When considering the injury of an athlete, recent research suggests that the answers athletes generate for questions related to that injury can affect recovery, team cohesiveness, and risk of re-injury. Athletes have been shown to question why the injury has occurred, how this relates to one’s identity, what impact this will have on the future, who is responsible for the injury, and who is responsible for recovery. Answers to these questions are important, of course, and have generated much literature focusing on risk of injury, recovery from injury, injury prevention, and psychological readiness to play. Additionally, how an athlete attributes his or her own injury has been shown to have a profound impact on each of the aforementioned variables. These questions are important for understanding the total picture of injury from a psychological standpoint. But what determines the way an athlete attributes the injuries of his or her teammates? It appears that surprisingly little research has been directed at this question. In an attempt to study this issue, thirty-five student athletes were asked to self-assess on Bennett’s levels (denial, defense, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration) of intercultural sensitivity ) and were asked to rate how much “blame” a teammate deserved for an injury. Results show that progress on Bennett’s levels of intercultural sensitivity across a semester had no effect on athlete attributions for self-injuries but was related to a lessening of “blame” assigned to a teammate for injury. Additional literature relevant to this work and implications for the findings are discussed.
The purpose of this research is to explore how athletic officials identify and understand violence against women. Scholars theorize that hegemonic forms of masculinity that depict men as strong, aggressive, and dominant may be perpetuated by sports culture; thus, coaches can be an effective site of intervention for changing this culture. Therefore, it is important to determine how the influential relationship between athletes and athletic coaches can be used to promote healthy gender relations within communities. This study uses a qualitative approach to assess athletic coaches’ knowledge and beliefs on issues related to masculinity, sexism, and violence against women. This study showcases the logical fallacies athletic coaches use to justify the presence of violence against women in athletics. Furthermore, this research identifies athletic coaches’ conflict over the roles they play in their athletes’ lives. Due to limited and conflicting research in this area, it is important to offer insight into the ability of athletic coaches to act as mentors to athletes in order to prevent sexual and domestic violence and promote healthy masculinity.
A pervasive fiction has permeated a particular historical narrative regarding hockey’s history in North America. This narrative suggests that violence is woven tightly into the fabric of hockey, due to the prevalence of violent incidents in the history of the game. Many authors, especially those writing for popular audiences, have argued that simply because violent incidents have been recorded throughout the history of hockey, violence must have been condoned in the past, and therefore should continue to be a part of the game. The purpose of this study is to examine the early history of hockey violence by evaluating media reactions to violence, as published in Canadian newspapers from 1875–1911. This article evaluates the relationship between melodrama and hockey reporting during the first years of organized hockey in western Canada. To conduct this appraisal, specific attention is paid to the language used by reporters to characterize violent play, a lexicon shaped by sensationalist trends in Canadian media that mirrored the theatrical tradition of melodrama. Through the lens of performativity, newspaper reporters demonstrated an active resistance to violence present from the first days of organized hockey in North America.