Can Sport Build Peace After Conflict? Public Attitudes in Transitional Northern Ireland

Abstract

The growth of the Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) movement has provoked considerable scholarly interrogation of the claimed social benefits of sport. However, little is known of public attitudes to the topic. This article reports research carried out in Northern Ireland regarding sport as a means of bringing divided communities together. Respondents viewed sport as effective in breaking down barriers, yet the demographic reach in terms of the participants in sports-based projects was shown to be limited. Qualitative research revealed diverse experiences of the impact of sport. The conclusion highlights the significance of a public attitudes perspective on SDP—it can reveal (a) the degree of public receptivity to SDP, (b) the participating constituencies, and (c) sociopolitical barriers to SDP and wider sporting inclusivity.

Keywords

sport peacebuilding Northern Ireland conflict Sport for Development and Peace

Academic, policy, and activist arguments for and against sport’s edifying and transformative power have been widely aired and debated (e.g., Donnelly, 2011; United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Meanwhile, an ever-growing number of empirical case studies of “Sport for Development and Peace” (SDP) projects have explored numerous dimensions of this work, including participants (Collison et al., 2017), leadership (Welty Peachey & Burton, 2017), pedagogical approaches (Giulianotti, 2011; Spaaij & Jeanes, 2013), impact on relationships (Schulenkorf & Sugden, 2011; Welty Peachey et al., 2015), gender issues (Chawansky & Kipnis, 2017; Hayhurst, 2016), policy discourses (Hayhurst, 2009; Tiessen, 2011), Global North–South power relations (Darnell, 2012; Giulianotti et al., 2016), and more. However, public attitudes to sport and peace have received little attention.

This lacuna matters because, as Kidd (2008) notes, SDP takes place in unique social settings, and “the benefits of sport participation and sport initiatives cannot be understood in isolation from other social and material conditions” (p. 605). Accordingly, those conditions, as well as in-context constructions of “sport” among a population, shape whether sport can or cannot play particular roles in a society. Yet the most popular research methods in the SDP field—qualitative, often ethnographic, approaches (as found in a review by Schulenkorf et al. (2016))—are unable to capture the broader, general attitudinal climate in which SDP seeks to make an impact. Similarly, Gift and Miner (2017) highlight the lack of quantitative public preference data on sport and sport policy.

This article shows the value of a public attitudes perspective on SDP by reporting and analyzing findings from a public attitudes study on sport, peace, and social inclusion in Northern Ireland, a divided society recovering from a period of violent conflict which has been site of SDP work for some decades (Hassan & Ferguson, 2019; Mitchell et al., 2016; Sugden & Bairner, 1993). First, we review the literature on sport and peace, outlining the case for sport’s potential contribution to peacebuilding. We describe the Northern Ireland context of the study and explain and justify the research methods. Then the article reports the findings of a quantitative and qualitative study that explored public attitudes to the efficacy of sport as a means of bringing divided communities together, as well as the extent of participation in sports-based peacebuilding projects.

The research found that respondents overwhelmingly viewed sport as an effective means of breaking down inter-group barriers. However, analysis of the survey responses showed that the demographic reach in terms of participants in sport-based peace projects was limited, while the qualitative data revealed diverse perceptions and experiences of sport. The findings are interpreted in the light of Northern Ireland’s prevailing political condition of transition out of conflict, and the article concludes by reiterating and elaborating the argument that social attitudes on sport and peace are an important and underresearched dimension of SDP of both policy and scholarly significance.

Sport and Peacebuilding

In the course of this section, the meanings of “sport” and “peacebuilding” will be discussed, but at the outset, it is worth making clear the breadth and multidimensionality of each. Sport clearly encompasses a huge number of diverse activities, each with a variety of properties and giving participants very different experiences (Coalter et al., 2000, p. 8). Peacebuilding has been defined in several ways (see Alliance for Peacebuilding, 2013) but a common understanding is that it is an umbrella term referring to activities directed at avoiding a relapse into violence after a cessation of hostilities, activities including institution building, economic regeneration, and social-psychological change. Given this breadth, an exhaustive list of connections between aspects of sport and of peace will not be claimed or attempted in this article. Instead, as depicted in Figure 1, we focus on five of the most significant relationships that may be derived from the literature before noting what sport cannot do to support peacebuilding.

Figure 1.

Relationship of sport and peacebuilding.

First, when sport is organized as a group activity, it may be conducted in such a way as to build cohesion across social identity divides. Facilitating contact between people—usually young people—from different identity backgrounds is probably the most widely recognized mode in which sport may contribute to peace. Examples of sports peace initiatives in this mold include Peace Players International (Tuohey & Cognato, 2011), Football for Peace (Sugden, 2010), and Open Fun Football Schools (Dorokhina et al., 2011; Gasser & Levinson, 2004). The theoretical bedrock of such work, Gordon Allport’s (1954) “contact hypothesis,” posited that meaningful contact with the “other” reduces out-group prejudice. A core assumption of much grassroots peacebuilding work, the contact hypothesis has been subject to long-standing investigation and been broadly supported by research (Paluck et al., 2019).

Second, sport, as activity which is governed by rules to which all players willingly adhere, may have the effect of inculcating democratic norms and values, promoting tolerance, fairness, and peace. The notion that sport promotes good citizenship has been evident in numerous times and contexts, from the “rational recreation” movement in Victorian Britain (Donnelly, 2011) to the ideals of modern Olympianism with its stated goal of creating “a way of life based on . . . the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles” (International Olympic Committee, 2015, p. 13). Parry (2012, p. 783) argues that sport is in fact inherently supportive of, and “isomorphic” with, liberal democracy: “the structures and values of sport echo those of political liberalism. So sport is a metaphor for (or a lived experiment in) those values” (see also Elias, 1993). Parry argues that sport is not merely a “universal language,” as it is often described (see Tiessen, 2011), but expresses and transmits to its participants universal values: fair play, mutual respect, tolerance, equality, and internationalism.

Third, sport, as an entertainment spectacle capable of commanding the interest of large numbers of people, provides a platform for symbolic expressions of unity and improved inter-group relationships. Sport’s historic propensity to be co-opted in the social construction of an exclusive “imagined community” (Anderson, 1991) is well known (Sugden & Bairner, 2000), yet it may equally be shaped to symbolize inclusivity, political change, and new, postconflict group identities (Ross, 2012). Although the impact of unifying symbolism can be fleeting (Höglund & Sundberg, 2008) and the deployment of symbols in peace processes is complex and very much context-dependent (Mac Ginty, 2003), the sporting domain offers a range of significant opportunities for symbolic inclusion such as more representative teams, inclusive flags and colors, more shared and accessible venues, public shows of respect or support by political leaders, and symbolic exhibition matches (Höglund & Sundberg, 2008; Merkel, 2008).

Fourth, sport, as a forum for the socialization and social participation of individuals, may contribute to a more socially just and inclusive society, an important part of the peacebuilding agenda. A considerable body of research has examined the potential for sport to meet social inclusion goals such as reducing crime, truancy, educational underachievement, social isolation, mental ill health, and, in general, fostering “social capital” (Coalter, 2007; Collins & Kay, 2014; Spaaij et al., 2014). This faith in the power of sport is mirrored in the SDP movement’s espousal of sport as a vehicle for meeting international development goals such as health promotion, education, and the empowerment of women and girls (Darnell, 2012; Kidd, 2008; Wilson, 2012). In both the Global North and Global South, it is assumed that the benefits that accrue to the individual—better health, self-esteem, social connectedness—have a ripple effect beyond immediate participants. Despite concerns with “social control,” neo-colonialism, limited reach, and insufficient evidence/evaluation, research is cautiously positive about the value of sport to societies of all kinds (Spaaij et al., 2014; Wilson, 2012). The promotion of social inclusion and social capital through sport, then, is a contribution to “positive peace”: a state of affairs which is more than the absence of direct violence but also the absence of structural injustice and cultural violence (Galtung, 1969).

Fifth, sport may contribute to peace as defined to include individual well-being. Coalter (2007) summarizes these individual benefits as physical fitness and improved health; improved psychological well-being; positive personality development via improved self-concept, physical and global self-esteem/confidence, self-confidence; social-psychological benefits such as empathy, integrity, tolerance, cooperation, trustworthiness, and the development of social skills. In both the notion of positive peace and in social capital’s concern for trust and reciprocity in communities, individual and societal well-being are interdependent. Indeed, Galtung (1969) defines violence as “when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations” (p. 168). Thus, the exclusion of people from participation in sport and physical exercise and its concomitant benefits might be understood as a form of violence, and the reduction of that exclusion as a contribution to positive peace.

In sum, there are theoretical foundations, and some evidence, for the belief that sport can be directed supportively toward at least five peacebuilding tasks, promoting relationships, democratic values, positive symbolism, social inclusion, and individual health. This is far from the full peacebuilding agenda. Sport self-evidently can do little in regard to ensuring political inclusion, economic justice, or progressing transitional justice through truth recovery, amnesties, or prosecutions; obviously, peacebuilding in the sporting realm must be accompanied by transformative activity at every level of society. The purpose of the present study is to determine whether the public in a divided society undergoing a postviolence peacebuilding process recognizes the potential contributions of sport in that process, and why.

Method

From the late 1960s until the mid-1990s, Northern Ireland experienced a period of pro-state, anti-state, and inter-communal violence known as “the Troubles.” Much of the violence occurred along a social identity fault-line between unionists (pro-British and mainly Protestant) and nationalists and republicans (pro-Irish and mainly Catholic). The Irish Republican Army (IRA) conducted an armed insurgency against the state security forces aimed at forcing Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom, while unionist paramilitary groups fought the IRA, though many civilians were killed on all sides. A peace process in the 1990s led to the 1998 “Good Friday” peace agreement which instituted a power-sharing government (Cochrane, 2013).

The sporting domain in the region has demonstrated many of the divisive functions and associations of sport. The governing body of Gaelic sports (those regarded by nationalists to be native to the island), the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA), has had an explicitly Irish nationalist ethos and aspiration since its foundation in 1884, together with a close association with the Catholic church (Somerville et al., 2020). As such, in Northern Ireland, its membership has been almost exclusively Catholic. By contrast, while soccer is played by both Catholics and Protestants, many teams are segregated, usually because of geographical location. During the Troubles the Northern Ireland international soccer team (which consisted of Catholic and Protestant players) provided an outlet for the expression of pro-state, unionist sentiment by some fans (Bell et al., 2019). Other sports with a British heritage, such as rugby, hockey, and cricket, are mainly played by Protestants (Bairner, 2005; Sugden & Bairner, 1993). In this sense, sport has been part of the system of division in which people’s religious community background heavily influences one’s residential area, school, social circle, political views, and sporting preferences. Over 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement, this system of division persists (see Morrow, 2019). However, political change engendered by the peace process has enabled moves toward greater inclusivity by the sports, while sports-based reconciliation initiatives have appeared to contribute to the amelioration of inter-communal antagonism (Mitchell et al., 2016).

In this context, the study sought to address the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): Does the public believe that sport is an effective means of overcoming social division in Northern Ireland?

Research Question 1 (RQ2): What is the level of participation in sports-based peacebuilding projects?

Research Question 1 (RQ3): To what extent do people recognize the five peacebuilding contributions of sport?

To answer these questions, a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used. A public attitudes survey, designed by the authors on the basis of consultation with sports organizers and a comprehensive literature review, was included as part of the Northern Ireland Life and Times (NILT) Survey, which is carried out annually. The cohort surveyed comprised a systematic random sample drawn from the Postcode Address File database of addresses. In terms of religious community background, 40% of respondents identified as Protestant, 41% as Catholic, 17% as no religion, and 1% as “other.” This compares with proportions recorded in the 2011 Northern Ireland census when 48% identified as being from a Protestant community background, 45% as being from a Catholic community background, 6% as no religion, and 1% as refused/missing. The survey was piloted in September 2013 and the full fieldwork, with an achieved sample of 1,210 respondents, was carried out between October and December 2013. The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with persons above 18 years of age in their homes (full details of the methodology of the survey, as well as an SPSS file of the data, are available at http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2013).

The qualitative phase—comprising semi-structured interviews with 104 members of the public—sought to probe deeper into respondents’ understandings and experience regarding the relationships between sport, conflict, and peace. In the 2012 NILT survey, all interviewees were asked at the end of interviews if they would be willing to participate in a future study investigating attitudes to sport in Northern Ireland. Details of respondents who agreed to take part were passed to the research team. A quota sampling frame was then employed to select appropriate numbers of males, females, ages, Catholics, and Protestants from across the six counties of Northern Ireland. Informed consent was secured and interviews, carried out by the research team during 2013, were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed assisted by NVivo software. Our interpretive qualitative approach sought to understand interviewees’ experiences of inclusion/exclusion and sport and how the meanings attributed to those experiences shaped attitudes to sport and people’s behavior. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted which took a “theoretical” approach to coding—themes were selected based on the literature review (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 84). Basic demographic information on the interviewees is given below. Finally, in terms of positionality, the authors are all from Northern Ireland and support the promotion of inter-group reconciliation in the context of the 1998 Agreement. We share a belief in the value of sport, both for individuals and society, and an intellectual curiosity about if and how this may be realized in our context and others.

Quantitative Findings

To investigate RQ1, the survey asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the statement, “sport is a good way to break down barriers between Protestants and Catholics.” The majority of the sample—86%—agreed or strongly agreed (see Table 1). Similarly, as shown in Figure 2, in response to the statements, “overall, sport in Northern Ireland breaks down barriers between Protestants and Catholics,” and, “overall, sport in Northern Ireland creates barriers,” 74% agreed with the former and 26% with the latter. The word “overall” was inserted to encourage participants to balance the positive with any perceived negative aspects, and so these are perhaps surprising findings, given the extent to which sport has been implicated in sociopolitical divisions in the region. In keeping with these views, 79% of the sample agreed or strongly agreed with the item, “there should be more funding for cross-community sports projects” (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Attitudes to Sport and Peacebuilding.

	Strongly agree (%)	Agree (%)	Neither agree nor disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Strongly disagree (%)	Mean rating score
Sport is a good way to break down barriers between Protestants and Catholics	29	57	10	4	0	1.9
There should be more funding for cross-community sports projects	21	58	16	5	1	2.06

Figure 2.

Does sport break down or create barriers in Northern Ireland?

The survey also asked the sample: “Do you believe that in general cross-community sporting initiatives help break down barriers between Protestants and Catholics?” Two thirds (67%) answered in the affirmative, whereas 33% disagreed. To identify what types of participants were most supportive of sports-based reconciliation initiatives, a logistic regression using SPSS software was conducted. The dependent variable was belief in the effectiveness of sports-based peacebuilding initiatives, and the independent variables were sex, age, occupation status, qualifications (A-level and above, or GCSE and below), religion, level of participation in sport, and participation in sports-based peacebuilding initiatives. There were also two variables which indicated degree of openness to the other community: whether respondents would mind if a family member married into the other group, and what composition of neighborhood they would prefer.

As shown in Table 2, we found that Catholics were 1.72 times significantly more likely than the no religion group and Protestants to think that sports-based reconciliation initiatives are effective. People who reported doing “a little” sport and exercise were 4.5 times significantly more likely than those who reported doing no sport or exercise to think that sports-based reconciliation initiatives are effective. People who reported doing “a lot” of sport were 2.19 times more likely. Those who had actually taken part in sports-based reconciliation initiatives were 9.52 times more likely to believe in the efficacy of such programs than those who had not. People who showed less sectarian attitudes (i.e., those who reported that they wanted to live in a mixed religion neighborhood) were 5.22 times more likely to believe in efficacy of sports-based peacebuilding than those who wished to live in a single-identity area.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Predicting Whether Participants Reported That Sports-Based Reconciliation Initiatives Are Effective.

	95% CI for Exp b
	B (SE)	Lower	Exp b	Upper
Included
Constant	−1.26 (0.39)		0.28
Sex
Female	−0.08 (0.16)	0.68	0.92	1.25
Age
35–54	0.18 (0.22)	0.78	1.19	1.82
55–65+	0.20 (0.22)	0.79	1.23	1.90
Occupation
Medium SES	0.36 (0.19)	1.00	1.43	2.06
High SES	0.23 (0.22)	0.82	1.25	1.92
Qualification
A-level +	−0.26 (0.18)	0.55	0.77	1.08
Religion
Catholic	0.54 (0.22)*	1.12	1.72	2.65
Protestant	−0.23 (0.22)	0.52	0.79	1.21
Frequency of participation in general sport
A little	1.50 (0.22)***	2.94	4.50	6.87
A lot	0.78 (0.22)***	1.43	2.19	3.36
Has participated in sports-based reconciliation initiatives
Yes	2.25 (0.35)***	4.79	9.52	18.93
Mind if family member married from “other” group
A little	−0.01 (0.24)	0.62	0.99	1.58
A lot	0.04 (0.32)	0.55	1.04	1.95
Don’t know	−1.93 (0.64)**	0.04	0.15	0.51
What type of area would you prefer to live in
Mixed religion	1.65 (0.20)***	3.55	5.22	7.69
Other response	2.11 (0.33)***	4.36	8.28	15.76

Note. R² = .25 (Cox and Snell), .35 (Nagelkerke); model χ²(16)= 322.49, p <.001. SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In summary, Catholics, people who were regularly participants in sport, people who had taken part in one of these initiatives, and people with less sectarian attitudes, were most likely to think that these programs are effective.

To answer RQ2, the survey gauged the extent of participation in sports-based reconciliation projects. As shown in Figure 3, 21% reported that they had taken part in such an initiative. Of that cohort, 91% agreed that the projects were effective in breaking down barriers between Protestants and Catholics.

Figure 3.

Have you ever taken part in a cross-community sporting initiative?

To discover the predictors of participation in sports-based reconciliation projects, a logistic regression was conducted. The dependent variable was participation in sports-based reconciliation projects, and the independent variables were sex, age, occupation status, qualifications, religion, level of participation in sport, whether respondents would mind if a family member married into the other group, and what composition of neighborhood they would prefer.

As shown in Table 3, females were 0.68 times significantly less likely than males to have taken part in a sports-based reconciliation initiative. Over 55s were 0.48 times significantly less likely than 18 to 35s to have taken part in such an initiative. Those of high and medium socioeconomic status were more than 1.6 times more likely than those of low socioeconomic status. Those with A levels and above were 1.7 times significantly more likely than those with GCSEs and below to have taken part. Those who said they had taken part “a lot” in sport over the last year were 6.59 times significantly more likely than those who said they had not taken part at all. Those who had taken part “a little” were 4.10 times more likely. Those who would mind “a lot” if their family member was married to a member the other group (i.e., someone from a Protestant or Catholic community background) were 0.2 times significantly less likely to have taken part as someone who would not mind at all.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Predicting Participation in Sports-Based Reconciliation Initiatives.

	95% CI for Exp b
	B (SE)	Lower	Exp b	Upper
Included
Constant	−2.62 (0.46)***		0.07
Sex
Female	−0.38 (0.18)*	0.48	0.68	0.97
Age
35–54	−0.15 (0.22)	0.57	0.87	1.32
55–65+	−0.73 (0.24)**	0.29	0.48	0.80
Occupation
Medium SES	0.53 (0.23)*	1.09	1.69	2.63
High SES	0.49 (0.24)*	1.01	1.62	2.60
Qualification
A-level +	0.53 (0.21)*	1.12	1.70	2.57
Religion
Catholic	0.63 (0.25)*	1.14	1.87	3.07
Protestant	0.64 (0.26)*	1.13	1.89	3.15
Frequency of participation in general sport
A little	1.41 (0.24)***	2.56	4.10	6.57
A lot	1.89 (0.24)***	4.11	6.59	10.57
Mind if family member married from “other” group
A little	−0.34 (0.32)	0.38	0.71	1.32
A lot	−1.60 (0.77)*	0.05	0.20	0.92
Don’t know	−0.43 (1.07)	0.08	0.65	5.35
What type of area would you prefer to live in
Mixed religion	−0.08 (0.26)	0.56	0.93	1.54
Other response	−0.32 (0.38)	0.35	0.73	1.53

Note. R² = .16 (Cox and Snell), .27 (Nagelkerke); model χ²(15)= 197.16, p < .001. SES = socioeconomic status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In summary, sex, age, socioeconomic status, level of education, frequency of sports participation, and attitudes to those from the “other” community background significantly impacted the chances of people having taken part in sports-based reconciliation activity. Older people, poorer people, less well-educated, less active, and those with somewhat sectarian attitudes were less likely to take part.

Qualitative Findings

The qualitative research aimed to explore RQ3. Interviews probed people’s overall impressions of the contribution of sport to peace (or lack thereof) in Northern Ireland. To avoid leading the interviewees, the five peacebuilding functions of sport were not mentioned by the interviewer, but rather two broader opening questions: “Overall, do you think sport has a positive or negative influence in Northern Ireland?”; “Overall, do you think sport has a dividing or uniting role in Northern Ireland?” The findings are analyzed according to the five peacebuilding functions mentioned above.

Contact Across Social Divides

Virtually all the interviewees acknowledged that the sectarian divide heavily influenced the sporting world, and indeed, influenced what sports people play. There were three aspects to this. First, respondents recognized the role of the divided school system in channeling young people toward different sports, with the most common example given being the preference of Catholic schools for Gaelic games and Protestant schools for rugby. As a 41-year-old Protestant man commented, “I would never ever have played Gaelic or hurling. I don’t have a sectarian bone in my body. It’s just the path that you follow, isn’t it?” A 38-year-old Protestant man observed, “It’s just what you’re exposed to.” Second, Northern Ireland’s territorial segregation was seen as reinforcing the inter-communal barrier in sport. For instance, a 41-year-old Catholic man said that Windsor Park, the soccer stadium, was in an area of Belfast that Catholics “would not normally feel safe in,” and several Protestants gave the same view of Casement Park, the GAA ground in West Belfast. Third, interviewees noted that sport continued to function as a politico-religious marker. In particular, GAA and certain soccer colors and emblems were highlighted as revealing one’s community background, and for some interviewees, this had, at times, been a cause of anxiety. A 22-year-old Catholic woman from a mixed community town recalled,

It’s sort of changed now, but when I was younger you wouldn’t be able to walk about the crossroads with a hurl in your hand . . . We couldn’t go up to the park and play hurling or bring a Gaelic ball up because the local park was Protestant. Even the painting on kerbs, like the blue and orange [political colours/markers], you know not to start shouting about all of the Gaelic that you go to see or whatever.

However, despite understanding these sporting divisions, most interviewees were extremely positive about the potential of sport to build relationships between diverse people. For instance, a 32-year-old Protestant highlighted the sense of interdependence fostered on a soccer team, and how the absence of barriers on the pitch can shape how people see others off the pitch too:

I think sport anywhere has a positive role ‘cause well if you’re on a football pitch and you’re in a team and the team is integrated you’re going to look out for the people that are on your team. So it can break down barriers of the religious divide while they’re on the pitch and then hopefully that then carries on in life.

Moreover, despite the fact that many people continue to play their sport in single-identity settings, numerous interviewees could give examples of sporting experiences that either were outside of the expected norm for their community (such as Catholic supporters of rugby) or had significant cross-community participation (such as Ultimate Frisbee, rambling, basketball, and some soccer teams). Thus, the widely perceived structural identity division in the sporting world was challenged by some sports and some teams.

Unifying Symbolism

Regarding symbolism, many interviewees noted that cross-community support for elite sports had the potential to bring people together from across the sectarian divide. However, again, this was perceived only in relation to certain sports and teams. For example, some mentioned rugby, a sport with a relatively broad support base in Northern Ireland: “I know a lot of people that would watch the rugby,” said a 72-year-old Protestant man, “and when Ireland’s playing, they always support Ireland no matter what side they’re from. So I think it really can sort of bring everyone together.” Other unifying figures mentioned were Northern Ireland’s world-class golfers and Olympic athletes, the boxer Barry McGuigan, as well as the successful Northern Ireland soccer team of the 1980s. A 52-year-old Catholic man contrasted local soccer with international tournaments, “I think at the local level, football would be quite divisive, but at a World Cup, people tend to bond together. We’re all wearing the same cap.” These examples show that the unifying capacity of sporting symbolism can be fleeting and, in some cases, personality-dependent. That said, interviewees recognized how Northern Ireland international soccer, and Ulster rugby, had hugely expanded and diversified their support bases in the last 20 years.

Inculcating Democratic Norms and Values

Interviewees did not make the link between sport and democratic practice described earlier, but several did believe that sport transcends social identity difference and acts as a universal “language”: all that matters is the ability to play the game. To make this point, a 38-year-old Protestant man recalled a charity trip to Kenya: “I had a football out and then all these kids appeared, so it was just totally cross-culture really and suddenly, we couldn’t really speak to each other but we had banter about playing.” A 21-year-old Catholic man who was heavily involved in a dance club remarked how team activities foster—out of necessity—trust between participants:

I know definitely with dancing and gymnastics, background or sexual orientation or anything like that just doesn’t come into play at the end of the day. If you’re doing certain dance moves, they’re putting their trust in you no matter where you’re from or what church you go to or whatever else—who you’re going out with.

These sentiments echo those noted above, heavily associated with the International Olympic committee, FIFA, and other global sports bodies, of the universalist and internationalist biases of sport.

Social Inclusion

Similarly, in keeping with the claims mentioned above regarding sport as a facilitator of social inclusion, some respondents noted that sport might help prevent antisocial behavior. A 19-year-old woman said, “When you’re involved in sport you’re off the street and you’ve got something else to focus on rather than hanging about. So in different areas it would help obviously with crime. If people were more involved in it then it would lower that in the area.” The GAA’s crucial role as a focus for community life, especially in rural areas, was highlighted by this 41-year-old Catholic man. He described the social capital generated by the GAA and believed that its diversionary role reduced crime and antisocial behavior:

In rural areas, we’ve got Gaelic clubs. They’ve got a community hall, they’ve got a presence in the local area and they give the children something to do. You ask the question what would the kids do if they didn’t have that. They’d be left to their own devices; they could get involved possibly in some anti-community activities who knows. But it gives them, it’s a sort of, Gaelic has been known as, well Gaelic clubs have been described at one time as the glue that held the community together, particularly rural communities.

This interviewee highlights the social nature of sport that extends beyond the players on the pitch to the organizers, spectators, and the community.

Physical and Mental Health Benefits

There was a strong awareness of the physical and mental health benefits that accrue from participation in sport. Moreover, a number of interviewees believed that sport encourages various personal qualities such as discipline, respect for self and others, and determination, which could have wider social impact. A 60-year-old woman who was a retired teacher said, “I’ve taught kids who’ve been involved in boxing and that seems to cross all sorts of divides as well. It’s also been really good for the children themselves because it’s given them great self-esteem.” A 52-year-old soccer coach said that his work was about giving people skills that they can enjoy and then pass on to others when they are older: “Hopefully it’ll just carry on through and make them better people, because it’s not just about playing football. It’s about life skills as well.” A 41-year-old respondent who was a school swimming coach reflected at length what he perceived as the transferable lessons of playing sport:

I would get up at, you know, half five, five days a week to swim; and I still swim about 20 kilometres a week but in many ways it is a bloody waste of time. You’re never going to get to the Olympics or make one penny out of it. But what it does give you is grit and determination and spin-offs which spin off into other areas. Whenever you’re not coping or not doing well, you get on with it . . . That can transfer over into work as well, can’t it? Or going to a university that you don’t like, you get on with it and get your head down and get through.

The interviewee points out that sport can give people a healthier view of victory and defeat, keeping them both in perspective, and encouraging dedication notwithstanding. In sum, the sense that sport had a “spill-over” effect, for good, into other areas of life was widely held throughout the sample.

Nevertheless, some interviewees also raised negative individual impacts. Several interviewees recalled the alienating experience of not being sufficiently skilled to make the particular team which their school regarded as the most important and noted that the hierarchy created by sport can be conducive to bullying. For example,

That traditional set up in school where the fat kids were always the ones on the edge, you weren’t really encouraged and the sports teachers were always a certain type of hard core kind of . . . [At my school] the sports were a way of the bullies basically just exerting more pressure. (Female, 45).

Also, a few interviewees displayed a level of devotion to sport that may be considered as less than healthy: one man, a 41-year-old said that without sport his “life would not be worth living,” whereas another, a 42-year-old former GAA player, said it was his “raison d’être.”

Discussion

RQ1 investigated whether the public believed that sport is an effective means of overcoming social division in Northern Ireland. An overwhelming majority of the people surveyed—86%—agreed that it did. However, a lower proportion, 67%, agreed with the more specific item: “in general cross-community sporting initiatives help break down barriers between Protestants and Catholics.” While this is still a high level of support, the respondents who were most positive on this question were active in sport, had taken part in such an initiative, and were more open to the other community, that is, those who could be expected to be positively disposed toward sports-based peacebuilding. Regarding RQ2, on the question of the extent of participation in sports-based peacebuilding, one in five had taken part in such programs. However, certain groups were less likely to have done so, namely, women, older people, poorer people, less well-educated, less active, and those with somewhat sectarian attitudes.

RQ3 probed whether people recognized the five peacebuilding contributions of sport, and why. Qualitative data showed that most people acknowledged and had experienced the diverse, potential contributions of sport to peacebuilding that were outlined at the outset of this article: its value as a vehicle of inter-group contact, its symbolic unifying capacity, the transmission of positive values inherent in sports practice, social inclusion, and benefits to individual well-being. That said, regarding each of these contributions, respondents noted limitations, contextual conditions, or counter-examples. Sectarian structural division in sport was widely perceived. Only certain sports, at certain times, were thought to be symbolically unifying. Sport may have socio-personal benefits, but such benefits may represent “bonding capital,” not “bridging capital” (Putnam, 2000)—the advantages taking place within and among the in-group. Moreover, while some people viewed sport as universally comprehensible and attractive, others simply did not like sport, in some cases due to its in-built exclusivity and the potential for sports-based bullying.

What do these findings suggest about the climate for sports-based peacebuilding in Northern Ireland, and indeed, what likely constitutes an agreeable climate more generally? To begin with, it is likely that the public’s construction of sport as effective for peacebuilding contributes to sport’s effectiveness in this regard. Wilson (2012) argues that sports-based peace initiatives rely “on a perception of sport as apolitical. That is to say, this perception is precisely why sport spaces are sometimes ideal spaces for integration, reconciliation and the promotion of intercultural understanding” (p. 53) (emphasis in original). There are two reasons for this. First, if participants view sport as an apolitical universal language, they are more likely to interpret their experience in sports-based peacebuilding as worthwhile and bridge-building. Second, rival communities will be encouraged to come together via sport if that domain is viewed as neutral and unthreatening. Indeed, one of Allport’s (1954) well-known criteria for positive inter-group contact is that it must be “sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., law, custom, or local atmosphere)” (p. 281) (emphasis added). In Northern Ireland, at least, the public’s beliefs in the power of sport and that sports-based peace work deserves more funding suggest a supportive “local atmosphere” for cross-community contact-based sports projects.

Peace, however, is not apolitical, and therefore the positive orientation of the public to sport’s unifying capacity must be seen in the context of Northern Ireland’s complex and contradictory political condition. On one hand, other public attitude surveys show high levels of support for mixed-identity housing, workplaces, and schools (Devine & Robinson, 2018). Yet, on the other hand, numerous indicators—such as the dominance of unionist and nationalist political parties, disputes over national symbols, and the persistence of patterns of segregation—suggest a degree of contentment with division and the resilience of traditional oppositional identities. This contentment is expressed in the post-1998 consociational power-sharing political institutions which are designed to stabilize political division but may also have the effect of reifying division (Mitchell et al., 2018). Indeed, in addition to the qualitative findings indicating the ongoing reality of separation in sport, we have previously reported that our survey also found that a majority of 57% agreed with the item, “there is nothing wrong with different sports or teams being for Protestants or Catholics” (Mitchell et al., 2016, p. 992).

An interpretation, therefore, of the strong endorsement of sport as a peacebuilding tool is that this endorsement is based on a functionalist understanding of sport. Such an understanding views sport as a means of promoting the stable functioning of society as it is and socializing individuals to operate therein. This is in contrast to a critical perspective which identifies existing power relations and structures in the sporting world and wider society and seeks radical change (on functionalist vs. critical theories in sport, see Coakley & Pike, 2014). Wilson (2012) notes the danger that

sport-related peace-building activities that are helpful in allowing people who are in conflict situations to temporarily “feel better” and experience some intercultural connection may not be part of any real solution to the structural problems that are the underlying reasons for various forms of inequality and conflict. (p. 53)

This observation is echoed in the peacebuilding literature where it is argued that civil society relationship-building can mask genuine conflicts of interest which need to be resolved as part of a sustainable peace process, and that the society-wide impact of small-scale projects cannot be demonstrated (Gawerc, 2006). This is not to say that forming intercultural connections are not worthwhile. The point is that the present research suggests that people in Northern Ireland may not want more than this. They are happy with “apolitical” expressions of sport-for-peace which are of some character-building and relationship-forming benefit to participants, but they prefer not to countenance how sport could be directed at shaping a different sociopolitical order, such as a more structurally equal or integrated society, or constitutional change. A functionalist understanding is therefore compatible with—and may be reproduced alongside—the status and nature of the peace process in Northern Ireland, a status in which largely stable peace co-exists with sectarian division and simmering conflict over the region’s constitutional future. This raises the wider question of how publics in other deeply divided societies, at other stages of conflict and conflict resolution, may understand sport in relation to the kinds of “peace” that are sought.

Furthermore, the present findings indicate that actual sports-based peace work was supported and engaged in by people who are active in sport and hold moderate political attitudes, which is very much a subgroup of society as a whole. Add to this two other findings from our survey: first, that half of the sample reported doing no physical activity in the previous year (Hargie et al., 2015, p. 301), and second, that females reported significantly less interest in sport, both participating and watching, than males (p. 316). This reality—the limited appeal of sport—is underplayed in the critical SDP literature. But as recent multi-context qualitative research on SDP found, despite positive impacts for some, “inclusion questionably becomes an opportunity for those already with a sense of agency, the talented and the targeted” (Collison et al., 2017, p. 230).

Conclusion

This study investigated a neglected aspect of SDP—public attitudes. As well as illuminating the case in question, the research demonstrates the value of a public attitudes perspective on SDP and the need for similar studies in other societies where sport is used for social change. Such a perspective assumes that the practice and understanding of SDP cannot be divorced from the context in which it is pursued and shows how and why the context may influence SDP. Those who would study, organize, promote, and fund SDP can benefit from what public attitudes research, including large n quantitative studies, can reveal, in three respects.

First, it shows the public’s orientation toward to the principle of SDP. In Northern Ireland, people are positively disposed, and this indicates a conducive, receptive context. The extent to which sports initiatives are effective is a separate issue and, as suggested, there are reasons to believe that the public may not desire significant change in, or through, sport. But at the very least, there appears to be a supportive environment for contact-based sport peace projects, something which may contribute to their effectiveness. Second, quantitative study of public attitudes can reveal much about the participating constituencies of SDP, including gaps in participation. This research showed low levels of involvement among certain demographic groups, as well as poor society-wide participation in sport and physical activity generally. The clear policy implications are that SDP must be better targeted and that wider issues of public health need to be addressed if sports initiatives are to get beyond the “converted”—those who are pro-sport and pro-peace. Third, knowledge of public attitudes enhances understanding of context-specific sociopolitical barriers to sporting inclusion. The inclusivity or lack thereof in the sporting domain is inextricably linked to how society is structured and segmented. As this research found, the school system, segregated territory and contested national symbols are all both symptoms and sustainers of division in sport. Without these facets being addressed, sport’s ability to play a role in peacebuilding which goes beyond small-scale contact projects will be constrained.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted as part a project titled, “Social Exclusion and Sport in Northern Ireland” funded by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (now the Executive Office), Equality Directorate Research Branch.

ORCID iD

David Mitchell

Author Biographies

David Mitchell is assistant professor in conflict resolution and reconciliation at Trinity College Dublin at Belfast. He carried out this research in his previous post as research associate at Ulster University, Jordanstown, UK.

Ian Somerville is reader in media and communication at Department of Media and Communication, University of Leicester. Previously, he was senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Ulster University, Jordanstown, UK, where this research was carried out.

Owen Hargie is Emeritus Professor of Communication in the School of Communication, Ulster University, Jordanstown, UK.

Victoria Simms is reader in the School of Psychology, Psychology Research Institute, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK.

References

Alliance for Peacebuilding. (2013). Selected definitions of peacebuilding. http://www.allianceforpeacebuilding.org/2013/08/selected-definitions-of-peacebuilding/

Allport

(1954). The nature of predjudice. Perseus Books.

Anderson

(1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

Bairner

(Ed.). (2005). Sport and the Irish: Histories, identities, issues. University College Dublin Press.

Bell

Somerville

Hargie

(2019). The structuration of a sporting social system? Northern Ireland fans, Football for All and the creation of the Green and White Army. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 55, 975–990. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690219862917

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Chawansky

Kipnis

(2017). Gender politics in sport for development and peace. In Bairner

Kelly

Lee

J. W.

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport and politics (pp. 327–335). Routledge.

Coakley

Pike

(2014). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill Education.

Coalter

(2007). A wider social role for sport: Who’s keeping the score? Routledge.

10.

Coalter

Allison

Taylor

(2000). The role of sport in regenerating deprived areas. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

11.

Cochrane

(2013). Northern Ireland: The reluctant peace. Yale University Press.

12.

Collins

Kay

(2014). Sport and social exclusion. Routledge.

13.

Collison

Darnell

Giulianotti

Howe

P. D.

(2017). The inclusion conundrum: A critical account of youth and gender issues within and beyond sport for development and peace initiatives. Social Inclusion, 5(2), 223–231.

14.

Darnell

(2012). Sport for development and peace: A critical sociology. Bloomsbury Academic.

15.

Devine

Robinson

(2018). 20 years of good relations policy and attitudes. ARK Research Update. https://www.ark.ac.uk/ARK/sites/default/files/2018-11/update123_1.pdf

16.

Donnelly

(2011). From war without weapons to sport for development and peace: The Janus-face of sport. SAIS Review, 31, 65–76.

17.

Dorokhina

Hosta

van Sterkenburg

(2011). Targeting social cohesion in post-conflict societies through sport. Council of Europe. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/epas/Publications/publications_collection_handbook_en.asp

18.

Elias

(1993). Introduction. In Elias

Dunning

(Eds.), Quest for excitement: Sport and leisure in the civilising process (pp. 19–62). Blackwell.

19.

Galtung

(1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–191.

20.

Gasser

Levinson

(2004). Breaking post-war ice: Open Fun Football Schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sport in Society, 7(3), 467–472.

21.

Gawerc

(2006). Peace-building: Theoretical and concrete perspectives. Peace & Change, 31(4), 435–478.

22.

Gift

Miner

(2017). Dropping the ball: The understudied nexus of sports and politics. World Affairs, 180(1), 127–161.

23.

Giulianotti

(2011). Sport, peacemaking and conflict resolution: A contextual analysis and modelling of the sport, development and peace sector. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 207–228

24.

Giulianotti

Hognestad

Spaaij

(2016). Sport for development and peace: Power, politics, and patronage. Journal of Global Sport Management, 1(3–4), 129–141.

25.

Hassan

Ferguson

(2019). Still as divided as ever? Northern Ireland, football and identity 20 years after the Good Friday Agreement. Soccer & Society, 20(7–8), 1071–1083.

26.

Hargie

Somerville

Mitchell

(2015) Sport and social exclusion in Northern Ireland: A report of research funded by the office of the first minister and deputy first minister. Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. https://www.executiveoffice-ni.gov.uk/publications/social-exclusion-and-sport-northern-ireland

27.

Hayhurst

(2009). The power to shape policy: Charting sport for development and peace policy discourses. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 203–227.

28.

Hayhurst

(2016). Sport for development and peace: A call for transnational, multi-sited, postcolonial feminist research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 8(5), 424–443.

29.

Höglund

Sundberg

(2008). Reconciliation through sports? The case of South Africa. Third World Quarterly, 29(4), 805–818.

30.

International Olympic Committee. (2015). Olympic charter. https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf

31.

Kidd

(2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society, 11(4), 370–380.

32.

Mac Ginty

. (2003). The role of symbols in peacemaking. In Mac Ginty

Darby

(Eds.), Contemporary peacemaking (pp. 235–244). Palgrave Macmillan.

33.

Merkel

(2008). The politics of sport diplomacy and reunification in divided Korea: One nation, two countries and three flags. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 43(3), 289–311.

34.

Mitchell

Somerville

Hargie

(2016). Sport for peace in Northern Ireland? Civil society, change and constraint after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(4), 981–996.

35.

Mitchell

Tannam

Wallace

(2018). The agreement’s impact on political co-operation: A review. Irish Political Studies, 33(3), 283–310.

36.

Morrow

(2019). Sectarianism in Northern Ireland: A review. Sir George Quigley Fund. https://www.ulster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/410227/A-Review-Addressing-Sectarianism-in-Northern-Ireland_FINAL.pdf

37.

Paluck

Green

(2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129–158.

38.

Parry

(2012). “The power of sport in peacemaking and peacekeeping.” Sport in Society, 15(6), 775–787.

39.

Putnam

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

40.

Ross

M. H.

(2012). Cultural contestation and the symbolic landscape: Politics by other means? In Ross

M. H.

(Ed.), Culture and belonging in divided societies: Contestation and symbolic landscapes (pp. 1–24). University of Pennsylvania Press.

41.

Schulenkorf

Sherry

Rowe

(2016). Sport for development: An integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management, 30, 22–39.

42.

Schulenkorf

Sugden

(2011). Sport for development and peace in divided societies: Cooperating for inter-community empowerment in Israel. European Journal for Sport and Society, 8(4), 235–256.

43.

Somerville

Mitchell

Hargie

(2020). Sports promotion and the construction of “Irish” identity: Nationalism, social exclusion and the Gaelic Athletic Association. In Somerville

Edwards

Ihlen

(Eds.), Public relations, society and the generative power of history (pp. 173–189). Routledge.

44.

Spaaij

Jeanes

(2013). Education for social change? A Freirean critique of sport for development and peace. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18(4), 442–457.

45.

Spaaij

Magee

Jeanes

(2014). Sport and social exclusion in global society. Routledge.

46.

Sugden

(2010). “Critical left-realism and sport interventions in divided societies.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 45(3), 258–272.

47.

Sugden

Bairner

(1993). Sport and sectarianism in a divided Ireland. Leicester University Press.

48.

Sugden

Bairner

(Eds.). (2000). Sport in divided societies. Meyer and Meyer.

49.

Tiessen

(2011). Global subjects or objects of globalisation? The promotion of global citizenship in organisations offering sport for development and/or peace programmes. Third World Quarterly, 32(3), 571–587.

50.

Tuohey

Cognato

(2011). Peace players international: A case study on the use of sport as a tool for conflict transformation. SAIS Review, 31(1), 51–63.

51.

United Nations General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

52.

Welty Peachey

Lyras

Cunningham

G. B.

Cohen

Bruening

. (2015). The influence of a sport-for-peace event on prejudice and change agent self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 229–244.

53.

Welty Peachey

Burton

. (2017). Servant leadership in sport for development and peace: A way forward. Quest, 69(1), 125–139.

54.

Wilson

(2012). Sport and peace: A sociological perspective. Oxford University Press.