Social inclusion in sport means the deliberate creation of equal opportunities for all, usually in mainstream sports organisations. The aim of this doctoral thesis was to identify the similarities and differences between diverse abilities judokas by comparing the size of their social networks and the importance they attach to club membership. We examined the strength and quality of ties between judo club members and also their ties with people outside the judo club. We used a method measuring social support on four dimensions (social, emotional, informational and material support) to examine their self-perceived involvement through structured interviews respectively surveys (n = 55). The judokas were divided into two groups. The first group (n = 24) consisted of judokas who have documents from state institutions, e.g. education, health or social services, stating that they need support or adaptations due to different circumstances. We called them judokas with a document (ZL) and the second group (n = 31) judokas without a document (BL). During the data analysis, a subgroup of coaches (n = 11) stood out in particular, which we called TRs. We present the results of the study in the form of social networks supported by t-tests and dyads. We have found that TRs are key to creating an inclusive environment in the club. The network scan showed similarities in the size of the respondents' social networks, which allowed us to confirm the inclusion. However, a deeper analysis shows that ZLs can mostly rely on family ties and contacts with relatives, while BLs also mention an important network of friends and acquaintances. In the case of dyadic relationships, we examined whether the ties between respondents are reciprocal or unilateral, whether more interpersonal ties are formed within a particular group (homophily) or also with members of other groups (heterophily), and what the hierarchy of these ties is. In support of inclusion, the following results can be highlighted: (1) despite the prevalence of one-sided social ties, these are balanced in percentage terms between ZLs and BLs; (2) between TRs and ZLs, almost half of the social support is reciprocal; (3) the greatest heterarchy of informational support is in the relationship between ZLs and BL1 (BLs without TR). Less encouraging results for inclusion show that: (1) ZL members, more than others, socialise with each other; (2) the least mutual social support is between ZL and BL1; (3) the ZL group is the weakest in sharing information and giving material and emotional support.
|
