Respect: Results of a pilot project designed to improve behaviour in English football

The research on which this article reports arose from recognition by The English Football Association (FA) that poor behaviour in affiliated football was having widespread and deleterious effects on the game, at every level, including a loss of about 7,000 referees each year. In order to address these concerns, The FA implemented a programme of pro-social behaviour change, branded ‘Respect’, and commissioned research into a 3 month pilot project in a small number of County FAs during the spring of 2008. In designing the evaluation for the Respect Pilot the researchers attempted to adhere to best practice in programme evaluation by addressing both the process and outcomes of the intended change programme (Coalter, 2007; Pawson, 2006; Weiss, 1998) and by working with a logic model that could be adapted over time (Aspen Institute, 2003; Schmitz and Parsons, 2007). The four main stakeholder groups identified to take part in the Pilot were players, coaches, referees and spectators/parents, for three age groups – Under 10, Under 16 and Open Age. Three different interventions were tested at the matches: designated spectator areas, codes of conduct with sanctions and only the captain being allowed to talk to the referee. Interviews were conducted with the four stakeholder groups at three games in each age group. In addition, week-by-week behaviour assessments from 583 trial games were entered online by over 1,000 people. Overall, both enjoyment and behaviour scores among the Active (experimental) teams were perceived to be significantly better than that among the matched Control teams (with no interventions). The experimental teams also ranked all three interventions highly over the ten weeks, with the designated spectator areas rated best, followed by the signing of codes of practice second and only captains talking to referees third. The results are discussed in relation to the future plans for the Respect campaign and the efficacy of the original logic model

PEER-REVIEWING, FEEDBACK & ASSESSMENT IN ENGINEERING TEACHING

Presentatio

The Football Association’s Child Protection in Football Research Project 2002-2006: Rationale, design and first year results

In common with most sport organisations, the English Football Association has come relatively recently to the issue of child protection. Abuses of various kinds have been known about in the sport for many years but, until the late 1990s, very little systematic work was undertaken to address this. The launch of a Child Protection Strategy by the Engalish FA in May 2000 reflected recognition by those in authority within the sport that child abuse and protection were properly the subject of football policy and should become embedded in all aspects of the affiliated game. In addition to adopting child protection, the then-Chief Executive Officer of the FA made a commitment to evidence-based policy in his strategic plan for the game. In line with this commitment, the FA commissioned a 5 year study of the impact of child protection on the game, the first year of which constituted an audit of the state of child protection in the affiliated game. Data were collected through 11 internet surveys, 32 club case studies, over 200 interviews with various stakeholders and an analysis of 132 case files for child abuse referrals. This paper sets out the context of child protection in sport more generally and the background to the FA's child protection reseach project in particular. It also presents selected first year results for key stakeholder groups

Can We Test for Bias in Scientific Peer-Review?

Science rests upon the reliability of peer review. This paper suggests a way to test for bias. It is able to avoid the fallacy -- one seen in the popular press and the research literature -- that to measure discrimination it is sufficient to study averages within two populations. The paper’s contribution is primarily methodological, but I apply it, as an illustration, to data from the field of economics. No scientific bias or favoritism is found (although the Journal of Political Economy discriminates against its own Chicago authors). The test’s methodology is applicable in most scholarly disciplines

A project-based system for including farmers in the EU ETS

Farmers in the EU do not trade greenhouse gases under the Kyoto agreement. This is an empirical puzzle because agriculture is a significant contributor of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the EU and may harvest private net gains from trade. Furthermore, the US has strongly advocated land-use practices as ‘the missing link’ in past climate negotiations. We argue that farmers have relatively low marginal reduction costs and that consequences in terms of the effect on permit price and technology are overall positive in the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). Thus, we propose a project-based system for including the farming practices in the EU ETS that reduces the uncertainty from measuring emission reduction in this sector. The system encourages GHG reduction either by introducing a new and less polluting practice or by reducing the polluting activity. When doing so, farmers will receive GHG permits corresponding to the amount of reduction which can be stored for later use or sold in the EU ETS

A Century of American Economic Review

Using information collected from American Economic Review publications of the last 100 years, we try to provide answers to various questions: Which are the top AER publishing institutions and countries? Which are the top AER papers based on citation success? How frequently is someone able to publish in AER? How equally is citation success distributed? Who are the top AER publishing authors? What is the level of cooperation among the authors? What drives the alphabetical name ordering? What are the individual characteristics of the AER authors, editors, editorial board members, and referees? How frequently do women publish in AER? What is the relationship between academic age, publication performance, and citation success? What are the paper characteristics? What influences the level of technique used in articles? Do connections have an influence on citation success? Who receives awards? Can awards increase the probability of publishing in AER at a later stage?American Economic Review, Publishing Economics, Rankings, Cooperation, Authors, Editors, Board Members, Referees, Connections, Awards, Paper Characteristics, Economic History, History of Economic Thought