Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: Challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K., Anderson, E. and White, A.J.
Journal: Injury Prevention
Volume: 29
Issue: 1
Pages: 79-84
eISSN: 1475-5785
ISSN: 1353-8047
DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044775
Abstract:This article examines how € framing' is used to resist a proposal to remove rugby tackling from UK schools. It focuses on rugby tackling for UK school children, which is often a compulsory part of many schools' curricula. Specifically, we explore the importance of framing in how the problem is described in various academic publications, how ideas about risk are articulated and how advocates themselves are represented. We show how the corporate interests of rugby governing bodies can become entangled with distortions about injury prevention. These distortions (or framing practices) include omitting arguments, conflating arguments, changing the argument, misrepresenting advocacy positions and skewing advocate identities. Next, the article demonstrates how a combination of recent advocacy, political interventions, research and cultural shifts appears to be changing perceptions about the risks associated with rugby tackling for children in school settings. In conclusion, we argue that while framing can be a useful strategy for policy advocates, there is value in paying attention to how framing is used by different stakeholder groups.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
Source: Scopus
Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury.
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K., Anderson, E. and White, A.J.
Journal: Inj Prev
Volume: 29
Issue: 1
Pages: 79-84
eISSN: 1475-5785
DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044775
Abstract:This article examines how 'framing' is used to resist a proposal to remove rugby tackling from UK schools. It focuses on rugby tackling for UK school children, which is often a compulsory part of many schools' curricula. Specifically, we explore the importance of framing in how the problem is described in various academic publications, how ideas about risk are articulated and how advocates themselves are represented. We show how the corporate interests of rugby governing bodies can become entangled with distortions about injury prevention. These distortions (or framing practices) include omitting arguments, conflating arguments, changing the argument, misrepresenting advocacy positions and skewing advocate identities. Next, the article demonstrates how a combination of recent advocacy, political interventions, research and cultural shifts appears to be changing perceptions about the risks associated with rugby tackling for children in school settings. In conclusion, we argue that while framing can be a useful strategy for policy advocates, there is value in paying attention to how framing is used by different stakeholder groups.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
Source: PubMed
Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K., Anderson, E. and White, A.J.
Journal: INJURY PREVENTION
Volume: 29
Issue: 1
Pages: 79-84
eISSN: 1475-5785
ISSN: 1353-8047
DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044775
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: Challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K.D., Anderson, E. and White, A.
Journal: Injury Prevention
Publisher: BMJ
ISSN: 1353-8047
DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044775
Abstract:This article examines how ‘framing’ is used to resist a proposal to remove rugby tackling from UK schools. It focuses on rugby tackling for UK school children, which is often a compulsory part of many schools’ curricula. Specifically, we explore the importance of framing in how the problem is described in various academic publications, how ideas about risk are articulated, and how advocates themselves are represented. We show how the corporate interests of rugby governing bodies can become entangled with distortions about injury prevention. These distortions (or framing practices) include omitting arguments, conflating arguments, changing the argument, misrepresenting advocacy positions and skewing advocate identities.
Next, the article demonstrates how a combination of recent advocacy, political interventions, research, and cultural shifts appears to be changing perceptions about the risks associated with rugby tackling for children in school settings. In conclusion, we argue that while framing can be a useful strategy for policy advocates, there is value in paying attention to how framing is used by different stakeholder groups
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2022/11/14/ip-2022-044775
Source: Manual
Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury.
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K., Anderson, E. and White, A.J.
Journal: Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention
Volume: 29
Issue: 1
Pages: 79-84
eISSN: 1475-5785
ISSN: 1353-8047
DOI: 10.1136/ip-2022-044775
Abstract:This article examines how 'framing' is used to resist a proposal to remove rugby tackling from UK schools. It focuses on rugby tackling for UK school children, which is often a compulsory part of many schools' curricula. Specifically, we explore the importance of framing in how the problem is described in various academic publications, how ideas about risk are articulated and how advocates themselves are represented. We show how the corporate interests of rugby governing bodies can become entangled with distortions about injury prevention. These distortions (or framing practices) include omitting arguments, conflating arguments, changing the argument, misrepresenting advocacy positions and skewing advocate identities. Next, the article demonstrates how a combination of recent advocacy, political interventions, research and cultural shifts appears to be changing perceptions about the risks associated with rugby tackling for children in school settings. In conclusion, we argue that while framing can be a useful strategy for policy advocates, there is value in paying attention to how framing is used by different stakeholder groups.
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
Source: Europe PubMed Central
Compulsory collisions and corporate interests in school rugby: Challenging distortions in the framing of childhood injury
Authors: Piggin, J., Batten, J., Parry, K., Anderson, E. and White, A.J.
Journal: Injury Prevention
Volume: 29
Pages: 79-84
Publisher: BMJ
ISSN: 1353-8047
Abstract:This article examines how ‘framing’ is used to resist a proposal to remove rugby tackling from UK schools. It focuses on rugby tackling for UK school children, which is often a compulsory part of many schools’ curricula. Specifically, we explore the importance of framing in how the problem is described in various academic publications, how ideas about risk are articulated, and how advocates themselves are represented. We show how the corporate interests of rugby governing bodies can become entangled with distortions about injury prevention. These distortions (or framing practices) include omitting arguments, conflating arguments, changing the argument, misrepresenting advocacy positions and skewing advocate identities.
Next, the article demonstrates how a combination of recent advocacy, political interventions, research, and cultural shifts appears to be changing perceptions about the risks associated with rugby tackling for children in school settings. In conclusion, we argue that while framing can be a useful strategy for policy advocates, there is value in paying attention to how framing is used by different stakeholder groups
https://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/37727/
Source: BURO EPrints