson, 2017, p. 4). In a recently
produced report to the British Minister of Sport, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson stated that “it is
clear that the drive for success and desire to win should not be at the cost of individuals involved”
(Grey-Thompson, 2017, p. 4). Moreover, the research evidence makes clear that, while athletes
may experience poor mental health after they leave sport, interventions and protective measures
need be taken while they are still in sport (Larkin, Levy, Marchant, & Martin, 2017).
Despite a growing body of research exploring athletic retirements and increased media
reporting on the topic, few have considered the experiences of para-athletes. Wheeler and
colleagues (1996, 1999) carried out a pilot investigation on the retirement experiences of 18 elite
Canadian para-athletes and later interviewed 40 international para-athletes. They found that para-
athletes shared many of the anxieties around sport retirement expressed by their non-disabled
peers. Wheeler et al. (1996) also proposed five areas for future research consideration which they
termed the ‘quintuplet jeopardy’ of para-athlete retirement: (1) loss of sport, (2) employment and
financial issues, (3) overuse injuries contributing to a ‘secondary’ disability, (4) facing and coping
with the original disability, and (5) issues associated with aging with a disability. These five areas,
they stated, need further investigation as each has different implications for para-athletes than for
their able-bodied peers. Martin (1996, 1999, 2000) also studied the careers and transitions of para-
athletes and found that there are situations unique to para-sport that have implications for
retirement. These included understanding that some para-athletes will have entered sport as a
means of coping with an injury or as part of the rehabilitation program. In turn, leaving sport may
raise unresolved emotions about the traumatic event and/or their identity as a person with a
disability (Martin, 2017). Yet despite theorizing that para-athletes transitioning out of sport will
encounter different challenges to able-bodied athltes and could benefit from additional, targeted
types of support to assist them to cope (such as employment training programs that address the
discrimination people with disabilities often encounter in the workplace), there has been little
development in this area over the last two decades.
Philosophical and Theoretical Framework
The research sits within the interpretivist paradigm underpinned by ontological relativism
(i.e., reality and truth are multiple and context dependent) and a subjective and transactional
epistemology (i.e., knowledge is subjective and socially constructed) (Smith & Sparkes, 2016). In
keeping with the epistemological and ontological foundations of the work, the research was
designed to engage directly with already retired para-athletes to hear their experiences of leaving
sport. No preconceived theoretical frameworks were considered before starting the work as it was
determined this would be inconsistent with aims of seeking to understand the topic from the
perspective of the para-athletes involved. We were, however, guided by the previously cited
literature and, in particular, the concept of retirement as one of the many normative transitions in
an athlete’s career (Wylleman & Lavallee, 2004), the multi-faceted and co-acting reasons for
retirement (Fernandez et al., 2006), and the ‘quintuplet jeopardy’ facing retiring para-athletes
outlined by Wheeler and colleagues (1996; 1999). The research team also brought to the project
our own knowledge, perspectives and experiences garnered from many years of participating in
para-sport as coaches, volunteers, sport practitioners and disability sport researchers. We had
ongoing discussions about our shared values, our reasons for undertaking the research and our
expectations for who would benefit from the research. As a result of these conversations, we
position this project within the field of critical disability studies (CDS) (Smith & Bundon, in
press). For us, working from a CDS approach means being attentive to the processes and
structures that contribute to the ongoing marginalization and exclusion of disabled people from
everyday life. We conceptualize sport as a everyday space where disabled identities are
(re)produced and understand that the practices of the sport sector have the potential to further
oppress people with disabilities and/or transform societal understandings of disability (Smith,
Bundon, & Best, 2016). It was our intent, when embarking on this research, to use our findings to
challenge conditions of disablism (the systemic oppression of people with disabilities stemming
from negative assumptions about disability) and ableist culture (a culture which assumes ‘most’
people are able-bodied) (Goodley, Hughes, & Davis, 2012). While some may be unfamiliar with
the idea of conducting research with the express intent of engaging in advocacy (ie. ‘challenging
oppression’), this stance is supported by many leading CDS scholars who feel that research should
be used to improve their lives of those who have given their time and knowledge to make the
research possible (Kitchen, 2000; Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009).
Consistent with our philosophical and theoretical position, we also adopted a relativistic
stance towards the issue of methodological rigor. Rigor has been described as a marker of
excellence or quality sought through method (Smith & McGannon, 2017). While qualitative
researchers demonstrate rigor in various manners including the use of member-checking, inter-
rater reliability and/or the application of a criteriological approach these approaches were deemed
incongruent with our ontological and epistemological frameworks (Smith & McGannon, 2017).
Instead, and consistent with the aims of CDS scholarship, we propose two means by which the
quality of our work be judged. First, we sought to be transpartent in our practice and maintain a
clear link between the knowledge produced (the findings reported, the conclusions arrived at, and
the claims made) and the steps undertaken in producing this knowledge (the design of the project,
the process of data collection, and the methods of data analysis). As disability activists have
frequently called out researchers for their parasitic practices that ‘take’ from disabled people
without reporting back (Stone & Priestley, 1996), we attempted to have open and honest relations
with participants. We communicated to potential participants our research aims, we invited them
to ask questions of the team and ended each survey and interview with the option to share with us
anything they felt ‘important for us to know.’ We also provided regular updates on the progress of
the project. In the writing up of the research, we have been transparent by communicating the
decisions made and actions taken during the research and providing details about the recruitment
process, the demographics of the sample, the number and length of interviews, and the stages of
the analysis. We have used direct quotes from participants so that readers can assess for
themselves our interpretations and the appropriateness of our themes.
The second criteria by which our work can be judged is by the extent to which it
accomplishes our stated goal of producing research that directly and indirectly benefits people (in
this case ‘athletes’) with disabilities and contributes to more inclusive practices. While we
acknowledge this can only be assessed in retrospect, as a starting point we would point to recent
changes at the English Institute of Sport that have been informed by this work including the
creation of a para-athlete advisory group and additional training for Performance Lifestyle (PL)
practitioners working with para-athletes in the areas of career planning, employment law and
issues of (de)classification (Bundon & Ashfield, 2016).
Material and Methods
The design for this project was multi-method and included a survey and semi-structured
interviews. The survey questions were developed by the research team drawing on the previously
cited literature. Once the survey closed, the research team analyzed the responses and then
developed the interview questions. This approach is aligned with Gibson’s (2016) description of
mixing methods for the purpose of complementarity. Projects with complementarity designs use
multiple methods to reach a deeper understanding of the phenomenon and “the true strength of
this approach is aggregation of the strengths of each method” (Gibson, 2016, p.388). Online
survey methods were selected because these allowed us to hear from a large and geographically
dispersed group of retired para-athletes. Additionally, like in Braye, Dixon and Gibbons’ (2013)
similarly designed project exploring Paralympic sport in the United Kingdom, these methods were
chosen in order to capture detailed responses from diverse participants.. The interviews
subsequently provided us with an opportunity to further delve into issues raised by survey
respondents providing more richness to the data. The design of the project was reviewed and
approved by the research ethics board of the host university.
Online Survey
An online survey was created using Bristol Online Surveys (BOS). BOS is compliant with
all UK data protection laws and also meets UK accessibility requirements. The survey included 13
sections and 22 questions (and 55 sub-questions) and asked athletes for demographic information
including the history of their sport participation (years in sport, type of sport, etc.), the history of
their impairment (congenital or acquired, stable or progressive), their education and employment
history (including whether they worked or studied while in sport) and their current employment or
education status. Conceptual questions pertaining to their reasons for and experiences of leaving
sport were also included. Para-athletes were asked about when, how and why they made the
decision to end their competitive careers, what types of services and support they accessed during
their transition, and their advice to current para-athletes regarding preparing for sport retirement.
Inclusion Criteria.
Criterion-based sampling was used (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). To participate in the survey
athletes needed to be at least 18 years of age, have represented Great Britain at a Paralympic
Games or other international para-sport event and/or have been an elite para-athlete receiving
direct funding from UK Sport in the form of an Athlete Personal Award. The final criteria was
that athletes must have retired from international competition. As we were interested in if the
experiences of athletes leaving sport may have changed over time, we set no limits on ‘time since
retirement’ and recruited athletes from earlier Games.
Recruitment.
Organizations that provide services for or support to elite para-athletes were asked to
circulate survey information to their constituents. This included UK Sport (distributes funding to
athletes preparing for international competition), the British Paralympic Association (selects,
prepares, funds and manages the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Paralympic Games team) and
the Dame Kelly Holmes Trust (works with current and retired elite athletes to mentor young
people). These organizations distributed information through email newsletters and/or shared links
to a project webpage on their social media networks. It should be noted that most organizations do
not update contact lists for athletes once they have left sport and/or had their funding terminated
so it is unclear how many retired para-athletes were reached through these channels. Contact
information for athletes was never shared with the research team. Rather potential participants
were asked to contact us if they wanted further information. Social media was also used as a
recruitment tool with the research team sharing the link to the project page on their own Facebook
and Twitter accounts and those of their institution.
Semi-structured interviews
A subset of 13 of the 60 survey respondents participated in follow-up, semi-structured
qualitative interviews. The purpose of these interviews was to provide more depth and detail
around the topics previously addressed in the survey.
Recruitment.
The online survey included text informing participants of the full project design and
stating that some survey respondents would be contacted by email to request they participate in
follow-up interviews. They were also informed that, if contacted, they would have the option to
accept or decline to be interviewed. Fifteen participants were contacted for an interview and 13
agreed to participate and signed consent forms.
Sampling criteria.
Maximum case sampling was used to identify athletes for interviews (Sparkes & Smith,
2014). Maximum case sampling consists of the research team defining in advance the dimensions
of variation in the population that are most relevant to the project and then systematically
contacting individuals that can speak to the most important possible variations of these
dimensions. From the survey responses, the research team determined that the most important
dimensions of variation included: gender, sport, impairment type, time since retirement, reason for
leaving sport, duration of sport career, education and employment history and present
employment status. The interviews averaged 63 minutes in duration for a total of 13.8 hours. All
interviews were conducted by phone or over Skype, were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
While some have questioned whether phone or video call interviews provide the same quality data
as in-person interviews, a recent study by Rathwell, Camiré and Young (2016) found no
difference in depth, vividness, nuance or richness when comparing Skype and in-person
interviews. In her research, Bundon (2017) found that these technologies have infiltrated our daily
lives to the point where many individuals do not distinguish between online and offline
communication. For these reasons, the research team was confident in our decision to conduct
interviews in this manner.
Data analysis
The survey responses were exported from BOS into an Excel file. The interviews were
transcribed as Word documents. Survey responses and interview transcripts were assigned an
identifying label and participant names were removed. All data were analyzed using an iterative
hybrid thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun, Clarke, & Weate, 2016; Fereday & Muir-
Cochrane, 2006). This process includes six phases: (1) familiarization with the data, (2)
generation of preliminary codes using the research questions to develop initial ideas (inductive
codes) and notes of what is ‘interesting’ in the data (deductive codes), (3) searching for themes by
sorting codes, (4) reviewing themes by searching for negative instances or alternative
understandings, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) identifying which themes are important
and how they explain the phenomenon. We refer to this approach to thematic analysis as
‘iterative’ in that it is described in six steps for the purpose of clarity but in application some
stages happen concurrently and steps are revisited as many times as deemed necessary. It is
‘hybrid’ in that it includes the use of both codes identified by the research team during the design
phase (ie. closely linked to the research questions and the review of the existing literature) and
codes developed as we immersed ourselves in the data. This approach to data analysis aligns with
our relativist and subjective stance in that it recognizes that codes and themes are not fixed, final
or complete but are useful ways of organizing accounts to go beyond description and provide
meaningful insights into the phenomenon (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The management of data was
facilitated using NVivo 10 software, with node reports exported as Word files and memos further
annotated during subsequent readings by research team members. In reports, presentations and
manuscripts identifying factors have been removed.
Sample description
Survey participants.
Sixty para-athletes completed the survey including 48 Paralympians (17 had competed in
one Games, 17 in two Games, seven in three Games and seven had competed at four or more
Games). Twenty-one had won medals at Paralympic Games. Of the remaining 12 respondents, 12
had represented Great Britain internationally and/or were recipients of UK Sport funding. Twenty-
four different sports were represented. The age range of survey respondents was 20 to 77 with an
average age of 45. Five athletes had retired in the year preceding the survey, 19 in the past one to
two years, 13 in the past three to four years and 23 had left sport five or more years prior to the
survey. The sample was also diverse in terms of gender and impairment type including 39 men
and 21 women, 25 athletes with congenital impairments and 35 with acquired impairments. In
analyzing the data, the research team observed what appeared to be differences in the reasons for
and circumstances surrounding retirement based on the ‘era’ in which the athlete had competed.
To explore these differences in more depth and better understand how the timing of their
Paralympic career may have impacted their sport experiences, we divided the 48 Paralympians
into groups based on the year in which they made their final appearance at a Paralympic Games.
Cohort 1 included 14 Paralympians whose final appearance was Sydney 2000 or earlier. Cohort 2
consisted of 12 Paralympians who last competed at a Paralympic Games between 2002 (Salt Lake
City) and 2010 (Vancouver). The largest group, Cohort 3 retired from sport after either London
2012 or Sochi 2014. We then compared the responses of each cohort within the previously
identified themes.
Interview participants.
In total, 13 para-athletes participated in the interviews including six men and seven
women. Twelve were Paralympians and one had competed internationally for GB. They came
from the sports of sailing, boccia, swimming, archery, rowing, wheelchair rugby, goalball and
judo. One participant had retired that same year, six in the past one to two years, three in the past
three to four years and three had been retired for more than five years. The average age of
interviewees was 31 and the group was diverse in terms of impairment type.
Results and Discussion
In the section that follows we address four thematic areas drawn from combined survey
and interview data: (1) the multiple, concurrent and complex reasons elite para-athletes leave
sport, (2) the increasing professionalization of para-sport and the implications on when, why and
how para-athletes retire, (3) the challenges and discrimination para-athletes face in leaving para-
sport and entering the workforce, and (4) suggestions to better prepare para-athletes for their
transition out of elite sport. These themes are brought into conversation with the previously cited
literature on para-athletes and sport retirement.
Multiple, Concurrent and Complex Reasons for Sport Retirement
The survey asked respondents to select from a list of 12 reasons for leaving sport all that
applied to them. The list was drawn from the previously cited literature on the most frequent
reasons for leaving sport among athletes generally (Fernandez et al., 2006; Lavallee et al., 1997)
and the research team added three ‘para-specific’ choices including: ‘my classification changed
and I was no longer eligible to compete,’ ‘my class was eliminated from the Paralympic Games,’
and ‘my sport or event was eliminated from the Paralympic Games.’ Table 1 includes the survey
responses.
Table 1
Survey Responses to ‘Reasons for Leaving Sport.’
Reason for leaving sport
Number of
respondents that
selected this option
I felt it was a good time to retire.
32
I had achieved my sport goals.
17
I wanted to spend more time with family.
17
I was deselected or not selected to the team.
14
I wanted to pursue an employment opportunity.
13
I left because of illness or injury.
12
I needed to earn more money.
11
I lost my sport funding and could not afford to continue.
7
I wanted to pursue an educational opportunity.
3
My classification changed and I was no longer eligible to compete.*
3
My sport or event was eliminated from the Paralympic program.*
2
My class was eliminated from the Paralympic program.*
2
Note: *indicates a reason for leaving sport unique to para-sport
Earlier research reported that elite athletes generally leave sport for multiple and
cumulative reasons (Alfermann, 2000; Fernandez et al., 2006; Kerr & Dacyshyn, 2000; Taylor &
Ogilvie, 1994). This is consistent with our survey findings with 39 respondents selecting more
than one reason. When asked in a follow-up question in the survey to elaborate on the
circumstances of their retirement, most indicated that their reasons were not only multiple but
acted in concert. For example, one para-athlete who had competed in two Games replied:
I felt that I had achieved all of my goals and was ready to start a family and get married
following a lifetime of training and competition. My decision was confounded by a
reduction in my funding following not achieving Paralympic gold despite competing with a
significant injury. Additionally the performance centre moved from where I had located to
and I wasn't prepared to relocate again.
Another Paralympian wrote:
I thought it was a great time to retire after 2012. I wanted to be at home more as well as to
go into business for myself. I didn’t see much changing for the next cycle in terms of the
team’s results. I believe that if you’re an international athlete, you should give 100% to
the team all of the time… The things that I mentioned about led me to conclude that I was
ready to retire and let others step in.
The above quotes include what Fernandez et al. (2006) have termed pull factors (desire to get
married, start a family, spend more time at home, go into business) and push factors (reduction in
funding, need to relocate, predictions of future team performance). Being simultaneously pushed
from sport and pulled towards other opportunities was consistently reported, and even survey
respondents who selected a single reason from the list generally elaborated in their written
responses. For example, one athlete selected only ‘I had achieved my sport goals and was ready to
retire’, and then wrote:
I came late to sport and having always worked I was fortunate that my employer allowed
me to go 'part time' in order to qualify for London. After the games and my return to 'full
time', it became clear that it wasn't possible to train enough and work. Although my place
in the team was still 'safe', I didn't want to continue if I wasn't competitive.
In the above example, the retirement thought process included weighing the feasibility of staying
in sport against employment demands and an assessment of the likelihood of future sport success.
Indeed, many of the participants spoke to the increasing competitiveness of para-sport, the
growing pressure to win medals, and the challenge of matching (or bettering) the performances of
younger or newly recruited competitors. Their comments are consistent with Wheeler et al. (1996)
predictions that the growing popularity of Paralympic sport would have implications for how and
when para-athletes retire.
In total, seven participants in the survey selected one or more of the ‘para-specific’ reasons
for retirement. As there is no existing data on rates of declassification or athletes who leave sport
after being reclassified into fields where they are less competitive, we are not able to comment on
whether our sample is representative. This said, it maybe that this work resonates with readers or
research in the future, thereby potentially displaying naturalistic generalizability (Smith, 2018).
Futhermore, though only seven chose these responses, other para-athletes used the open-ended
questions to explain that their impairment had impacted upon their decision to leave competitive
sport. For example, one athlete explained that the deterioration of her physical condition had made
her less competitive precipitating her retirement:
[It was] mainly due to the fact my condition was worsening (but probably not enough to
move me down a class) and therefore I was becoming less competitive in my class and
whilst my skills were improving I was unable to improve on my personal bests because I
was physically getting worse and compensating for that. It was a good time to stop
because I realised the difficulty of me physically being able to maintain training hours
required to the make the 2016 Paralympic Games...
The above example is provided because it highlights the additional complexity of para-sport,
where athletes’ retirement decisions may be influenced by the progression of the impairment that
qualified them for Paralympic competition in the first place. By definition para-athletes start their
athletic careers with an injury or an impairment. In many cases their conditions are stable and do
not negatively impact upon their physical health (for example, an amputation or a vision
impairment). In other instances, their impairments are caused by underlying health conditions or
medical diagnosis that are not stable (for example, an athlete may use a wheelchair due to
degenerative conditions that impact their muscles or joints) and the progression of the condition
could precipitate their retirement from sport. The stories heard in the project also fit with
empirical evidence that para-athletes may become injured through sport participation and that this
injury, when compounded with the original impairment, has a disproportionate impact on their
overall wellbeing (Burnham et al., 1993; Bloomquist, 1986; Fagher & Lexell, 2014). For example,
an able-bodied athlete might decide to continue to compete with a shoulder injury whereas an
athlete who uses a wheelchair might decide that it is not worth the risk of not being to
independently wheel and leave the sport. Thus the cumulative impact of these ‘secondary
disabilities’ need to be accounted for when considering the retirement of para-athletes (Wheeler et
al., 1996).
It is also important to note that to date there is no existing literature on para-athletes forced
into retirement because of (de)classification. While this option was selected by only three
participants, those who were in this position reported very traumatic and unsettled transition
experiences along with difficulties in coping indicating this is an important area for further work.
Their stories shared many characteristics with other reports of forced and undesired retirements.
For example, para-athletes who were (de)classified out of sport spoke of having no control over
the situation and feeling powerless. This is similar to how athletes have described retirements due
to injuries (Clowes, Lindsay, Fawcett, & Knowles, 2015) and it may be that sport psychologists
and other practitioners supporting athletes can draw on this literature. However, while there may
be some similarities, there are also elements where the para-athletes experiences depart from those
of non-disabled athletes. Our participants described feeling isolated because most people do not
understand the classification system and how or why an athlete might be reclassified. They felt
that others thought they must have been cheating or intentionally misrepresenting their
impairment status and that they had finally been ‘caught out’ by the classifiers. Whereas an
injured athlete might reasonable expect sympathy, these para-athletes felt shamed and this further
contributed to the trauma of their experience.
The para-athletes also made many comments about how their NGB responded when they
were declassified. The para-athletes perceived that their NGBs were unfamiliar with retirements
dues to classification issues (as there is no equivalent in ‘able-bodied sport’) and thus under
prepared to support para-athletes in these situations. While one para-athlete reported being intially
angry with her association for their lack of support, in the interview, she reflected that the
situation was probably new to her NGB as well. She said:
I think at the time I was all sort of emotional but looking back rationally I think well
actually they didn’t really know what to do either. They had no mechanisms in place for
transitions [due to declassification]. And really I suppose they did the best they could. It
wasn’t what I needed at the time. But I would really like it to get better for others in that
position because I would hate for them to go through what I did.
The examples offered illuminate the need for retirement research that is para-sport specific. The
existing literature addresses forced retirements but does not explain the roles and responsibilities
of sport federations with regards to supporting declassified athletes. The research also confirms
earlier theorizing that research conducted with able-bodied athletes cannot simply be generalized
to understand the experiences of para-athletes (Legg & Wheeler, 1998).
The Professionalization of Para-Sport and Implications for Para-athlete Retirement
Athletes are not just pushed from sport and/or pulled to pursue other opportunities. As
previously stated, Fernandez et al. (2006) has defined anti-push factors as an attachment to the
current situation and anti-pull factors as related to perceived risks about future situations. Anti-
push and anti-pull factors were most evident when comparing and contrasting the interview and
survey responses by cohort. Para-athletes in Cohorts 1 and 2 described a Paralympic sport system
that had limited funding, infrastructure, programming and support services. Subsequently, many
of these participants reported that they had struggled to stay in sport and that they were often
working or studying in addition to training. As one athlete described it:
You just fit in training when you could and hoped that you [did] more than the other
countries. It was just part-time, fit it in when you can at university. Because it wasn’t
really fully funded and whilst we were committed to it, it was a bit more than a hobby but
not quite a career.
The participants’ descriptions of a Paralympic Movement under resourced through the 1980s and
into the 1990s, and then a gradual build towards increased support leading to the Sydney Games
in 2000, is supported by accounts of when leading Paralympic nations such as Great Britain,
Australia and Canada started investing in para-sport (Hammond & Jeanes, 2017; Howe, 2007).
In contrast, Cohort 3, the group of para-athletes that competed in London 2012, described
a Paralympic sport system that was highly developed with significant funding. Although
participants spoke of the advent of funding for para-sport in terms of ‘progress’ (i.e., a growing
public awareness of and financial support for Paralympic sport), they also referenced intensified
demands on the athletes. This change in the Paralympic sport system had implications on para-
athletes retirement decisions. Some athletes in Cohort 3 described the changes as placing undue
stress on them (and their families) ultimately contributing to their decision to leave sport. For
example, in an interview, one athlete had this to say about the final year leading to London 2012:
The culture in [the sport organisation] is incredibly results oriented. Of course in
competition that is expected but on one level it takes the human factor out of it completely.
For me with the structure of the coaching set up, the rigidity of the coaching set up – this
took the fun and excitement out of the sport completely. I felt like I was just a number on
the spreadsheets. Suddenly it wasn’t about myself. It was about getting results for other
people, people I didn’t like… if you’re not really enjoying the training then the training is
not going to be effective and you’re not going to get results and everything kind of goes
from there really.
This athlete did attempt to continue in sport past London 2012 but retired a few months later when
he realized the sport culture was unlikely to change in the next Paralympic cycle.
Yet other para-athletes in Cohort 3 benefitted from the increased funding, support and
structure. Freed from the need to earn income from other sources, they were able to focus on their
athletic careers. When discussing their decisions to retire from sport, these para-athletes were
more likely to report anti-push and anti-pull factors. Rather than struggling to stay in sport, these
participants struggled to leave. Whereas Cohorts 1 and 2 left sport because they could not afford
to keep competing, Cohort 3 was concerned they could not afford to retire. For example, one
Paralympian who competed in London spoke of ‘taking a pay cut’ when he retired from sport and
delaying his decision until he had confirmed employment:
I don’t think I would have retired unless I had a job ‘cause we had a baby so I wouldn’t
have been able to. I would’ve carried on doing [my sport] until I had a job or an income
so that I could retire… When I was competing I was quite well paid… if you’re in that
position its quite difficult to retire…
While concerns about being able to financial support oneself after leaving sport has been reported
in the literature on able-bodied athletes (Agnew & Drummond, 2015; Aquilina, 2013; Fernandez
et al., 2006), it has not been a large part of the discussion when researching para-athletes’
experiences as, until very recently, Paralympians ‘earning a living’ in sport have been few and far
between.
Challenges and Discrimination When Leaving Sport and Entering the Workforce
Coupled with concerns about loosing their income from sport was uncertainly about future
employment options. One reason the more recently retired Paralympic athletes felt apprehension
regarding life after sport was their relative lack of work experience. Ten of the 14 para-athletes in
Cohort 1 reported that they worked full-time while competing compared to only 5 of the 22 para-
athletes in Cohort 3. Furthermore, over a third of the athletes in Cohort 3 reported they had zero
work experience when their sport careers ended. Although lacking formal work experience might
be a concern for any elite athlete (Aquilina, 2013), there were two ways in which this impacted
para-athletes differently compared to able-bodied peers. First, despite laws and policies in the UK
such as the ‘two tick guaranteed interview scheme’ (or more recently the ‘Disability Confident
scheme’) and the Equality Act 2010, people with disabilities still face greater rates of
unemployment and underemployment (Connor, 2010). It is reported that, in the UK, 48 per cent of
disabled adults age 16 to 64 are employed and compared to over 80 per cent of non-disabled
adults (Mirza-Davis & Brown, 2016, December 14). Athletes were certainly aware of this and
some (though certainly not all) understood that the very impairment that had enabled them to
pursue a career as an international athlete would be a barrier when trying to enter the post-sport
workforce. In the survey one para-athlete wrote:
There may be relative parity between Olympic and Paralympic teams within sport, but that
does not relay to the non-disabled and disabled employees in the open market. There are
extra hurdles that any person with a disability has to jump [through] to get to the same
place as a person without a disability.
Suggesting the significance of disablism and ableism for para-sport athletes, the concern
that participants had about being discriminated against in the employment hiring process led to the
second point. Within disability communities there is considerable debate about if and when to
disclose to a potential employer that one has a disability (Charmaz, 2010; Lindsay, Cagliostro, &
Carafa, 2017). However, while some individuals may be able to decide when and if to disclose
their disability, the para-athletes interviewed felt they did not have this option. As one participant
explained:
I had more success with kind of major corporate [companies] than I did with small
business. Probably because major corporate have a diversity department and are used to
dealing with this and have HR teams that are trained and a smaller organisation is just
put off instantly about the thought of disability and they maybe never met anybody with a
disability... I pretty much had to disclose because if I removed [my sport] from my CV
there would have been very little on it and they would have just thought I was incredibly
lazy.
Accordingly, some para-athletes felt they were in a bind in that they were relying on their
experience in sport and their athletic curriculum vitae to secure them employment after sport but
by highlighting their para-sport experience so they were de facto disclosing their disability status
and opening themselves up to discrimination in the employment sector. Although it would be
clearly egregious to suggest that people with disabilities do not encounter discrimination while in
sport (see Bundon & Hurd Clarke, 2015), many participants did contrast their experiences within
the ‘sport bubble’ (Smith et al., 2016) to their experiences in other contexts. While many of the
participants had been recruited to sport because they had an impairment that qualified them for a
particular para-sport or filled a niche on the squad, outside of sport their impairments were more
likely to be impediments to finding a job. When asked what they had learned from their own
experiences of looking for employment, several interviewees referenced the importance of finding
mentors who were also disabled and in the workforce, and/or accessing schemes that assist
disabled people to find employment.
Suggestions to Better Prepare Para-Athletes for Sport Retirement
As previously stated, the reasons that athletes ended their sport careers were complex, with
some leaving sport voluntarily and at a time of their own choosing and others being forced from
sport for reasons such as injury, deselection or declassification. Yet even if participants could not
have foretold the time or circumstances of their retirement, they all knew that sport “was not a
lifetime career.” The extent to which this understanding influenced how they prepared for life
after sport was varied. Some participants felt that it was important to pursue education and
employment opportunities even whilst pursuing their sport goals. One athlete spoke of continuing
her education and then part-time employment even as she trained towards the Paralympics:
When I was going for the Paralympic team I was doing a part time job on the side. Then
that [sport career] finished and I could go straight into the other thing and make that a
career for the rest of my life.
However, most participants stated that it was only when they saw signs that their sport careers
were coming to an end that they gave serious consideration to what else they might do. Consistent
with the current research with able-bodied athletes, for many athletes these signs included
realizing that their best performances were behind them, that upcoming athletes were challenging
their records or that they had achieved many of their sport goals and the opportunities for new
achievements were limited (Cecić Erpič, Wylleman, & Zupančič, 2004). The issue of what
actions para-athletes took when faced with a growing awareness that the end of their sport careers
was imminent, was an interesting one. A few explained that even though they knew the transition
was coming they greatly underestimated how difficult it would be. A para-athlete had this to say:
Interviewer: You said you were thinking of retirement before London. Was there any sort
of long term planning happening?
Athlete: Not really. I kind of assumed that because I had a degree and a master’s degree
that I was quite employable. No, I think it was probably quite naïve… I just assumed that I
was going to be in a relatively good position in terms of employment but I hadn’t really
thought much about it… I probably should have.
Other participants described feeling panicked and applying for many jobs despite not wanting to
work in that field or not having the qualifications.
Four of the para-athletes interviewed were more proactive in their planning. These athletes
made strategic decisions to turn their casual public speaking engagements and volunteer activities
into post-sport careers. One para-athlete described how he managed to balance the two careers
until the speaking career was able to support him full-time:
When I was swimming it was absolutely a priority and I would take some speaking
engagements when they came as long as it fitted in with my programme and my coach was
okay with it. So I took a small number of jobs really throughout the year. So then when I
retired – well in fact even before I retired- I was able to take bookings in a different way…
I remember being in the Olympic [Paralympic] village in Athens and going and checking
my email and taking bookings for when I retired. So it wasn’t overly complicated and I
was still able to be focused on what I was doing as an athlete but still a step quite
comfortably into that work situation. But that wasn’t a luck thing – that was from being
organised.
Another difference observed was in the para-athletes use of PL support services. While
‘athlete advisors’ have been active within the UK sport system for many years, it was after the
Beijing Olympics and Paralympics that PL was formalized as a unit within the EIS and PL
support provided as a core service to elite GB athletes (J. Harrison, Performance Lifestyle Lead at
the EIS, personal communication, October 12th, 2017). Thus it was most commonly Cohort 3 that
spoke of having interactions with PL advisors and the role these practitioners had in supporting
them in their transition out of sport. Those who had had ongoing contact with PL advisors
throughout their sport careers were most likely to comment on the positive impact that this had
had on their transition out of sport and into employment. In contrast, those who had had less
interactions with PL practitioners during their careers, reported that they did not access PL
services during the retirement process or, if they did access, they felt PL practitioners had little to
offer them. As one participant explained:
I meet with Performance Lifestyle a couple of times and they sent me examples of CVs and
sent a few emails round… I wish on the support side it had started years ago and years
ago we had sat down and gone ‘right – you might chose when you want to leave sport… or
you could get an injury and you don’t know what’s around the corner, so while it’s really
really important to keep training it’s really really important to think about what you want
to do afterwards.’ I really wish we had that conversation and then I really wish I’d have
got mechanisms in place - because in the moment I had no clue what I was doing, I had no
clue what to do.
In addition to learning about the experience of already retired para-athletes, a key focus of
this research was to understand how to improve the future retirements of current para-athletes.
With this in mind, participants were asked what advice they would give to para-athletes still in
sport and what could be done to better support athletes during this time. The overwhelming
majority of participants stated that they had started thinking about and planning for sport
retirement too late. This theme was named ‘starting with the end in mind’ to signal that although
leaving sport might be the final transition in the sport career as an elite athlete, planning for it
needs to start when the athlete first transitions into the high performance system. It is also
interesting to note that while much of the advice included recommendations that athletes should
be studying, working or volunteering during the sport careers, several participants believed this
would not have been endorsed by their own sport organizations and that their own coaches,
managers and other sport staff had discouraged them from engaging in other pursuits. This finding
can contribute to the growing body of literature exploring the experiences of athletes who pursue
‘dual careers’ (ie. work or study whilst in sport) and the challenges encountered by athletes who
go this route (Aquilina, 2013; Brown et al., 2015; Stambulova et al., 2015; Tshube & Feltz, 2015).
Conclusions
Speaking in public for the first time since her recent appointment as chairperson of UK
Sport, Katherine Grainger declared that “transition is the biggest challenge of the moment” and
that those involved in the high performance sport sector needed to take immediate action to better
support athletes to cope with life after sport (Rumsby, 2017, May 9). However, in order for these
actions to equitably benefit all elite athletes leaving sport, there is a need to ensure that para-
athletes are considered in the design and delivery of initiatives and support services. As stated in
the introduction, to date the existing research on athletic retirement has almost exclusively
focused on able-bodied athletes with assumptions made that the findings are transferable to para-
sport. With the aim of examining the experiences of Paralympic athletes and the subsequent
implications of their experiences, we set out for the first time since important changes have been
made to para-sport to survey and interview retired para-athletes .
Adding to the existing literature on the common reasons athletes leave sport (Werthner &
Orlick, 1986; Taylor & Olgivie, 1994) and the implications of voluntary or involuntary
retirements (Alfermann et al., 2004; Blinde & Stratta, 1992; Lavallee et al., 1997; Taylor &
Olgivie, 2001), we identified reasons for retirement that are unique to para-sport and related to the
classification process. We also revealed support for the ‘quintuplet jeopardy’ proposed by
Wheeler and colleagues (1996, 1999). Specifically, we identified how issues associated with the
progression of certain types of impairment can force some para-athletes to leave sport sooner than
they otherwise would (dealing and coping with original disability and aging with a disability),
while concerns about employment opportunities and discrimination in the workforce can lead
athletes to overstay in sport (financial and employment related issues). Moreover, we confirmed
what others have previously theorized (Wheeler et al., 1996, 1999; Legg & Wheeler, 1998;
Martin, 1996, 1999, 2017), that the context of the Paralympic Movement has changed
considerably since its inception in the early 1960s and this has implications on the transitions out
of sport of para-athletes. Whereas earlier generations of Paralympians struggled to find time to
train while working or studying and to pay for the costs of their sport participation, the most
recent cohort of para-athletes has access to funding but struggles to find time to get work
experience or complete their education. While few are questioning that the recent
‘professionalisation’ of disability sport is a positive step in terms of greater equality in the
treatment of Olympic and Paralympic athletes, this research reminds us that high performance
environments can have a negative effect on the wellbeing of individual athletes in terms of their
future life prospects and progression into a new life phase.
Building on the research of Martin (1996, 1999) and Legg and Wheeler (1998), we also
asked how can sport practitioners better support para-athletes so that they thrive whilst in sport
and after their sport careers end? To this question we propose three responses, all of which are
pertinent for sport psychologists, PL advisors and researchers working in disability sport to better
understand retirement, coping, wellbeing and identity. Firstly, while most para-athletes leave sport
for similar reasons as able-bodied athletes, there needs to be better mechanisms in place to
identify para-athletes at risk for being pushed from sport due to classification issues. Because
these instances are relatively rare, individual NGBs may not see the need to have a plan to support
an athlete in this situation. But these types of forced retirements are not outliers. As long as there
is a classification system, there will be athletes found to be ineligible (either because of changes in
their impairments or because of changes in what impairments are deemed ‘classifiable’). Every
UK Paralympic sport has access to a Performance Lifestyle advisor thats supports and mentors
athletes throughout their careers (Ashfield, Harrison & Giles, 2017). Our research suggests that
these advisors are ideally positioned to identify these athletes who, for a variety of reasons, may
be heading towards particularly difficult or traumatic retirements. If, for example, PL advisors
become aware of athletes at risk for declassification, they can mobilize the high performance sport
sector (including sport psychologists) to support to athletes. Furthermore, practitioners can draw
on the findings of this study when developing processes and resources to aid NGBs to navigate
events such as (de)classification and to understand the impacts of these events on the psycho-
social wellbeing of para-athletes.
Secondly, our research highlights the need for more assistance in preparing athletes for
post-sport employment. While many of the athlete employment and professional development
initiatives currently in place and being developed are open to para-athletes, there are further steps
that could be taken. For example, participants spoke of facing discrimination when trying to enter
the workforce. Not only was this discrimination disturbing in and of itself but they were also ill-
prepared for it because of the relative equity between Olympic and Paralympic athletes that they
had experienced whilst in the high performance sport system. Sessions informing para-athletes of
the various laws and legislations that protect equality in hiring and interview processes and when
negotiating terms of employment and promotion would be very beneficial. Participants also stated
that they felt there would be value in creating opportunities for para-athletes (at all stages of their
athletic careers) to network with and be mentored by disabled people who are employed. Practical
information on disability employment schemes, and understanding and managing disability
benefits payments (termed ‘Personal Independence Payments’ in the UK) could be useful to para-
athletes preparing to leave sport. Moreover, given that para-athletes can be largely unaware of the
high levels of discrimination disabled people daily face (Smith et al., 2016), raising their
awareness of possible oppression when retired along with sharing strategies about how to
challenge discrimination could be useful. In light of calls for sport psychology practioners to
directly engage with such social justice concerns (Schinke et al., 2015), and the work that PL
practitioners do, these groups have much to contribute to such awareness raising and strategy
building.
Thirdly, practitioners working in the elite sport sector have an important function to play
in ‘future proofing’ para-athletes. In our findings it was clear that para-athletes who started
thinking about life after sport sooner rather than later had more positive experiences. Yet despite
knowing that their sport careers would not last forever, many failed to take steps that would
prepare them to cope with retirement and later regretted that they had not been more proactive.
Sport psychologists, PL advisors and other members of the sport system have contact with athletes
at different stages during their careers and can play a key role in starting these conversations
sooner. Moreover, this research can be a resource to practitioners when they encounter athletes
who are resistant to thinking about retirement or coaches and other sport staff who feel that
working or studying will detract from an athlete’s ability to focus on their sport performance.
In addition to enhancing the support and services available to para-athletes, this research
expands our understandings of the context in which disability sport is practiced and how this has
changed over the years. When the Paralympic Movement moved from an era of participation to an
era of high performance decisions were made to ‘integrate’ with the mainstream (ie. Olympic and
able-bodied) sport sector (Hammond & Jeanes, 2017; Howe, 2007). This study contributes to a
small but growing body of empirical work exploring how this integration is experienced by
individual para-athletes and the implications it has on their athletic and disabled identities
(Bundon & Hurd Clarke, 2015; Smith & Bundon, 2018; Smith et al., 2016). Our findings make a
novel contribution by highlighting how this move towards integration has provided para-athletes
with more access to funding, coaching, sport science, sport medicine and other related services but
has equally placed new constraints including expectations that they will train full-time, relocate to
centralized training locations and forego other pursuits. It also illustrates that the unique needs of
para-athletes are not always being met by a sport sector that was largely designed for able-bodied
athletes. For example, while there is currently equality in the support being provided to Olympic
and Paralympic athletes preparing to leave sport and enter the workforce, there will only be equity
when those supports include a consideration of the unique retirement forced by classification
issues and the discrimination para-athletes are likely to encounter when pursuing employment.
Addressing these issues and others is part of the sport sector’s duty of care to para-athletes and PL
advisors and sport psychologists play an essential role in creating a system that ensures athletes
thrive in sport and after sport.
References
Agnew, D., & Drummond, M. (2015). Always a footballer? The reconstruction of masculine identity
following retirement from elite Australian football. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and
Health, 7(1), 68-87.
Albion, M. J., & Fogarty, G. J. (2005). Career decision making for young elite athletes: Are we ahead on
points? Australian Journal of Career Development, 14(1), 51-62.
Alfermann, D. (2000). Causes and consequences of sport career termination. In D. Lavallee, & P.
Wylleman (Eds.), Career transitions in sport: International perspective (pp. 45- 58).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Alfermann, D., Stambulova, N., & Zemaityte, A. (2004). Reactions to sport career termination: A cross-
national comparison of German, Lithuanian, and Russian athletes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 5(1), 61-75.
Ashfield, A., Harrison, J., & Giles, S. (2017). Performance Lifestyle in Olympic and Paralympic sport:
Where positive psychology informs practice. In A. Brady, & B. Grenville-Cleave (Eds.), Positive
psychology in sport and physical activity: An introduction (pp. 204- 219).. London: Routledge.
Aquilina, D. (2013). A study of the relationship between elite athletes' educational development and
sporting performance. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30(4), 374-392.
Blinde, E., & Greendorfer, S. (1985). A reconceptualization of the process of leaving the role of
competitive athlete. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 20(1/2), 87-94.
Blinde, E. M., & Stratta, T. M. (1992). The ‘sport career death’ of college athletes: Involuntary and
unanticipated sports exits. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15, 3-20.
Bloomquist, L. E. (1986). Injuries to athletes with physical disabilities: Prevention implications. The
Physician and Sportsmedicine, 14(9), 96-105.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Weate, P. (2016). Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. In B.
Smith, & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research methods in sport and
exercise (pp. 191-205). London: Routledge.
Braye, S., Dixon, K., & Gibbons, T. (2013). ‘A mockery of equality’: an exploratory investigation into
disabled activists’ views of the Paralympic Games. Disability & Society, 28(7), 984-996.
Brown, D. J., Fletcher, D., Henry, I., Borrie, A., Emmett, J., Buzza, A., & Wombwell, S. (2015). A
British university case study of the transitional experiences of student-athletes. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 21, 78-90.
Bundon, A. (2014). Authors, audiences and advocates… but athletes first: Blogging and the Paralympic
Movement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation available at:
https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0077420
Bundon, A. (2017). Introduction: Digital qualitative research in sport and physical activity. In Bundon
(Ed.). Digital qualitative research in sport and physical activity (pp. 1-12) . London: Routledge.
Bundon, A., & Ashfield, A. (2016). Life after the Paralympics: Supporting the out-of-sport transitions of
elite para-athletes. The Sport and Exercise Scientist, 49, 13.
Bundon, A., & Hurd Clarke, L. (2015). Honey or vinegar? Athletes with disabilities discuss strategies for
advocacy within the Paralympic movement. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 39(5), 351-370.
Burnham, R. S., May, L., Nelson, E., Steadward, R., & Reid, D. C. (1993). Shoulder pain in wheelchair
athletes: the role of muscle imbalance. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 21(2), 238-242.
Cavallerio, F., Wadey, R., & Wagstaff, C. R. (2017). Adjusting to retirement from sport: narratives of
former competitive rhythmic gymnasts. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health.
Accessed online ahead of print: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1335651
Charmaz, K. (2010). Disclosing illness and disability in the workplace. Journal of International
Education in Business, 3(1/2), 6-19.
Cecić Erpič, S., Wylleman, P., & Zupančič, M. (2004). The effect of athletic and non-athletic factors on
the sports career termination process. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(1), 45-59.
Clowes, H., Lindsay, P., Fawcett, L., & Knowles, Z. R. (2015). Experiences of the pre and post
retirement period of female elite artistic gymnasts: An exploratory study. Sport and Exercise
Psychology Review, 11(2), 4-21.
Coakley, J. J. (1983). Leaving competitive sport: Retirement or rebirth?. Quest, 35(1), 1-11.
Connor, S. (2010). Promoting ‘employ ability’: The changing subject of welfare reform in the UK.
Critical Discourse Studies, 7(1), 41-54.
Cosh, S., Crabb, S., & Tully, P. J. (2015). A champion out of the pool? A discursive exploration of two
Australian Olympic swimmers' transition from elite sport to retirement. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 19, 33-41.
Duhatschek, E. (2016, August 29). Life after the Olympics: athletes struggle with what to do next. The
Globe and Mail. Accessed July 11, 2017 from
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/beyond-the-finish-line-athletes-struggle-with-
life-after-the-olympics/article31601982/.
Fagher, K., & Lexell, J. (2014). Sports-related injuries in athletes with disabilities. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24(5), 320-331.
Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
Fernandez, A., Stephan, Y., & Fouquereau, E. (2006). Assessing reasons for sports career termination:
Development of the Athletes' Retirement Decision Inventory (ARDI). Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7(4), 407-421.
Gibson, K. (2016). Mixed-methods research in sport and exercise. In B. Smith, & A. C. Sparkes (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of qualitative research methods in sport and exercise (pp. 382-396). London:
Routledge.
Goodley, D., Hughes, B., & Davis, L. (2012). Introducing disability and social theory. In Hughes & L.
Davis (Eds.), Disability and social theory: New developments and directions (pp.1-14). Palgrave
Macmillan.
Grey-Thompson, T. (2017). Duty of care in sport: Independent report to government. Accessed July 11,
2017 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/duty-of-care-in-sport-review.
Hammond, A., & Jeanes, R. (2017). Federal government involvement in Australian disability sport: 1981-
2015. The International Journal of the History of Sport. Accessed online ahead of print:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2017.1337000
Howe, P. (2007). Integration of Paralympic athletes into athletics Canada. International Journal of
Canadian Studies/Revue internationale d’études canadiennes, (35), 133-150.
Howe, P. (2008). The cultural politics of the Paralympic movement: Through an anthropological lens.
London: Routledge.
Kerr, G., & Dacyshyn, A. (2000). The retirement experiences of elite, female gymnasts. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 12(2), 115-133.
Kitchin, R. (2000). The researched opinions on research: Disabled people and disability
research. Disability & Society, 15(1), 25-47.
Larkin, D., Levy, A., Marchant, D., & Martin, C. (2017). When winners need help: Mental health in elite
sport. The Psychologist. Accessed online ahead of print:
http://collections.crest.ac.uk/id/eprint/15606
Lavallee, D., Grove, J. R., & Gordon, S. (1997). The causes of career termination from sport and their
relationship to post-retirement adjustment among elite-amateur athletes in Australia. Australian
Psychologist, 32(2), 131-135.
Legg, D., & Wheeler, G. (1998). Retirement experiences for athletes with a disability: Implications for
therapeutic recreation. In G. Hitzhusen & L. Thomas (Eds.) Selected Papers from the 5th Annual
Symposium on Therapeutic Recreation. Accessed July 11, 2017 from
http://lin.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/sp0107(18).pdf
Lindsay, S., Cagliostro, E., & Carafa, G. (2017). A systematic review of workplace disclosure and
accommodation requests among youth and young adults with disabilities. Disability and
Rehabilitation. Accessed online ahead of print: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2017.1363824
Martin, J. J. (1996). Transitions out of competitive sport for athletes with disabilities. Therapeutic
Recreation Journal, 30, 128-136.
Martin, J. J. (1999). Loss experiences in disability sport. Journal of Personal & Interpersonal Loss, 4(3),
225-230.
Martin, J. J. (2000). Sport transitions among athletes with disabilities. Career Transitions in Sport:
International Perspectives, 161-168.
Martin, J. J. (2017). Handbook of disability sport and exercise psychology. Oxford University Press.
McEwen, C. E., Hurd Clarke, L., Bennett, E. V., Dawson, K., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2017). “It’s this thing
of being an Olympian that you don’t get from anything else”: Changing experiences of Canadian
individual sport athletes with Olympic team selection. The Sport Psychologist. Accessed online
ahead of print: https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0152
Meekosha, H., & Shuttleworth, R. (2009). What's so ‘critical’ about critical disability studies?. Australian
Journal of Human Rights, 15(1), 47-75.
Misener, L., Darcy, S., Legg, D., & Gilbert, K. (2013). Beyond Olympic legacy: Understanding
Paralympic legacy through a thematic analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 329-341.
Mirza-Davis, J., & Brown, J. (2016, December 14). Key statistics on people with disabilities in
employment (Briefing Paper Number 7540). Accessed July 11, 2017 from
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7540.
Murphy, G. M., Petitpas, A. J., & Brewer, B. W. (1996). Identity foreclosure, athletic identity, and career
maturity in intercollegiate athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 10(3), 239-246.
Park, S., Lavallee, D., & Tod, D. (2013). Athletes' career transition out of sport: A systematic review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 22-53.
Rathwell, S., Camiré, M, & Young, B. (2016). Comparing data quality from Skype and in-person
interviews: A two-stage assessment. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on
Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise at Chichester University (UK), August 31st, 2017.
Rumsby, B. (2017, May 9). Katherine Grainger: Life after sport is now our biggest challenge. The
Telegraph. Accessed July 11, 2017 from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/05/09/katherine-grainger-life-sport-industrys-biggest-
challenge/.
Schinke, R. J., Stambulova, N., Lidor, R., Papaioannou, A. G., & Ryba, T. V. (2016). International
society of sport psychology position stand: Sport as social missions. International Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), 4-22.
Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and
recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and
Health, 10(1), 137-149.
Smith, B., & Bundon, A. (2018). Disability models: Explaining and understanding disability sport. In I.
Brittain, & A. Beacom (Eds.). Palgrave handbook of Paralympic studies (pp. 15-34) . London:
Palgrave.
Smith, B., Bundon, A., & Best, M. (2016). Disability sport and activist identities: A qualitative study of
narratives of activism among elite athletes with impairment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
26, 139-148.
Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2016). Introduction: An invitation to qualitative research. In B. Smith & A.
C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research methods in sport and exercise (pp.
1-7). London: Routledge.
Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and
opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. Accessed online ahead of print: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2016). Introduction: An invitation to qualitative research. In B. Smith, & A.
C. Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research methods in sport and exercise (pp.
1-7). Routledge.
Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Athletic identity: An Achilles' heel to the survival of self. Qualitative Health
Research, 8(5), 644-664.
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From
process to product. London: Routledge.
Stambulova, N. B., Engström, C., Franck, A., Linnér, L., & Lindahl, K. (2015). Searching for an optimal
balance: Dual career experiences of Swedish adolescent athletes. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 21, 4-14.
Stone, E., & Priestley, M. (1996). Parasites, pawns and partners: Disability research and the role of non-
disabled researchers. British Journal of Sociology, 699-716
Taylor, J., & Ogilvie, B. C. (1994). A conceptual model of adaptation to retirement among athletes.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 6(1), 1-20.
Tshube, T., & Feltz, D. L. (2015). The relationship between dual-career and post-sport career transition
among elite athletes in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 21, 109-114.
UK Sport (n.d.). Historical funding figures. Accessed July 11th, 2017 from
http://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/historical-funding-figures
Webb, W., Nasco, S., Riley, S., & Headrick, B. (1998). Athlete identity and reactions to retirement from
sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(3), 338-362.
Werthner, P., & Orlick, T. (1986). Retirement experiences of successful Olympic athletes. International
Journal of Sport Psychology. 17(5), 337-363.
Wheeler, G. D., Malone, L. A., VanVlack, S., Nelson, E. R., & Steadward, R. D. (1996). Retirement from
disability sport: A pilot study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13(4), 382-399.
Wheeler, G. D., Steadward, R. D., Legg, D., Hutzler, Y., Campbell, E., & Johnson, A. (1999). Personal
investment in disability sport careers: An international study. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
16(3), 219-237.
Wylleman, P., & Lavallee, D. (2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by athletes. In
M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp.
503-524). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
