English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this paper was to (1) present and critically reflect upon a national sport policy’s implementation and monitoring process in a multi-level, multi-sectoral context from an insider’s perspective and (2) provide recommendations for future research and policymakers regarding sport policy implementation and monitoring. Based on hundreds of documents (e.g. formal and personal meeting notes, formative and summative evaluation reports) gathered over the policy’s lifespan, the paper critically reflects on the second Canadian Sport Policy’s (CSP) implementation process between 2012 and 2022, which comprised grassroots, high performance, and sport for development goals, using the multiple governance framework. The reflection highlights key challenges for implementing a soft (national sport) policy in a complex, multi-level, multi-sectoral governance context, such as the normative soft policy seeing a ‘policy for all’ becoming a ‘policy for no one’, no stakeholder accountability per se, nor power for the policy intermediary to enforce implementation. This resulted in the CSP 2012’s ceremonial attribution of success because any action could be seen as fitting within policy goals. The paper highlights the importance of (1) aligning policy development, implementation, and evaluation between macro and micro levels; (2) a more holistic policy implementation process analysis using in situ methods; (3) understanding the personal experiences, struggles, and tensions found within policy implementation to explain potential outcomes; (4) policy ambiguity and equifinality limiting policy implementation evaluation; (5) resources/dedicated funding as a policy implementation success driver; and (6) potential tools (e.g. use of outside experts, conceptual maps) for soft policy implementers/monitors and researchers.

The process of implementing a multi-level and multi-sectoral national sport policy: cautionary lessons from the inside