Joint position stand of the ISSP, FEPSAC, ASPASP, and AASP on professional accreditation

© 2018 Objectives: To situate the current status of accreditation in four key international societies, ASPASP, FEPSAC, AASP, and ISSP, in a historical backdrop and then to draw on these approaches to propose future directions and developments relating to practical standards. Design: A review of the origins and current status of accreditation in four international sport psychology societies is utilized to situate the recent prominence of professional standards and the importance of these in our global professional community. This review is written temporally from past, to present, to future prospects. Method: A presentation of societal accreditation foci is situated temporally using the following structure: (a) emergence and historical backdrop from each society, (b) emergence and reasoning for accreditation, (c) current societal standards/status of accreditation, (d) future developments in the society's accreditation system, and (e) reflections and recommendations for global standards, with suggestions of how this might be accomplished. Results: The presentation of scholarship is intended to serve as a form of advocacy for improved accreditation standards within the global professional community. The societal perspectives call for a balance between localized cultural infusion and proposed global guidelines upon which professionals might meet a converged reasonable practice threshold. Conclusions: Sport psychology accreditation is increasingly important as the applied realm of this profession spans community physical activity/recreation, and developmental and elite/professional sport. Accredited practices must integrate universal and local approaches

Context matters: athletes’ perception of dopers’ values, actions and vulnerabilities

Background Although athletes seem to hold uniform views towards non-dopers, their perception of dopers is more nuanced, reflecting positive and negative attributes. Research also indicates that rarely a single factor can explain doping, but a host of reasons that intertwine. A holistic understanding of how values play a role in decisions in anti-doping and the elements that influence athletes’ doping vulnerability is timely and warranted. Methods We recruited elite athletes from 13 countries representing 27 sports at a national or international level (N = 60) to participate as part of a larger research project. Data were collected via focus group interviews focusing on values, value priorities and perceptions about the role of values in doping as a phenomenon and in dopers’ actions. Data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis. Results Three themes were identified: (1) athletes’ personal stance on doping, (2) dopers in the eyes of the anti-doping-compliant athletes, and (3) doping vulnerability is a balance. Athletes in this study strongly opposed doping but showed empathy and understanding toward athletes who doped under certain circumstances. Furthermore, athletes believed that “clean” and “doping” athletes are not always distinguished by the values they hold, leading to the realisation that all athletes can be vulnerable to doping at some point. This vulnerability is a balance between risks and protective factors in a complex interaction between environmental, personal, and situational influences. Each element (e.g., values, environment) can be a motivator or a barrier. Consequently, doping vulnerability is highly idiosyncratic and dynamic. Conclusion If doping is not due to a lack of moral values but the consequences of combined risk factors that override the guiding function of values, then doping can happen to anyone, “good” athletes included. Developers and facilitators of anti-doping education programmes are advised to embrace this important aspect. The results also contribute to developing the doping vulnerability concept as a balance between risks and protective factors and draw attention to the clean athlete vulnerability, which is rooted in the combination of strategic performance enhancement via non-prohibited means, their exposure to anti-doping requirements and the constant high level of suspicion that surrounds them.</p