1. THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
MORAY HOUSE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Dissertation title: The Role of Sport Social Enterprise in Community
Sports Development: A Case Study of Port Edgar Watersports
Centre
Matriculation Number: S1421192
Word count:16443
This dissertation is presented in part fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Master of Science in
Sport Policy, Management and International Development
2015

2. Acknowledgement
I would never have been able to finish my dissertation without the encouragements of
my families and girlfriend, the guidance from my kind and very patient supervisor,
the continuous supports from my friends, and very generous helps from Port Edgar.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Gavin L Reid, for
his knowledgeable guidance, patience, caring, providing me with a really nice
environment for doing the research.
I would to thank Caroline Pearson, who kindly afford me opportunities to get access
to Port Edgar. I would like to thank Chris, Andrew, Laura and Cat sincerely, for
cooperating me to finish the interviews.
I would also like to thank Luyang and Chao, who are my best friends, were always
willing to back me up when I am depressed or struggled due to progress of thesis and
offering best and wonderful suggestions to me.
Finally, I would thank what my families and girlfriend did for me. They are always
giving their best to me whenever and wherever. Without the links with you, no matter
it is physical or mental, I can not insist this one-year studies in Edinburgh and finish
the thesis finally. Thank you very much.

3. Abstract
Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, publicly declared an ambition to forge
Scotland into “the most supportive environment in the world for social enterprise”.
Following this ambition, in 2014, sport social enterprise emerged with the aura of
complementing NHS and leisure trust, initiating social changes through asset transfers.
This study explored the role of a watersport-based social enterprise to reduce
disadvantage in the Scottish context. In doing so, the study purposively employs case
study with five semi-structured interviews in Port Edgar watersports centre. Key
findings from the research were that in Port Edgar ‘business-like’ approach is
prioritised to manage social orientation functionally; the language of asset transfers is
viewed more of a platform to hear the local voices; political influences are considered
double-sided to a social enterprise’s advancement; the benefits of watersports for
community development is substantial with well-being form of organising;
emphasises on legal form and staff-valued underpinnings are called for a social
enterprise; finally it is challenging to run a watersport-related social enterprise due to
consideration on tension between business priority and social pursuit, seasonal nature
of watersport, and low social recognition to social enterprises.
Keywords: Social Enterprise, Sport-for-development, Public Policy, Business model,
Social entrepreneurship

4. Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review.........................................................................................5
2.1 The Background of Social Entrepreneurship...........................................................5
2.1.1 The Emergence and the Development.......................................................... 5
2.1.2 The Big Idea of ‘Big Society’.......................................................................6
2.1.3 A Review of the Public and Private Sector...................................................7
2.2 A Review of Social Entrepreneurship......................................................................9
2.2.1The Demand for Social Entrepreneurship......................................................9
2.2.2 Is Social Entrepreneurship a Good News Story?........................................11
2.3 The Role of Sport in Social Entrepreneurship....................................................... 12
2.3.1 Sport and Social Value................................................................................12
2.3.2 Sport and Commercial Benefits.................................................................. 16
2.3.3 Skepticism towards Sport’s Function......................................................... 17
2.4 The Review of Sport Social Enterprise..................................................................18
2.4.1 Background of Assets Transfer...................................................................18
2.4.2 Limitations of the Leisure Trust..................................................................19
Chapter 3: Methodology.............................................................................................. 22
3.1 Review of Underpinning of Literature Review......................................................22
3.2 Theoretical Assumption and Interpretivist Paradigm............................................ 23
3.3 Qualitative Research and Case Study.................................................................... 23
3.4 Research Site..........................................................................................................24
3.5 Sampling Approach................................................................................................24
3.6 Data Collection...................................................................................................... 25
3.7 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................26
3.8 Vitality, Reliability and Trustworthiness...............................................................27
3.8.1 Danger of bias and solution to it................................................................. 27
3.8.2 Ethics...........................................................................................................28
3.9 Limitations............................................................................................................. 29
Chapter 4: Discussion.................................................................................................. 30
4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................30
4.2 The Importance of Business...................................................................................30
4.2.1 Business for Sustainability..........................................................................30
4.2.2 Business for Revenue..................................................................................31
4.2.3 Business is to Fill the Gap...........................................................................32
4.3 Local Activism of Assets Transfer.........................................................................33
4.4 The Contracted Political Influence........................................................................ 34
4.4.1 Double-sided Views on the Political Social Enterprise Landscape in
Scotland................................................................................................................34
4.4.2 Double-sided Understanding of the Sporting Governing Bodies in the Sport
Context.................................................................................................................34
4.5 The Role of Watersports in the Development project............................................36
4.5.1 Watersports and Social Capital...................................................................36
4.5.2 Controversy of Watersports........................................................................ 37
4.6 The Premises of a Social Enterprise...................................................................... 38
4.6.1 Asking for the Legal Form..........................................................................38
4.6.2 Appreciating the Staff................................................................................. 39
4.7 The Difficulty of Managing the Social and the Business...................................... 40
4.7.1 Tension between Social Orientation and Business Priority........................40
4.7.2 Seasonal Nature of Watersports..................................................................41

5. 4.7.3 Low Social Identification............................................................................42
4.7.4 Responsibility Pressure...............................................................................42
Chapter 5: Conclusion..................................................................................................44
5.1 Summary of Research Findings............................................................................. 44
5.2 Recommendation for Future Research...................................................................46
Reference..................................................................................................................... 47
Appendices...................................................................................................................57
Appendix 1- Interview A............................................................................................. 57
Appendix 2- Interview B..............................................................................................75

6. 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
An increase in cuts to public expenditure has been recorded in the United Kingdom,
with 2014 seeing the total figure reach approximately 25% (Kickert, 2012); these cuts
come alongside the devolution of running public services from the government to
individuals and communities. As Warner and Hebdon (2001) define it, this is the local
government restructuring the social economy by ‘privatization’, transferring
government assets or programmes with contracts and partnerships to private third-
sector organisations. In 2010, this notion was further articulated by the proposal of a
‘big society’ by David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, who
emphasized that empowering individuals and communities in the delivery of social
services would make them strive for civic renewal (Kisby, 2010). However, despite
the rhetoric of empowerment employed in talk of a ‘big society’, the policy has also
been used to justify massive cuts in public spending -allegedly made to counteract the
impacts of the high deficit at 12% that Britain reached at one point under the New
Labour government (Kickert, 2012) - and also to dump its broken business in the
public and private sectors into the hands of the third sector companies. Indeed, in
relation to public sector, public services are often criticised for being too
overstretched to pay attention to service quality, too bureaucratic and sluggish to
initiate beneficial changes, and most significantly, too dominated by 'experts' to notice
what local development really needs. For the private sector, it is suggested that social
services delivery tends to be focused on wealth gains and relatively uninterested in
generating public good; there is a lack of government guidance and regulation to
adjust this anti-social behaviour. Social enterprise has been put forward as an
alternative, deemed efficient in filling the gap between private and public sectors
(Gilmore et al, 2011), and also in reducing the pressure on cash-strapped local
authorities.
Social enterprise is a relatively recent initiative in the United Kingdom, formalised in
2002 with the establishment of the Social Enterprise Unit (SEU) by the New Labour
government’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (Spear et al, 2009). It has
gained popularity, however, following rapid development: in 2014 it was reported that
there were at least 3,000 social enterprises in Scotland with a remarkable turnover of
£6.9 billion plus £12.9 billion worth of assets (EKOS, 2014). The First Minister of

7. 2
Scotland, Alex Salmond, has publicly declared his desire to make Scotland one of
“the most supportive places in the world for social enterprise” (Roy et al, 2013, p2).
On the other hand, sport’s potential for community advancement has been widely
acknowledged, drawing increasing interest from scholars and practitioners. It is
generally admitted that an invisible but close connection exists between sport and
social capital. For instance, in line with Bourdieu’s framework, sport potentially
enhances networks and mutuality in elite classes via membership in sports clubs
(McKeever et al, 2014), while in relation to Coleman's social theories, sport enriches
human capital to nurture conscious good deeds among individuals (Coalter, 2007a).
The intangible benefits of sport, such as health, happiness, friendship, educational
attainment and character building (Coalter, 2007b), are consistent with tangible
benefits ranging from employment opportunities to access to education (Hartmann,
2001), guiding people to act morally in their own interest (Coalter, 2007a). Most
significantly, the version of social capital provided by Putnam and which dominates
political settings, asserts that sport has been widely adopted as a means of bonding,
bridging and linking wider groups of people in society, binding communities together
(Coalter, 2007a). Given this background, it is no surprise sports-related social
enterprises have been championed by local authorities to the extent that in the 2014
Commonwealth Games sports-related social enterprise was practically inseparable
from the services leisure trusts and the NHS (the Scotsman, 2015), and fostered the
Games’ legacy of promoting deprived areas and meeting the needs of disadvantaged
people in Glasgow (Sacchetti et al, 2012). Thus, sports-related social enterprise is
often seen as a good news story, depicting the possibility of social change without
tension.
However, as Foster and Bradach (2005) state, there are well-founded fears attached to
the adoption of this new model, including ethical dilemmas such as chasing profit and
mission drift. It is not uncommon that the starting point of social enterprise is the
generation of profit, which provides insurance for the capacity-building of an
organisation's survival and realisation of social values (Spear et al, 2009). With this
underpinning, Hodgkinson and Hughes (2012) find that sometimes social pursuit
might be squeezed out to satisfy the need to make a profit, with companies more
likely to market themselves to the affluent part of the population rather than groups

8. 3
with low incomes. Additionally, social entrepreneurship tends to be limited by
locality and unable to extend to a broader section of society because volunteers, one
of the key components of social enterprise, are mainly driven by localism rather than
wider regional concerns (Nichol et al, 2009). Social enterprise is regarded as a move
away from traditional top-down political structures towards a bottom-up mechanism
by means of giving autonomy to organisations (Sacchetti et al, 2012); nevertheless,
the tension here is that corporations are still relatively governed by local authorities,
who will control the range and types of services social enterprises are permitted to
deliver, and who may contract back the right to deliver social good from those
companies where government expectations are not met(Warner & Hebdon, 2001).
Significantly, there is also a dark side to sport, involving violence, competitiveness,
corruption and a class-restrictive nature; Jarvie (2013) advises caution when using
sport as a tool of social renewal. Last but not least, although academics and
practitioners alike agree that sport is a positive factor in achieving social economy,
concerns have been raised as to what extent it can cure the main causes of social
issues, and whether it is sport itself, or sporting organisationg that are meeting
disadvantaged needs.
The primary aim of this paper is to discuss the research question, “What is the role of
sport in social enterprise in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged?” with a specific
focus on watersports. While sport-for-development research on football, basketball
and boxing is rich in practical subjects, such as the Spartans Community Football
Academy, the Midnight Basketball project, and the Fight for Peace club, little
attention has been placed on watersports for academic purposes in the context of local
development. Thus, it will be interesting and worthwhile to closely examine
watersports and fill this academic gap. In order to answer this research question, three
objectives must be fulfilled. The first is to clarify the business model in social
enterprise via a case study. The second is to discover how watersports achieve social
values. The third is an examination of the importance of balancing business-like
approaches with the fulfillment of social objectives, and the accompanying difficulties
of this process.
In order to fully analyse the research question, five chapters will be required. The first
chapter gives an introduction to the research question and illustrates the rationale of

9. 4
research. Chapter two, split into four sections, discusses key texts in the areas
investigated: section one draws on existing research on ‘big society’ and public and
private sector issues; section two considers the current understanding of what social
entrepreneurship is and its related benefits as well as potential challenges; section
three clarifies the role of sport in social entrepreneurship, presenting its link with
social capital, social exclusion, and commercial value, other than the potential barriers;
the final section summarises assets transfer for sports-related social enterprise,
examining its background and the case of leisure trusts. Chapter three outlines the
aims and methodology of the research, exhibiting the main chosen method. Chapter
four brings interview comments and academic works together to conduct a discussion.
Chapter five concludes with the main findings of the study in relation to the research
question, as well as outlining the limitations of the research plus future research
recommendations.

10. 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 The Background of Social Entrepreneurship
2.1.1 The Emergence and the Development
The term “social entrepreneurship” is gaining popularity on both sides of the Atlantic,
particularly in the United States and Europe (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010). Even in
Asian countries such as China, where the idea is still novel on a local level (Ismail &
Sarwar, 2013), social entrepreneurship has gradually begun to attain recognition (Lan
et al, 2014). However, as Dees (1998) has stated, although the language associated
with the phenomenon of social entrepreneurship is relatively new, the phenomenon
itself is not. “The relationship between business and society has been a matter of
concerns for centuries” (Hamil & Morrow, 2011, p.144). Throughout the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries in the UK, there were a few pioneering philanthropists and
industrialists who met social objectives. One noteworthy example was Robert Owen,
the founder of the cooperative movement, who publicly expressed his concern for the
“welfare of employees”, emphasising the need for improvements in “individual
working, education and cultural lives” (Shaw & Carter, 2007, p.419). By the first half
of the twentieth century, this philanthropic underpinning was replaced with an
emphasis on corporate social responsibility, principally narrowed in Britain to
charitable donations (Hamil & Morrow, 2011), but it wasn’t until the twenty-first
century that this linking of business and society, once a conceptual paradigm, became
a legitimised practice. In 2002, the Social Enterprise Unit (SEU) was introduced by
the New Labour government’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); it was
initially conceived to implement social enterprise strategy in both England and Wales
(Spear et al, 2009). By 2006, the SEU had become part of the Office of the Third
Sector and a detailed Social Enterprise Action Plan was then mapped out by the
government (Li et al, 2007). In Scotland, it is estimated that there are almost 3,000
established social enterprises generating a turnover of £6.9 billion and holding £12.9
billion worth of assets (EKOS, 2014), making it hard to ignore the role of social
entrepreneurship in the current social economy. This goes some way to explaining the
United Kingdom’s current trend of privatising, or restructuring public services,
devolving power to the private for-profit and non-profit sectors (Warner & Hebdon,
2001). To uphold this growth in social enterprise, the government has set up a number

11. 6
of funds (e.g. the Social Entrepreneur Fund and the Enterprise Ready Fund), and
social enterprise networks including Social Enterprise Scotland (SES), SENSCOT,
the Community Business Network for Scotland (CBNS), and the Social Enterprise
Academy (SEA), to name a few (Roy et al, 2014), indirectly echoing policy language
of ‘Big Society’ of David Cameron.
2.1.2 The Big Idea of ‘Big Society’
On 17th July, 2010 David Cameron publicly expressed the idea of a ‘Big Society’ for
the first time, the foundation of this concept being the empowerment of individuals
and their communities (Evans, 2011). Specifically, within a ‘Big Society’, the
government’s tendency to rule from the top-down is reined in, and capable individuals
and community groups are encouraged to prop up public services such as “afterschool
clubs, domestic violence charities, rape crisis centres, parenting programmes, projects
to tackle youth crime and support schemes for older people” (Kisby, 2010, p.488) on
a voluntary basis. The ‘Big Society’ is argued being associated with philosophy of
Margaret Thatcher, who opposes dumping social issues to society and advocates pro-
personal responsibility in generating social good (Evans, 2010). As Corbett and
Walker (2013) claims, both Thatcher’s and Cameron’s underpinnings shares a
common orientation - neo-liberalism, accentuating the stimulating of free market, the
restructuring of the public sectors, and the dismantling of the state welfare by to
empower community (Peters, 2001). Interestingly, given the ‘Big Society’s’ rhetoric
of empowerment, opponents of the scheme accused its architects of using smoke and
mirrors, arguing that this redistribution of power, rather than being in the people’s
best interest, was more a justification and necessary byproduct of the government’s
massive cuts in public spending (Kisby, 2010). Indeed, public expenditure was cut by
25% in 2014, which had the potential to cause the further loss of 490,000 public
sector jobs (Kickert, 2012). Nevertheless, in spite of these dissenting voices, ‘Big
Society’ advocates and supporters continue to assert that community empowerment is
crucial given Britain’s high budget deficit of 12% and slow recovery from the 2008
financial crisis (Kickert, 2012); under a ‘Big Society’, a cash-strapped government is
able to deliver public services cost-efficiently, while the notion of social
entrepreneurship supports the theory that financial sustainability can be achieved with
minimal government funding (Douglas & Grant,2014).

12. 7
2.1.3 A Review of the Public and Private Sector
Apart from its financial advantages for ‘Big Society’, social enterprise is also
regarded as an alternative way to fill the gaps that the public and private sectors feel
incapable of reaching currently (Gilmore et al, 2011).
 Public Sector Issues
The public sector, which is tasked with providing services that benefit all of society,
is currently facing problems (Douglas & Grant, 2014), and as Leadbeater (1997) puts,
is often criticised for being overstretched: the NHS, for example, has suffered from
crippling bed shortages as a result of this ‘overstretching’ (Pope et al, 2006).
Traditional charitable and voluntary organisations have also been criticised for failing
the citizens they are supposed to be helping (Shaw & Carter, 2007; Mulgan & Landry,
1995) because their hierarchical bureaucracy (Leadbeater, 2007). Though it is praised
for a clearly ordered levels of management (Merton, 1940), it naturally slows down
and dehumanizes their decision-making processes (Reid, 2003), visualising belief of
neo-liberalism of “a wasteful, inefficient and unproductive public sectors” (Corbett &
Walker, 2013, p.464). Furthermore, three development policy paradigms weight
heavily on the public sector. The first is called ‘one path development’, which creates
a single collection of changes to which everyone is required to adhere (Simon &
Narman, 2014), negating the likelihood of beneficial changes (Minogue & Kothari,
2002). This paradigm has been criticised for being overly simplistic and universalistic
(Simon & Narman, 2014). The second paradigm is ‘econo-centric development’,
which focuses on straightforward measures of “saving, investment, and productivity
increases” (Escobar, 2011, p.84), prioritising economic indicators while more or less
ignoring significant social issues such as poverty and human development (Green,
2002). The third paradigm is the ‘development professionals’ model, which is
characterised by top-down engagement and the implementation of experts (Craig &
Porter, 1997). As Hobart (2002) suggests, it is a procedure that exemplifies an
ignorance of the vital role that local knowledge, insights and property play in the
public sector. More specifically, governments can refuse information that is
advantageous to social programmes when experts devalue messages (Crewe &
Harrison, 1998), minimising the possibility of initiating beneficial social changes.

13. 8
 Private Sector Issues
Unlike the public sector, whose concern is primarily with social outcomes, private
corporations are for the most part driven by profit-generation (Freeman et al, 2004).
Activities deemed ‘low-profitability’ might be less appealing for members of the
private sector (Kostetska & Berezyak (2014). However, despite this profit-pursuing
nature, private organisations are also required to fulfill social obligations. Firstly,
public companies are expected to comply with the 2006 UK Companies Act by
making annual reports on social and community issues (Hamil & Morrow, 2011).
Secondly, a growing consumer awareness of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
has lately forced profit-seeking organisations to reconsider their CSR policy (Smith,
2007). For example, NIKE were compelled to sign ‘The Fair Labour Association
Agreement’ (Spaaij & Westerbeek, 2010) in order to put a stop to a widespread
consumer boycott after consumers learned of its abusive labour practices in Indonesia
(Porter & Kramer, 2006). However, since business and society are often seen as being
in conflict, despite actually existing interdependently (Porter & Kramer, 2006),
private corporations might not see the profit to be gained from concentrating on social
issues. For example, Rangers Football Club has recently established a separate
charitable foundation to tackle poverty rather than using the whole club’s resources
(Hamil & Morrow, 2011). Some companies might be run in the interest of their more
influential, private sector stakeholders (Spear et al, 2009), by and large business
professionals motivated by profit. Thus, arguably, when private companies operate
social missions, the motivation is not to benefit society, but themselves: as Porter and
Kramer (2006) argue, a good CSR reputation can strengthen an organisation’s brand
and even potentially enhance the value of its stock. Socially responsible behaviour
might also net corporations some external funding (Hamil & Morrow, 2011) such as
the Social Entrepreneur Fund which was established specifically to assist social
enterprise. Thus, it can be argued here that within the private sector, the pursuit of
social objectives needs proper regulation and guidance, and indeed evidence shows a
lack of supervision from top-level management. According to Campbell and Slack
(2008), for example, in spite of the provision of disclosure requirements for
philanthropic activities, the guidance on those requirements is lacking. More
specifically, the criterion on how to disclose and report charitable donations in excess

14. 9
of £200 is informal, indirectly allowing a voluntary narrative reporting with vested
interests in the private agencies (Hamil & Morrow, 2011).
2.2 A Review of Social Entrepreneurship
2.2.1The Demand for Social Entrepreneurship
According to Martin and Osberg (2007), social entrepreneurship is initially spurred by
altruism, meaning that the motivation is to address social issues and satisfy social
needs. The culture of social innovation has personalised social entrepreneurship,
bringing a business-minded approach to sustainable social change (Roy et al, 2014),
and thus easing the financial pressure on local authorities. Moreover, it is widely
acknowledged that social entrepreneurship is associated with the terms of ‘social
entrepreneur’ and ‘social enterprise’. However, despite this clear association, the
boundary between the terms still keeps blurry and undefined (Douglas, 2010). It is not
uncommon that scholars sometimes use merely a single term to depict the social
entrepreneurship in whole, or employs ‘social enterprise’ and ‘social entrepreneur’
interchangeably (Douglas & Grant, 2014). For instance, in line with Dees (1998),
social entrepreneurship is mainly propped up with emphasis on social entrepreneurs,
such as personal traits. While for Nicholls (2006), it is suggested as social enterprise
involving organisational structure with multi-stakeholder board and commercial
models. Thus, Weerawardena and Mort (2006) claims the necessity of offering a clear
definition to enable the conception more understandable. However, Douglas and
Grant (2014, p6-7) argue against it by saying that “a rigorous definition might
undermine the potential for social entrepreneurship to become all things to all people
in all places”
 Social Entrepreneur
Social entrepreneurs are the starting point of any social enterprise (Spear et al,2009).
They are the individuals who identify social illnesses and then establish the
organisation in order to address these issues in an innovative manner (Roy et al, 2014).
However, instead of being motivated solely by empathy and a passion for their
community, social entrepreneurs are more likely be driven by a vision of how to
achieve their social goals as a business (Dees, 1998), such as placing an emphasis on

15. 10
opportunity and customer orientation. For instance, in Western Europe, governments
have paid little attention to the idea that young female Muslims may desire to
participate in physical exercise; this consequently became an unmet social need in
areas such as Flanders, which therefore provided a business opportunity for social
entrepreneurs. Seizing the opportunity, many social entrepreneurs have since
established a number of fitness centres that accommodate the needs of Muslim
women by only allowing female members (De Knop et al, 1996).Social entrepreneurs
are usually distinguished by their boldness and willingness to take chances; they are
people who might act without sufficient resources and usually risk personal credibility
to acquire financial favours (Hill & McGowan, 1996). They differ from volunteers
and community activists, whose work is financed by charitable donations or funding,
and although there are a number of overlaps between social entrepreneurs and
mainstream entrepreneurs who strive for profit (Thompson, 2002), these two groups
are also fundamentally different. The main focus of social entrepreneur is not to
engender profits rather to return the profits generated back to community nurturing
the social change (Nichols et al, 2009) Interestingly, due to the fact that the concept of
a social entrepreneur is still new and under self-discovery, not so many individuals
would classify or aware of themselves as the social entrepreneur (Thompson, 2002)
 Social Enterprise
At the macro level, social enterprise serves as an instrument for public service
delivery, incorporating a significant part of the third sector (Spear et al, 2009). In
comparison with other third sector organisations, such as NGOs or NGBs, which are
mostly dependent on grants or donations (Sacchetti et al, 2012), social enterprises are
more likely to achieve economic self-sustainability (Roy et al, 2014). However, that is
not to say social enterprises are primarily seeking profit and financial gain. In fact,
many of the companies are guided by their sense of positive social impact (Douglas &
Grant, 2014), transforming altruism into a deployment of CSR and making
contributions to state welfare beyond what is called ‘for-profit generation’
(McWilliams, 2000). In other words, the majority of income generated through
trading activities will be distributed by social enterprise to wider stakeholder groups,
cultivating social well-being (Spaaij &Westerbeek, 2010).

16. 11
At the meso level, with rapid growth in the UK over the past decade, social enterprise
now includes a range of organisations such as “co-operatives, community businesses,
credit unions, development trusts, trading charities, housing associations and social
firms” (Spear et al, 2009, p.248), covering various legal forms from “companies
limited by guarantee, industrial and provident societies, community interest
companies” as well as unincorporated forms (Spear et al, 2009, p.248). Moreover,
social enterprise is relatively autonomous, empowered with rights of strategy-making
and operation under the government’s Community Benefit Clauses (CBCs), which in
return requires contractors to add social values, such as creating employment
opportunities or offering training to the community (Sacchetti et al, 2012). In
fulfilling CBCs, the governance of social enterprise is normally based in multi-
stakeholder groups (e.g. users, employees, business partners and community investors)
(Smith & Westerbeek, 2007) or staff-governance structures whereby the staff control
the organisation on behalf of a wider group of stakeholders (Spear et al, 2009). More
specifically, in the former context, a multi-stakeholder board is able to absorb
different perceptions in its decision-making and consultation, accumulating particular
knowledge in product enhancement and service quality (Sacchetti et al, 2012), and
balancing the interests of various groups (Hutton et al, 1997). In the latter case, staff
ownership has been significantly enhanced (Reid, 2003), making delivery
comparatively more bottom-up and tailored to first-level operations.
2.2.2 Is Social Entrepreneurship a Good News Story?
The general consensus is that social entrepreneurship is a positive force, or ‘good
news story’; people believe that social enterprises consistently fulfill their social
obligations. As Social Enterprise Scotland highlights on its official Website, “Social
enterprise is a dynamic way of doing business that can transform communities and
drive profound and lasting social change.” However, owing to the threat of financial
instability, the activities of a particular entrepreneurship may sometimes run contrary
to its social objectives (Spear et al, 2009). For instance, some social enterprises
control costs by reducing wages and benefits (Warner & Hebdon, 2001), or focus on
groups with higher levels of income in the marketing process (Hodgkinson & Hughes,
2012).This shift away from a social focus toward commercial benefit becomes
increasingly apparent when competition for funding is stiff (Roy et al, 2014). Such is

17. 12
the case with many of the 3,000 social enterprises in Scotland (EKOS, 2014); small-
scale social enterprises struggle with limited resources, from staff to finance (Spear et
al, 2009). This behaviour often throws up ethical dilemmas, such as chasing profit, or
“mission drift” (Foster & Bradach, 2005).
While social entrepreneurship is normally depicted as an autonomous organisation,
independent of top-down policy (Sacchetti et al, 2012), in fact, strategic operations
within social enterprises are often governed and checked by local authorities (such as
CBCs in Scotland) requiring contractors to add specific social values such as
employment to the organisational practices (Sacchetti et al, 2012), or contracting back
mechanisms to ensure social enterprise acts according to government directives
(Hefetz & Warner, 2004). In SBS’s 2006 survey, it was estimated that there were at
least 55,000 social enterprises in the UK. These range from charities and co-
operatives to companies with links with the public sector (Spear et al, 2009). This
wide range makes it difficult for the public to recognise what social enterprise is,
which affects the efficiency of a corporation’s marketing activities. Last but not least,
multi-stakeholder boards are also noteworthy in social enterprise. However, it has
been argued that this measure raises the time and costs of decision-making (Sacchetti
et al, 2012), because with different interests represented on the board, reaching an
agreement isn’t easy (Hutton et al, 1997). Consequently, with these limitations, sport
social enterprise, which intends to generate social difference via sport, elicits concerns
on its efficiency.
2.3 The Role of Sport in Social Entrepreneurship
2.3.1 Sport and Social Value
 Sport and Social Capital
Social capital is the collective benefits derived from “high-trust communities that
witness less crimes, anti-social behaviour and social fragmentation’; or it is the
contribution for an individual to achieve ‘better health, higher levels of educational
attainment and access to employment” (Jarvie, 2013, p.248)”. Thus, social capital is
the term pertaining to the social cause of social entrepreneurship, where sport pertains
to function.

18. 13
Bourdieu explains social capital as the positional good, revealing an unequal access to
social assets to be based on class differences (Coalter, 2007a). In the description of
social capital, Bourdieu accentuates the notion of cultural capital as social assets (such
as education) that promote social mobility and are passed on through the family
(Bourdieu, 2011); by this means the upper class reinforce their superiority over the
lower classes based on an unequal allocation of resources (Coalter, 2007b) since
education is often identified as fundamental to success within this class-based social
system (Dumais, 2002), and a good education has historically been more readily
available to the upper class. Sport is similarly affected by class restrictions,
particularly in terms of sports club memberships, but also by aligning certain sports
with different social classes. Sailing, for example, is usually seen as an upper or
middle class pastime (Havighurst, 1957).Sport therefore echoes the class-based
assumption of social capital outlined by Bourdieu, increasing sensitiveness to the
importance of class in sport as well as social inclusion (Coalter, 2007a).
Coleman defines social capital as the “rational action” paradigm (Coleman, 1994).
Human capital, in Coalter’s terms (2010), relates to education, employment training
and transferable social skills, which are rationally chosen by individuals to further
their self-interest (Field, 2003). In other words, people behave morally in order to
fulfill personal needs, not because of altruism (Coalter, 2013).With these
underpinnings of social capital provided by Coleman, ‘Sport Plus’ has been
highlighted, using sport as a hook with parallel programmes to satisfy personal needs
and lead to personal development (Coalter, 2010). For example, ‘Midnight
Basketball’ is a programme whereby adolescents are taught basketball not only as a
social exercise and an enrichment of their leisure time, but also so they will be
educated in teamwork and discipline (Coalter, 2007a). Most importantly, participants
are introduced to an instructor, or coach, who gives guidance to them no matter
whether they are on or off the pitch (Haudenhuyse et al, 2012). Finally, apart from the
benefits to be gained from basketball itself, ‘Midnight Basketball’ also provides
opportunities for those eager to change their life by hosting job fairs, or offering
employable skills training (Hartmann, 2001). As a result, by highlighting the human
capital of the ‘midnight basketball programme’, Milwaukee, an area with a previously

19. 14
high juvenile criminal incidence rate, achieved a 30 % decline in youth crime
(Hartmann, 2001).
The final well-known theorist is Putnam, who focuses less on family bonds,
instrumentalism and conscious choice and more on social inclusion, cooperation and
collective action to win social outcomes (Coalter, 2013). With this communal
emphasis, Putnam puts down a blueprint of civic engagement surrounded by high
levels of reciprocity, trustworthiness, and social networks (Coalter, 2007b). In
following this blueprint, ‘networks, norms and trust’ are conceptualised in which
individuals share common resources, respect common rules, and strive for common
objectives (Jarvie, 2013). Moreover, in unifying society, Putnam acknowledges the
multidimensional nature of social capital - bonding social capital and bridging social
capital (Woolcock, 2001). Bonding social capital is referred to as “superglue”
(Putnam, 2001, p.33), which reinforces in-group identities and a sense of belonging
through homogeneity among like-minded people such as family, close friends and
neighbours (Westerbeek, 2013). Bridging social capital is said to serve comparatively
distant ties, including loose friendships and acquaintance groups such as work
colleagues (Spaaij and Westerbeek, 2010). Furthermore, the idea of linking social
capital has been put forward by Woolcock (2001): in connecting unlike individuals
from various social strata (Côté & Healy, 2001), linking social capital enables the
members of a community to access a greater range of resources, increasing the
likelihood of unifying the community. Thus, Coalter (2013) asserts that the ideologies
of sport suit the context of communitarianism.
Sport has been cited on the government agenda of the last few decades as a means of
binding individuals and communities in the UK (Green & Houlihan, 2006). One
noteworthy example is parkour’s national governing body in South London, which
intends to use the sport to engage with teenagers there. According to the empirical
evidence on bonding social capital, there are strong networks bonding traceurs
(Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2011), which Kay (2005) explains is a result of the familiarity
and closeness found in extreme sports connecting like-minded people. In relation to
bridging social capital, parkour programmes in Brighton were funded by an art theatre,
whose manager has stated that the sport complements artistic values (Gilchrist &
Wheaton, 2011), although art is essentially created for looking at or listening to and

20. 15
sports are primarily to be played (Cordner, 1988). Last but not least, parkour is
recognised as an accessible sport (Ortuzar, 2009) without constraints on gender, race,
and social or economic background, thereby connecting individuals from different
social categories. Therefore, by shortening distance between individuals and
community via parkour project, a sense of ownership and responsibility to society has
been cultivated, where traceurs are noticed proactively “to preserve and protect the
park and wider locale”(Gilchrist & Wheaton, 2011, p.125).
 Sport and Social Exclusion
One of the key tasks of social enterprises is to combat social exclusion (DTI, 2002).
For instance the CBCs for Glasgow-based social enterprise related to the 2014
Commonwealth Games was to include local people in deprived areas via employment
(Sacchetti et al, 2012). Social exclusion, in accordance with Hutton (1995, p.110), is
interpreted as an exclusive community featuring “40% of the population in long-
lasting employment, 30% in insecure employment, and the remaining 30%
marginalized, out of work or working for poverty wages.” Generally speaking, social
exclusion is usually defined as material disadvantage, such as poverty (Collin, 2014),
which leads to social inequality in democracy, welfare and the labour market.
However, social exclusion does not simply stem from indicators of incomes and
expenditures (Belfiore, 2002) or from the accumulation of inequalities (Coalter,
2007a). Rather, it is framed more by the shortage of access to mainstream society that
these social inequalities create, marginalising the disadvantaged (Jin-Hyung et al,
2001) and generating minority and majority social groups (Taylor-Gooby, 2012). In
the context of minority groups, there is a tendency that they exclude outsiders and
become hard to reach (Jarvie, 2013), while for majority groups in communities,
discrimination might be engendered, including an unwillingness to contract deprived
people (Taylor-Gooby, 2012).
In the face of societal advancement, social inclusion has been prioritised by New
Labour in Britain since 1997 (Gratton and Taylor, 1992), with the policy action team
10 (PAT 10) highlighting sport’s significance in neighbourhood renewal and
advantageous changes in deprived areas (Marivoet, 2014). The government
recognized that some sports are able to transcend economic groups and be enjoyed
universally (Coalter, 2007a). For instance, in Khayelitsha, one of the poorest

21. 16
townships in Cape Town, South Africa, football is enjoyed by kids, youths and adults
alike. However, that is not to say, merely playing football is sufficient to be able to
include people. Instead, what potentially makes sport engageable and can be played
beyond a wider social role weight heavily on association with being the values,
culture and lifestyles (Coalter, 2013b). Taking Khayelitsha as an example, residents
there value football as the significant component for society advancement with the
belief that football makes social difference. In other words, football centers are widely
set up, pinpointing hook value of football to local problematic youths, highlighting
classroom uses of football pitch, and underlining benefits to social skills by
participating football games that requires social communications (ICRC, 2013).
Moreover, in the context of sport culture, fair play is pivotal to safeguard well-being
sport competition, treating people equal, which is popular mindset to potentially
promote the awareness of equality that combats discrimination (Marivoet, 2014).
Furthermore, sport, if it is organised properly, is claimed to be able to transcend class,
religion, and ethics (Spaaij, 2009). Taking the slogan of Olympic Games and
Paralympic Games in Beijing as an example - ‘One World, One Dream’, it not only
declines features of having physical deficiency by treating everyone equal with ‘One
Dream’, but also includes people from all over the world from the developed and
undeveloped with emphasis on ‘One World’, potentially bonding, bridging, and
linking communities worldwide. Most importantly, sport is seen more of processes
and structures in accomplishing personal development (Coalter, 2007a), such as role
model, character- and confidence-building processes (Coalter, 2010) - all potentially
fill the shortage of human capital that having a poor economic-background can cause,
enhancing the likelihood of social mobility for the lower classes (Dumais, 2002).
2.3.2 Sport and Commercial Benefits
Lasting social benefits require a firmer economic foothold, which sport is able to
provide (Smith & Westerbeek, 2007). There are two main types of sports organisation,
which are the surplus-seeking (e.g., NGBs) and the profit-making respectively (e.g.,
NIKE). No matter whether it is the former or the latter, the commercial or social, all
are steeped in “for-profit” behaviour, given sport’s efficiency in generating profits
(Westerbeek, 2013). Sport is closely associated with individuals and communities,
relying on solid foundations of customers to sell products. The number of Liverpool

22. 17
FC fans in receipt of the club’s marketing promotions is estimated to be well over 3
million worldwide (Talksport website, 2014). Moreover, sport is also a broad
platform for communication (Davies, 2002), using multiple tools such as radio,
television and social media to deliver messages to readers, listeners and viewers
worldwide (Boyle & Haynes, 2000). Due to the power and width of sport media, sport
is regarded as an influential tool for political dialogue (Boyle and Haynes, 2000) and
the construction of values and ideology (Kelly, 2011). Thus, unsurprisingly, sport
plays a vital role in marketing strategies - sporting brands readily get responses and
support (Beech and Chadwick, 2007). Most significantly, sport products are rich in
both tangible and intangible dimensions, from sport shirts and souvenirs to ideas of
fitness, creation and leisure (Beech & Chadwick, 2007). In the US, sport is an
industry worth $220 billion (Santomier, 2002) per year. Thus, by well recognising
these sport’s profit-generating potentials, it would afford lessons for a sport social
enterprise on how to fully activate sport to achieve financial stability, which is vital
for organisational independence and beneficial to sustain and maximise the social
values by returning profits to society.
2.3.3 Skepticism towards Sport’s Function
Jarvie (2013) argues that there is a need for caution when examining the relationship
between the renewal of society and the promise of sports. Research highlights that
social exclusion is usually rooted in economic disadvantages (Collin, 2014). In
relation to sport, the evidence of raised local incomes and increased job opportunities
changing poverty levels is limited. In Coalter’s view (2007a), the majority of sport’s
benefits tend to be intangible, such as improved health, confidence, and increased
contacts to mainstream society. Thus, it seems more likely that sport eases social
issues rather than addresses their causes. Indeed, ‘Sport Plus’ or ‘Plus Sport’ has used
sport to achieve visible advantages such as employment opportunities and access to
education. Nevertheless, it is sporting organisations rather than sport itself that
achieves these social outcomes (Coalter, 2010). Thus, sport is regarded as a limited
approach to combat social problems, which is relatively powerless to fundamentally
change social structure or values (Coalter, 2013b). However, it must be stressed that
giving a chance to accommodate those who are deviant from mainstram culture, such
as drug-addicts, drop-outs and the disables, through sport is still worthwhile, as

23. 18
impacts for social change might be small but for personal development would be
possibly profound and beneficial. Moreover, sport is arguably endowed with some
negative characteristics. Some sports are arguably class-limited, for instance golf
played at private clubs or sailing, which is usually perceived to serve for the upper-
and middle-classes (Havighurst, 1957). Moreover, competition is of importance in
sports (Haudenhuyse et al., 2012), where socially vulnerable groups would experience
feelings of stress, anxiety and low self-esteem (Smith et al. 1995). Furthermore,
violence is well-known in sport, for instance in football hooliganism or the violence
associated with boxing (Endresen and Olweus, 2005). Art, meanwhile, has a similar
function to sport but without the issues of competition or violence (Nicholson & Hoye,
2008). Equally significant is the ubiquity of corruption within sport, for example the
widely-reported bribes paid to International Olympic Committee officials or gambling
scandals in football games (Nassif, 2014). Hence, reviews on sport constraints itself
may produce learning moments for sport social enterprises, such as Spartans
Community Football Academy and Port Edgar, to evaluate and adjust their uses of
sport of football or sailing, accomplishing social objectives.
2.4 The Review of Sport Social Enterprise
2.4.1 Background of Assets Transfer
Sport is widely acknowledged as being inseparable to UK community development.
The nation is succumbing to a growing obesity epidemic (Green, 2009) and
policymakers continually stress the importance of sports participation and social
inclusion (Coalter, 2013b). Since the 1970s, with the establishment of the Sports
Council, which encourages grassroots sports participation and improves the provision
of new sporting facilities for disadvantaged inner-city youths (Green, 2004), sport has
been specifically aligned with a social agenda. In its bid to host the 2012 London
Olympic Games, the government even promised a sporting legacy of an additional
1,000,000 participants in regular sporting exercise by 2020 (Coalter, 2013b).
However, the outcome of sport-for-all is bleak: participation has been almost stagnant
for the past two decades (Charlton, 2010). This is because sport-for-development is
driven by top-down policy, where experts build development models that policy
makers adhere to, generally ignoring community needs (Houlihan and White, 2002).

24. 19
Sport England, an agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS),
works to develop a volunteer workforce to ensure sport is being delivered beyond
geographical limits and is culturally accessible to all residents (Charlton, 2010). This
approach arguably overlooks the limited time available for volunteering in public
daily life, but also devalues local needs for service quality that is emphasised by the
paucity of sports coaches, administrators and managers (Rowe et al, 2004). On the
other hand, the government’s focus has gradually shifted from sport-for-development
to sport-for-sport’s sake, prioritising funding elite sports (Grix & Carmichael, 2012),
shaping NGB and sports clubs as the main partners delivering grassroots sports, into
‘talent identification’ for elite sports (Green, 2004). Thus, using sport in local
authorities to nurture developments is widely argued to be inefficient and lacking
support (Charlton, 2010), but the provision of sports, such as in sports centres, keeps
the issue’s political profile high and local politicians are reluctant to close them
(Nichols & Forbes, 2014).The transfer of assets has therefore been suggested,
devolving the provision of public services to voluntary self-governing bodies (Nichols
et al, 2015). This is not only a response to increased financial pressures resulting from
the UK economic downturns (Kickert, 2012), but also echoes advocates of the ‘Big
Society’ promoting local community activism (Kisby, 2010). Recently, £1 million
from the Sustainable Sport for Communities Fund was released for the development
and sustainability of sports-related social enterprise (the Scottish Government
website). Sports-related social enterprise was also highlighted in connection with the
2014 Commonwealth Games to increase awareness of tourism and sport, the related
jobs and economic benefits, supplements to public services, the leisure trust and the
NHS (The Scotsman, 2015). Nevertheless, despite the funding, this policy was
criticised for passing down liabilities, consigning state welfare to the Third sector,
demoting local authorities to a secondary role (Revington et al, 2015), and increasing
the burdens on voluntary corporations.
2.4.2 Limitations of the Leisure Trust
Leisure trusts are regarded as the most widespread form of social enterprise in terms
of contracts and partnership arrangements in the third sector (Simmons, 2008).
However, as the Scotsman reported in 2015, leisure trust is not social enterprise but is
complemented by it. If this identity issue is a blurred one, it is nonetheless widely

25. 20
acknowledged that leisure trusts are an attempt at assets transfer by the government
(Nichols et al, 2015), which could arguably be constrained. Since 1994/5 there have
been significant cuts in government funding to leisure services, therefore is has
become a challenge for leisure trusts to maintain outmoded facilities and to keep up
with “a burgeoning commercial health and fitness sector and the public’s increasingly
sophisticated leisure taste” (Reid, 2003, p.171). Moreover, leisure trusts inevitably
experience the tension between social value and business acquisition (Hodgkinson
and Hughes, 2012), and social value is sometimes squeezed out (Cornforth, 1995) in
the pursuit of funding to ensure survival and organisational competitiveness
(Simmons, 2008). Due to this dependence on funding, contracting would obstruct the
interdependence of the organisation and financially exploit its altruistic values (Spear
et al, 2009). Furthermore, it should be stressed here that a leisure trust’s board of
management is composed of multiple stakeholders. For example, Edinburgh Leisure’s
board has fifteen directors, including representatives from business, unions and
Edinburgh Council (Edinburgh Leisure, 2013). Operating with multi-stakeholder
boards might induce what Spear et al (2009, p.267) call ‘delegate syndrome’ where
“board members represent particular stakeholder interests rather than act in the
interests of the organization as a whole”. In spite of the significant number of party
groups on the board, for example five at Edinburgh Leisure (Edinburgh Leisure,
2013), a trust’s political voice tends to be too quiet (Reid, 2003). Reid’s interview
findings show that political members are less willing to join the discussion because of
political culture; consequently, they are regarded by some board members as merely
‘rubber stamping’ decisions. Furthermore, leisure trusts have lately begun moving
away from the public sector’s guidance towards more the entrepreneurial activities of
exploring new business opportunities and identifying public needs (Spear et al, 2009),
from bureaucratic process channels to more customer-driven and staff-driven
structures (Amos, 2002). These cultural changes, in relation to Simmons’s (2008)
findings, effect a different way of working that some staff are unable to cope with and
adapt to. Most significantly, these changes also make it difficult for the public to
classify leisure trusts (Spear et al, 2009). Last but not least, at a macro level, although
the importance of social enterprise for local development has been increasingly
recognised by local authorities – for instance, the First Minister of Scotland, Alex
Salmond MSP, publicly declared his desire to transform Scotland into “the most
supportive environment in the world for social enterprise” (Roy et al, 2013, p.2) -

26. 21
local authorities still fail to appreciate the leisure environment, neglecting to address
the dominance of and competition from international leisure companies even while it
affects customer numbers and local incomes (Reid, 2003).

27. 22
Chapter 3: Methodology
This section sets out to frame the research in the field of social science by clarifying
techniques in qualitative research, presenting the process of thematic analysis, and
taking account of considerations acknowledged to ensure an ethical and reliable
research study.
3.1 Review of Underpinning of Literature Review
The literature review is the starting point of understanding the subject, acquiring
overall knowledge, and constructing interview questions to gather high-quality data.
In researching the related and beneficial previous studies, the Edinburgh University
Library and ‘Google Scholar’ have been fully explored via a focus on key terms,
authors and books. To begin with, terms such as ‘social entrepreneurship’, ‘social
enterprise’ and ‘social entrepreneur’ were searched for in Google Scholar, which has
been a focus on general academic works and knowledge on social entrepreneurship -
the main focus of the study. Also, as the political landscape is a key factor in the
social enterprise sector, the key term ‘David Cameron’s Big Society’ has also been
examined, alongside searches for ‘Scottish Community Empowerment and Renewal’,
to provide a link to the Scottish context. In addition, the study involves an
examination of the role of sport in social enterprise, and its use in addressing social
disadvantage. Hence, the key books of Coalter (‘A Wider Social Role For Sport’) and
that of Jarvie (Sport, Culture and Society) have been intensively read in the fields of
‘sport and social capital’ and ‘sport for social inclusion’. Meanwhile, Spaaij’s and
Peter Taylor’s studies on ‘sport to reach deprived groups’ are worthy of review as
well. Furthermore, as a commercial mindset is fundamental to social enterprise, it is
necessary to research themes surrounding ‘commerce and sport’ to understand the
entrepreneurial aspect of a sport social enterprise (works by Beech and Chadwick,
Westerbeek, and Ratten). In addition, since Port Edgar, the research site, was once run
by Edinburgh Leisure and then transferred to a social enterprise, the key words
‘Assets Transfer’ (works by Reid Gavin and Simmons), ‘elite sport’ and ‘grassroots
sport’ in local sport development policy have been researched, and relevant studies
collected (works by Green, Collin, Coalter, Charlton) from academic research engines.

28. 23
3.2 Theoretical Assumption and Interpretivist Paradigm
Paradigm is defined as the theoretical underpinning that impacts the way knowledge
is acquired and studied. As Bogdan and Biklen (1997, p6) state, “paradigm is a loose
collection of related assumptions or concepts that orient thinking or research.” Within
the research field, the interpretivist paradigm is an approach that attempts to construct
the world in the context of subject matter (Robson, 2011). This perspective is suitable
for research into sport social enterprise, as the organisation chosen for this particular
study primarily consists of faith and belief about sport and commerce in the social
economy. In other words, the ontology of positivism is the premise of any research
that considers social reality to be dependent on human’s perception of their
surrounding. (Mack, 2010). On the other hand, when considering epistemology within
a subjective world, one has to acknowledge the complexity of the social sciences in
relation to different participants with multiple viewpoints (Cohen et al, 2007). As a
result, for human beings, there are various sets of meanings and classification that can
be attached the world and acquire actual facts (Mack. 2010). Consequently, in
examining sport social enterprise, approaching the subjective meaning of social action
tends to be the key (Grix, 2010).
3.3 Qualitative Research and Case Study
Within the interpretivist paradigm, the qualitative approach is identified as
appropriate. This is because the study aims to understand the ‘how and why’ of sport
social enterprise practitioners, rather than measuring ‘how many’ (Gartner & Birley,
2002). Given the inclusion of non-numerical data and verbal findings (Robson, 2002),
a qualitative approach enables in-depth research findings on subjective matters.
Meanwhile, due to the paucity of existing knowledge on sport social enterprise in
addressing social disadvantage, the inductive manner of qualitative research is
highlighted to deal with the unexplored field with data-driven underpinnings
(Edmondson & McManus, 2007). In this process, a case study constitutes a significant
part of an inductive reasoning in the development of theory (Thomas et al, 2015)
because it is the form of descriptive research that strives for intensive knowledge and
in-depth understanding of a single situation or phenomenon (Robson, 2002).
Moreover, the criticism most frequently levelled at case studies that they lead to
overriding generalisations about a population is not justified (Robson, 2011). Whereas,

29. 24
according to Thomas et al (2015), generalisation is dependent on what the reader
wants to attach importance to and acquire from a case, such as natural occurring data
or statistically defined correlation (Silverman, 2006). Thus, the argument for
conducting a case study over using an experimental approach is to gather natural
information about a particular phenomenon. In the context of this study, a case study
allows a thorough examination of sport social enterprise’s ability to address issues
faced by deprived groups.
3.4 Research Site
In this qualitative study, in order to understand sport’s role within social enterprise in
nurturing socially vulnerable groups, Port Edgar has been identified for its
particularity and representative values in the field of social enterprise in sport. Being a
social enterprise, Port Edgar is unique. It was once run by Edinburgh Leisure, but
operated independently later in its history. Having once being managed by the leisure
trust, which is the most widespread form of social enterprise in the social economy
(Simmons, 2008). Port Edgar stands out from others but still apparently manages to
abide by similar social goals. That is, instead of being backed by the council or the
trust, it chooses to make full use of watersports to foster benefits to those with
physical and learning disabilities. While football and basketball have been explored
from a social development perspective, there has been little research conducted on
watersports. Port Edgar, which is the largest watersports center in Scotland, can
potentially exhibit values through partaking in watersports. Consequently, it is
valuable to examine Port Edgar to understand how watersports cultivate social
orientation, and to study their innovation approach to social enterprise compared with
Edinburgh Leisure, which operates a more traditional approach to social enterprise.
3.5 Sampling Approach
Sampling is the mechanism whereby the researcher collects a relatively small
selection within population, attempting to acquire sufficient information about the
study (Rowntree, 2000). In the case study literature, it is clear that the most
widespread sampling technique is purposive sampling (or criterion-based sampling)
(Thomas et al, 2015). Purposive sampling is characterised by non-probability features

30. 25
that selects participants intentionally via specific criterion (Silverman, 2006). In order
to examine the role of watersports in Port Edgar, a range of individuals from the
management and delivery team have been selected. The study sample includes
managers, instructors and members of the board. The participants chosen for this
study are not only knowledgeable with rich experience and qualifications, but also
hold strong passion and vision about the future of sport social enterprise. A total of
five staff members have been identified, which is sufficient to achieve data saturation
- “the point at which no new information or themes are observed in the data” (Guest
et al, 2006,p.59).
3.6 Data Collection
Data acquisition has been carried out in two primary phases. In the first phase, desk
research has been conducted to acquire an overall knowledge of sport social
enterprise. The goal was to establish a rigorous set of interesting and relevant
questions to be used at the interview stage, rather than a questionnaire. The later is
more suited to a quantitative approach and is insufficient for gathering some forms of
qualitative information that the study emphasises, such as individual feelings and
emotions (Robson, 2011). Stepping into the second phase, semi-structured interviews
are the main focus, which is the opposite of structured and unstructured interviews.
Structured interviews, which are characterised by a set of predetermined questions
arranged in a standardised order (Robson, 2011), limit flexibility and obstruct the
possibility of posing further interesting questions where relevant (McLeod, 2014).
Such an approach would minimise the collection of detailed information about why
participants in the Port Edgar study behave in a certain manner. In unstructured
interviews (or an informal conversational interview), neither the interview questions
nor the interviewee’s responses are pre-set (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2009). Instead, the
interviewer performs a non-standardised schedule to allow conversation to develop
through well-nurtured social interaction (Robson, 2011). This approach can be time-
consuming, due to the need to develop rapport and trust, along with accessing
interviewees and recording the relevant data (Patton, 2002). This has been difficult to
accomplish in Port Edgar where participants are busy and fully occupied by the
summer work. Moreover, conducting an unstructured interview is challenging for the
first-time researcher, who lacks experience but is required to exert control over the

31. 26
degree of directness of questions and the pace of conversation (Zhang & Wildemuth,
2009). Therefore, having examined structured and unstructured interviews, adopting a
semi-structured interview approach seems most appropriate. This method allows the
interviewer to prepare a set of questions in advance, which is a more professional
approach for an inexperienced researcher. In addition, its flexibility provides scope to
modify or adjust the sequence of questions based upon the participant’s responses
(Robson, 2002). This creates a free-to-talk atmosphere with open-ended but tailored
questions, which is beneficial for acquiring thick and rich data within a limited
timeframe (Cohen et al, 2007).
Moreover, instead of choosing focus groups, an individual interview is more
appropriate in this case. Interviewing a dozen respondents together raises concerns
that participants would conform to peer pressure and give less valid responses
(McLeod, 2014). In addition, individual interviews are constructed face-to-face,
allowing the interviewer to observe social cues such as body language. This has
advantages over a telephone interview where it is impossible to detect cues without
visual contact between the interviewer and interviewees (Opdenakker, 2006). Face-to-
face interviews and observation of non-verbal cues from facial and body language
during verbal interaction, allow the researcher to take key but short and detailed notes
(Robson, 2002). Finally, the interview session is set to guarantee, on average, half an
hour’s talk for each participant. It is important for the interview to last at least 30
minutes (Robson, 2011). However, owing to the busy timetable at Port Edgar, it has
been necessary to rearrange the interview length flexibly and accordingly, to try to
obtain information as efficiently as possible.
3.7 Data Analysis
Having gathered the data, thematic analysis has been employed for qualitative data
analysis, which functions as the mechanism of constantly moving back and forward
between data, codes and analysis to identify and report emerging themes (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Accordingly, there are five stages underlined within this study. First, it
is necessary to become familiar with the verbal data. The researcher takes notes
during observation and during the interview transcription process. It is then necessary
to repeatedly read and re-read these oral findings to create a list of initial impressions

32. 27
and ideas. Second, in relation to specific questions from previous research, coding is
applied separately to managers, instructors and board members. This helps to identify
patterns in the data with coloured coding extracts. Third, different preliminary codes
are collated and sorted into a thematic map for the entire data set. These include
overarching themes, sub-themes and miscellaneous themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Fourth, redefining the thematic map by revisiting previously coded data to appreciate
what is adequately captured and what is subconsciously ignored. More specifically,
the content of the thematic map will be categorised as either majority or minority.
Finally, since writing is an integral part of the thematic analysis (narrative analysis),
using concise, coherent, and logical narrative language is vital to vividly report the
constructed themes to readers.
3.8 Vitality, Reliability and Trustworthiness
3.8.1 Danger of bias and solution to it
As Long and Johnson (2000, p30) state, “evaluation of studies has centered on
assessment of vitality and reliability” that demonstrates the rigorous research process.
However, the terms ‘vitality’ and ‘reliability’ are rarely seen in qualitative research.
Punch (2013) defines vitality as the soundness of measuring the phenomenon under
investigation. The tendency towards bias inherent in selective collection and
interpretation of data in qualitative research may undermine this standard. Likewise,
Bryman (2001) says that reliability involves a search for consistency that yields
repeatable results in successive trials. As qualitative research focuses on specific
phenomena, findings can rarely be replicated in subsequent studies.
However, that is not to dismiss the importance of gathering reliable and valid
information in qualitative research. Thomas et al (2015) use the term ‘trustworthiness’
to indicate validity and reliability in qualitative research to ensure overall quality,
which is also adhered to in this study. Trustworthiness, in line with Bryman (2001),
acknowledges changes and audits coming from participant’s voices. In doing so, the
study increases flexibility and uncertainty during data collection and comparatively
reduces the researcher’s control. Moreover, the strict quotation of transcripts is
emphasised in the thematic analysis. It provides transparency to the study and reduces
the influence of researcher bias in data interpretation. To ensure reliability, the

33. 28
researcher will spend sufficient time constructing a detailed description of Port Edgar.
This will include information on background, its business model, watersports
operation and staff information. This promotes in-depth understanding of the focus of
study and provides an opportunity to assess, monitor and evaluate the data to ensure
research reliability (Roberts et al, 2006).
3.8.2 Ethics
“It should be self-evident that there are ethical considerations when carrying out real
world research involving people” (Robson, 2011, p194). Ethics within research, as
Silverman (2005) suggests, is largely grounded in the values of objectivity, morality
and political thinking, and generating proper and beneficial research for individuals
and society.
Being a first-time researcher, a shortage of research experience raises concerns related
to research quality. This is partially offset by working closely with a supervisor who
is knowledgeable in the topic of sport social enterprise and can provide guidance and
useful suggestions. Moreover, since participants for this study are accessed during the
summer period, which is one of the busiest times not only for Port Edgar but people in
general, a patient and dignified approach to participants is vital (Thomas et al, 2015).
In addition, it is necessary to protect the privacy of participants (Bogdan and Biklen,
1997). Ensuring that they are fully informed about the research aims, of their right to
decline to answer questions and have been asked for informed consent, ensures trust
between the researcher and respondent and nurtures the respect that is advantageous
to achieve high-quality information. Finding a suitable time and place to conduct the
interviews at the participant’s convenience is necessary. That means conducting the
interviews at the office premises of Port Edgar, or at a mutually agreed time and
location (e.g. workplace, public areas). Working around the respondents’ schedules
and needs shows respect and politeness. In addition, the anonymity and
confidentiality of participants will be protected through the use of pseudonyms. Most
importantly, since the cafe is the only available place for participants to take part in
the interviews, there can be background noise. Thus, two digital voice recorders will
be employed simultaneously in order to make sure that the recording is safely
acquired. With regard to data storage, each interview recording will be labelled with
the person’s name and saved as a computer file in Microsoft Office Word, and also as

34. 29
an email attachment to the researcher’s email inbox. Finally, although reporting back
is advantageous to enhance the accuracy and reliability of the study’s findings
(Robson, 2011), it is not appropriate in this case. Relaying the findings back to the
participants is time consuming, especially as the interviewees are particularly busy.
Thus, this option will be offered on a voluntary basis and the findings will be sent
back to those who opt to verify the information from their interview.
3.9 Limitations
It is acknowledged that there are limitations consistent with answering research
question. As Kaptchuk (2003) suggests, the interpretation of research findings is
inevitably subjective and unavoidably results in bias. Moreover, in comparison to
ethnographic studies, the depth of the study may be questioned. This research
provides a snapshot rather than a longitudinal, ethnographic study that results in deep
data and engages participants over a long period of time with repeated interview
(Robson, 2011). Furthermore, due to time limits, it must be stressed that the sample
target mainly focuses on Port Edgar, and makes no attempt to access additional
groups, such as the schools, the youth workers, the local community, and the sailing
governing bodies, which are all significant users of sport social enterprises and may
have different views on sport’s role in meeting the needs of the socially disadvantaged.
Most significantly, due to the small size of the sample, the research is not
representative of wider social groups. Therefore, the findings from the study should
not be generalised. Finally, being a first-time researcher, albeit guided by an
experienced and knowledgeable supervisor, has a profound impact on gather data due
to inexperience. For example, the ability to control the degree of directness of
questions and the pace of conversation.

35. 30
Chapter 4: Discussion
4.1 Introduction
Based on the research question of ‘what’s the role of watersport in social enterprise in
helping the disadvantaged’, several related areas were examined, such as business
model, assets transfer, political landscape, watersport’s potential, organisation
running and challenges in balancing social and business elements. Reviewing the
interview data in relation with key texts in these areas, six primary themes were
identified in this study, which were the importance of business; local activism of
assets transfer; contradicted political influence; watersports’ role in development;
premises of social enterprise; and finally the difficulty in managing social and
business values.
4.2 The Importance of Business
4.2.1 Business for Sustainability
Within the scope of social enterprise research, there are a number of texts illustrating
that the business is a vital component for a social enterprise (Douglas & Grant, 2014).
Sometimes, this is the starting point for a social enterprise to manage functionally
(Martin & Osberg, 2007). As the club manager articulates “business has to work first
and foremost”. During the interview, the manager consistently accentuated the notion
that simply relying on government grants is not possible for making an organisation
sustainable. Indeed, in relation to recent financial cuts in public expenditure, it is
reported that there are a potential loss of 490,000 public sector jobs (Kickert, 2012),
highlighting the need to reduce reliance on government aid. However the focus on
market economy is comparatively long-lasting, where demand and supply is always
present (Leadbeater, 2007). As a result, most participants in Port Edgar highlighted
the importance of business when it came to sustainability, arguing that business is key
to sustaining an organisation as well as their social values. This is further proof of the
close link of business and mind philosophy in the pursuit of a sustainable social
enterprise (Roy et al, 2014).

36. 31
4.2.2 Business for Revenue
Moreover, emphasis on business within a social enterprise might also address the
need for money, raising a dilemma between a lack of external financial support and
internal demand for financial input. On the one hand, as the majority of participants
stated, the only income Port Edgar relies on is the courses fees of running watersports
training, with no government grant achieved so far. To some extent, this may confirm
the financially difficult situation facing local authorities today (Kickert, 2012), in
which a high deficit limits a government’s funding ability or intention. However, this
also raises doubts on the efficiency of declaration of Alex Salmond to create “the
most supportive environment in the world for social enterprise” (Roy et al, 2013, p.2),
or the use of the recent £1 million of the Sustainable Sport for Communities Fund (the
Scottish Government website), as being a sport social enterprise Port Edgar does not
receive any outside financial support. Accordingly, this confusion is then addressed
by one of the participants - “People wouldn’t give us the money, because they don’t
see the gap in our finances, according to the feedback we had.” Thus, this would echo
the visualization of Spaaij and Westerbeek’s (2010) study on social enterprise, which
is an organisation to further social ends via profit distribution. As a result, due to the
general outlook, there is not often an opportunity for financial help to be proactively
created for a social enterprise, which is a group aiming to achieve profit. On the other
hand, a social enterprise like Port Edgar does feel financial pressure though there are
profits coming with courses fees, as there is not only high maintenance costs for old
facilities left by Edinburgh Leisure which have to be paid, but also there are costs of
running the organisation, expenses which have to be located or produced. Therefore,
activating business to realise self-sustainability is fundamental for a social enterprise
(Roy et al, 2014) like Port Edgar. Hence, apart from increasing income by opening a
number of sports courses, a business-like approach of controlling cost is accentuated
in Port Edgar. More specifically, unlike Edinburgh Leisure, which features “big
offices”, “hundreds of staff”, and high regulation fees of “£50,000 per year” described
by participants, the zero-contract approach is strategically used, employing staff only
when there are labour demands and thus flexibly controlling overhead costs. However,
this comes under criticism from an ethical standpoint with regards to the capitalist
methodologies, involving lower wages and less benefits for employees (Warner &
Hebdon, 2001), resulting from Port Edgar not guaranteeing full-time work. For this all

37. 32
participants, including staff and managers, understand that, due to uniqueness of
watersports, the industry is seasonal and consequently generates seasonal work. Most
importantly, a zero-contract allows flexibility for an individual to work different
places at the same time, and most respondents are happy with this arrangement. Lastly,
the money-making process of a social enterprise aims to generate social benefits with
profit distribution (Spaaij &Westerbeek, 2010). One participant in particular
underscored that “if we don’t make business work, then we can’t give back to
society”, reaffirming the inseparability of the business with a social enterprise.
4.2.3 Business is to Fill the Gap
By being entrepreneurial, Gilmore et al (2011) suggests that social enterprise is also
an instrument to fill the gap that the current state welfare system is incapable of
bridging. This can be clearly seen when comparing the results of the Edinburgh
Leisure and Port Edgar interviews. In other words, participants described Edinburgh
Leisure as more of a government-guided organisation that is more responsible to
Edinburgh Council than a community-enterprise that is supposed to serve the people.
As one participant suggested, “they just don’t really know what the people need”,
reflecting Charlton’s description (2010) on the consequence of the top-down
mechanism - ignorance of community needs. Conversely, in Port Edgar, being a
social enterprise, individual needs are strategically and principally targeted via
customer-oriented approaches, such as the upgrade of their website for a “greater
customer journey”, and the collection of course evaluation for requirement of high-
quality courses. Moreover, notwithstanding the evidence of a considerate organisation
as Port Edgar acts, this customer-oriented approach is claimed to be selective and
with accentuation on the social groups with higher level of incomes due to financial
instability (Hodgkinson & Hughes, 2012). However, in Port Edgar, this assumption is
partly opposed, as one participant stated : “At the moment, we are fairly selective. But
that isn’t for who has money or who hasn’t . Instead, it is mostly to do with whether
people know about us or not”. Another participant had the following comment on this
matter: “We certainly can’t just go and do great things. The business has to work first
and foremost,” strongly confirming the priority of business in a social enterprise.
Therefore, just as Dees (1998) assumes, instead of simply being spurred by altruistic
or social needs, a social enterprise is more practical, and is more concerned with the

38. 33
vision of how to attain their social goal as a business. This is reinforced by the
manager’s argument that being philanthropic in the public sector is very useful but not
adequate to sustain an organisation, whereas a business approach is key, as discussed
above.
4.3 Local Activism of Assets Transfer
Transfer of assets is a buzzword in contemporary society, not only fitting the
blueprint of ‘Community Empowerment and the Renewal” of ‘Big Society’ (Kisby,
2010), but also mirroring and devolving the rights and power to voluntary self-
governing bodies (Nichols et al, 2015), such as the social enterprise. However, despite
the rhetoric of distribution of power, asset transfer is sometimes criticised for
downloading responsibility and dumping broken business to the voluntary
corporations (Revington et al, 2015), which increases the burden on their shoulders.
On the other hand, this criticism is already accepted, as of the terms ‘transfer’, and
‘broken business’ are acknowledged. As interviewees present, it is certainly the ‘asset
transfer’ that Edinburgh Leisure leaves and then Port Edgar takes over. Also, in line
with “broken business”, this is confirmed by the statement of “it was cash-
strapped...and it was managed very badly at the end”. Even the problems generated by
inappropriate management, like outdated facilities cause financial pressure for Port
Edgar needing to constantly maintain it.
However, what respondents strongly disagree on is that the business is dumped.
Instead, this is voluntarily and proactively taken over to echo the local requirement
for social good delivery. The club manager said, “I definitely agree…I think in some
cases, the government sees it (Assets Transfer) as a cheaper way to offload stuff that
may they find difficult to fund or provide any budget for. But I think the more that
you can give back to these sort of communities to know what their requirements are,
the better.” Just as Nichols et al (2015) asserts, asset transfer is more of a process of
devolving political decision to local level as far as possible, and promoting local
community activism.

39. 34
4.4 The Contracted Political Influence
4.4.1 Double-sided Views on the Political Social Enterprise Landscape in Scotland
Alex Salmond, the First Minister of Scotland, publicly declared his ambition to build
Scotland into “the most supportive environment in the world for social enterprise”
(Roy et al, 2013, p.2). Accordingly, it can be noticed that a number of tailored
policies have been developed in the Scottish local context, of which the most
noteworthy one is the social enterprise ‘ecosystem’ set up by the Scottish social
enterprise sector. This consists of many foundations and government agencies,
affording a number of funds, and constructing social enterprise networks (e.g. SES,
SENSCOT, CBNS, SEA, to name a few) to safeguard social enterprises’ progress
(Roy et al, 2014). Indeed, as the manager emphasised, Port Edgar benefits in
becoming a member of this ‘ecosystem’. It allows advertising and promoting jobs
through the SES network, obtaining advice from the Robertson Trust, receiving more
support from Edinburgh Council, and most importantly, keeping connected with peer
organisations via events organised by SENSCOT to combat loneliness and learn
lessons from peers. Regardless of the numerous benefits described here from the
creation of the ‘ecosystem’ in the Scottish social enterprise sector, most of the
participants did not value it highly, stating that “the governing bodies don’t know
what a social enterprise is”. This viewpoint is focused on the few government grants
achieved so far for Port Edgar. In particular, as one respondent interprets, funding is
the “picture on the wall”, which costs less but significantly makes the place more
appealing for customers to visit, which is fundamental for a social enterprise as “the
governing bodies don’t mind or care”.
4.4.2 Double-sided Understanding of the Sporting Governing Bodies in the Sport
Context
As they are a sports organisation, a number of connections have been established by
Port Edgar with other sporting governing bodies, including RYA, OUTAALA, British
Stand-up Paddle Boating Association, British Canoe Union, Scotland Canoe
Association (SCA), and even British Cycling and Scottish Cycling. For this, the club
manager explained that “I don’t know even if we legally have to be, but we want to be
affiliated with them,” potentially symbolising their benefits in this regard. Indeed, as

40. 35
the majority of respondents suggest, affiliating with sporting governing bodies brings
professional and specific advice towards upgrading sport services and nurturing
public confidence in the organisation, which foster customer increases and resulting
in successful social enterprise and money efficiency discussed above. However, most
participants do not regard this affiliation as a beneficial selection but more of a have-
to choice, which is not advantageous. For instance, although RYA helps Port Edgar
attract customers and increase their income, the organisation loses its independence
and autonomy. As Sacchetti et al (2012) describes, strategic operations within social
enterprises are comparatively governed and checked by local authorities. This is
strengthened by the complaints of a number of participants towards RYA’s regulation
on the range of watersports service delivery and the number of customers an
organisation is allowed to accommodate. In the latter circumstance, there is one
participant in particular who feels pity about the regulated numbers for the
watersports course learner, which is capped at 10000 for the entire year. This
participant believed that this figure can be doubled, as the courses in Port Edgar are
not at capacity. However, it can also be said that this can guarantee high-quality
service for each customer. By being an organisation that mainly focuses on sport
participation, Port Edgar may run contrary to the elite sport emphasis of the sporting
landscape in contemporary society (Grix & Carmichael, 2012), like RYA, which a
popular talent pool for the Olympics and World Championship medals (Green, 2004).
Consequently, it may raise doubts regarding the appropriateness of using standards of
sporting governing bodies which emphasise sport performance to stimulate the
development of a sport social enterprise that underlines participation. This perspective
is comparatively reinforced in particular with one interviewee’s argument that there is
a significant difference in opportunities for Port Edgar to gain funding compared to
the National Sailing Center (which is a performance sport organisation), which just
managed to obtained one recently. This can potentially show the disparity between
sport-for-development and sport-for-sport’s sake in the current sporting landscape,
and exhibit the constraints on the development pace of a grassroots organisation, like
Port Edgar, due to this elite sport focus.

41. 36
4.5 The Role of Watersports in the Development project
In comparison with the basketball, football and boxing, little attention has been paid
to watersports in the development project. Port Edgar, being the biggest watersports
centre in Scotland, aims to make a difference by funding opportunities for people with
physical and learning disabilities via watersports, and intends to nurture positive
social capital.
4.5.1 Watersports and Social Capital
As Putnam highlights, social capital is the social inclusion, cooperation and collective
action that augments community unification (Coalter, 2013), where sports manages to
function. Indeed, in terms of a number of instructors, watersports are mostly
positioned as a team-sport that underlines inclusive advantages. That is, in watersports
everyone is a part of the crew, performing homogeneity and in-group identity, which
heighten the bonding social capital between like-minded people (Putnam, 2001).
Moreover, there are types of crews in terms of different preferences in watersports,
where someone enjoys kayaking for adventure, while someone else is fond of
canoeing as it is stable. Overall, they are still on the same ground through watersports,
in which communication chances still exist between kayaking players and canoe
learners concerned with water. Thus, in relation to this connection between canoe and
kayaking in watersports, the bridging of social capital between transcending
comparative distant ties can be highlighted here (Spaaij & Westerbeek, 2010). Most
importantly, everyone is able to find their own position in watersports, such as
physical positions or verbal work, including pulling the ropes or string, navigating,
and directing. Noticeably, in this regard, the features of having a physical or learning
deficiency can be greatly declined if assigning people to an appropriate position. Thus,
in terms of the notion of linking social capital (Woolcock, 2001), watersports in this
respect can be argued to exceed the limitations of social strata, and cultivating linking
capital as well. Therefore, it can be argued that with the association with social capital
by the Putnam model, watersports are able to shorten the distance between people,
bonding individuals and unifying society further.
Moreover, social capital is also defined into a human capital paradigm by Coleman,
who takes social capital as being consistent with personal development that is

42. 37
triggered by personal interests (Field, 2003). In Port Edgar, catering for personal
interests is specifically underscored by the need to be unique and different. As the
club manager indicates, “You don’t really need a particular special skill. If someone is
severely disabled or has learning disabilities, they will quite often come with their
carer. So what they are looking for from us is just a chance to experience something
different”.
Through their unique nature, watersports in Port Edgar have an element of
competitiveness. In terms of responses from interviewees, few chances are given for
individuals in Scotland or even the UK in general to come in contact with watersports,
as facilities are limited . Thus, watersports have gradually transformed into
“something unusual, something never encountered before”. With more popular sports
such as football, a participant stated that ‘when you are tired, you can sit on the
football pitch’, whereas in watersports, ‘you have to stay with your board or similar or
you will be in the water, and everything is different’. Following the hook of being
different, a number of personal benefits are subsequently underpinned during the
interviews for watersports, such as educational attainment and being character-
building. More specifically, intensively being involved in watersports means that one
learns independent-thinking to make decisions on their own board, obtaining
problem-solving skills by reacting to the tide changes, and receiving social skills by
communicating with teammates. The achievement of these life skills also nurtures
confidence for disadvantaged persons, who might be bullied in school, struggle to
read and write, or are depressed due to behaviour issues or physical disability.
However, it is not uncommon that sports can ease social issues or resolve social
causes, but this view is also accompanied with the views that sports are too intangible
to fundamentally change social structure or values that lead to social inequality
(Coalter, 2013b). Nevertheless, the line between the alleviation and resolution of
social inequality might be not urgent, as one participant stresses that what people only
look for the chance to make life easier, which sport is able to provide.
4.5.2 Controversy of Watersports
However, despite positive values suggested by a number of studies in sport, Jarvie
(2013) prioritises a need for ‘cautionary notes’ when examining the relationship

43. 38
between the renewal of society and the promise of sports. As Bourdieu claims, a
sports club is a manifestation of class restriction, exhibiting unequal access of social
resource with an example of the club membership. Indeed, in line with watersports,
they are argued as being primarily for upper- and middle-classes (Havighurst, 1957).
Also, watersports are sometimes argued to be characterised with ignorance of
grassroots sport and a focus on elite sport, such as in RYA (a talent pool mainly for
competition watersports). It is interesting to note that there were only a limited
number of participants who agreed on this aspect. In connecting these class-limited
claims, participants argue that “they are perceived to be a middle class sport”, which
watersports are not. In other words, in line with participation cost, an increasing
number of stores sell cheaper watersports equipment, enabling them to become
affordable and not only for wealthier classes. Moreover, in relation to training fees,
watersports are much cheaper with only £8 or £9 per hour needed in comparison with
football which usually costs £25 or more for an hour-long lesson. In addition,
watersports are not competitive in Port Edgar, which was constructed mainly for
recreation and adventure with ‘natural competition’ and competing for fun. Thus, it
can be argued here that there are no pros or cons associated with sport itself, which
Coalter (2007a) confirms, as sport is seen as more of a structure and process if it is
well organised to accomplish social outcomes.
4.6 The Premises of a Social Enterprise
4.6.1 Asking for the Legal Form
Often, there are not clear boundaries between public sector organisations like charities,
Social trusts and social enterprises, which means social identification is challenging.
As Spear et al’s (2009) noted, there are various legal forms of social enterprise, such
as companies limited by guarantee, industrial and provident societies, community
interest companies and unincorporated forms lead to difficulty for the public to
recognise a social enterprise. Thus, unsurprisingly, there are voices for giving a
specific definition to help individuals have a clearer idea of what a social enterprise
really is. However, as reviewed in previous research, a rigorous definition would
undermine the value of reapplication of a social enterprise (Douglas & Grant, 2014),
which is agreed upon by the club manager. However, the same manager believed