چکیده:
Background. “Sport for all” is associated with the heart of the community and aims to spread joy and happiness, boost morale, increase motivation, promote healthy individual and social life, reduce family and social abnormalities, strengthen physical power, and eliminate mental problems for all people, including men and women, and old and young people.
Objectives. This study aims to evaluate the pathology of the policy-making process in sport for all in Iran.
Methods. The methodology of this study utilized an applied mixed-method study. The population of the study consisted of executives and experts of sports for all in Iran. In the qualitative study, by using targeted and criterion sampling methods, 16 subjects were selected as a sample. Data was collected by conducting interviews. Then, the data from the interviews by Streubert and Carpenter’s method (2011) were coded and analyzed. In the quantitative study, the samples were selected by using a simple random sampling method; the data was collected by using a questionnaire that was extracted from qualitative research. Data analysis in this section was performed by using the SPSS software and the Friedman test.
Results. In the qualitative study, the findings showed that the organizational components, beliefs and cultures, economic conditions, scientific analysis and interpretation of studies, and research were factors that affected the policy-making process of sport for all in Iran. The existing weaknesses of the policy-making process in sport for all in Iran included weak control and monitoring, weak structure, weak planning and execution, weak performance of media, limited financial resources, weak performance of human resources, rules, and limited partnership of academic and research centers.
Conclusion. In general, the findings showed that the policy-making process for sport for all in Iran was associated with certain weaknesses and challenges; they must be recognized and modified based on scientific methods. Strengthening the close communication between the individuals responsible, policy-making organizations, and universities in the field have been suggested.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In the qualitative study, the findings showed that the organizational components, beliefsand cultures, economic conditions, scientific analysis and interpretation of studies, and research were factors thataffected the policy-making process of sport for all in Iran.
The existing weaknesses of the policy-making process insport for all in Iran included weak control and monitoring, weak structure, weak planning and execution, weakperformance of media, limited financial resources, weak performance of human resources, rules, and limitedpartnership of academic and research centers.
The UnitedNations Organization (UNO) (2003) mentionedsports as a social right and stated that theopportunity to participate in sports and physicalactivities is a human right and governments are64 Policy-Making Process in Sport for AllJavadi Pour, M.
Reviewing the opinions of the participants in theinterviews, eight weaknesses were determined forthe sport for all policy-making process: weakmonitoring and control, weak structure, weakplanning and execution, weak performance ofmedia, limited financial resources, weakperformance of human resources, laws, and limitedparticipation of academic and research centers;these factors are provided in Table 2.
Theystated that five factors (organizationalcomponents, beliefs and cultures, economicconditions, scientific analysis and interpretation,and studies and research) have an impact onproper sport for all policy-making.
Theystated that five factors (organizationalcomponents, beliefs and cultures, economicconditions, scientific analysis and interpretation,and studies and research) have an impact onproper sport for all policy-making.
The result of Asefi and asadi dastjerdi (2016)indicated that nine categories of barriersinfluenced developing sport for all in universities:policy making and planning barriers, cognitivebarriers, financial barriers, educational barriers,legal barriers, information barriers, humanbarriers, personal barriers and infrastructurebarriers (29).