Architecture and health care: a place for sociology.

Sociologists of health and illness have tended to overlook the architecture and buildings used in health care. This contrasts with medical geographers who have yielded a body of work on the significance of places and spaces in the experience of health and illness. A review of sociological studies of the role of the built environment in the performance of medical practice uncovers an important vein of work, worthy of further study. Through the historically situated example of hospital architecture, this article seeks to tease out substantive and methodological issues that can inform a distinctive sociology of healthcare architecture. Contemporary healthcare buildings manifest design models developed for hotels, shopping malls and homes. These design features are congruent with neoliberal forms of subjectivity in which patients are constituted as consumers and responsibilised citizens. We conclude that an adequate sociology of healthcare architecture necessitates an appreciation of both the construction and experience of buildings, exploring the briefs and plans of their designers, and observing their everyday uses. Combining approaches and methods from the sociology of health and illness and science and technology studies offers potential for a novel research agenda that takes healthcare buildings as its substantive focus.

Disorder and disconnection: parent experiences of liminality when caring for a dying child

Parents caring for a child with a life threatening or life limiting illness experience a protracted and largely unknown journey, as they and their child oscillate somewhere between life and death. Using an interpretive qualitative approach, interviews were conducted with parents (n = 25) of children who had died. Findings reveal parents’ experiences to be characterised by personal disorder and transformation as well as social marginalisation and disconnection. As such they confirm the validity of understanding these experiences as, fundamentally, one of liminality, in terms of both individual and collective response. In dissecting two inter-related dimensions of liminality, an underlying tension between how transition is subjectively experienced and how it is socially regulated is exposed. In particular, a structural failure to recognise the chronic nature of felt liminality can impede parents’ effective transition.

Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective

Attracting more coaches is fundamental to achievement of the European dimension in sport and the further promotion of sport in the European Union. Given the emerging relationship between the law and sports coaching, recruitment of such volunteers may prove problematic. Accordingly, this article critically considers the legal liability of sports coaches. To inform this debate, the issue of negligent coaching is critically scrutinised from a UK perspective, uncovering a number of distinct legal vulnerabilities facing volunteer coaches. This includes the inherent limitations of ‘objective reasonableness’ when defining the standard of care required in the particular circumstances. More specifically, fuller analysis of the justification of customary practice, and the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, reveals important ramifications for all organisations providing training and support for coaches. In short, it is argued that proactively safeguarding coaches from professional liability should be a priority for national governing bodies, and, following the recently published EU Work Plan for Sport for 2014–2017, the Expert Group on Human Resource Management in Sport. Importantly, given the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competence in developing the European dimension in sport, a Commission funded project to address the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ in sport is also recommended.

Sports coaching and the law of negligence: implications for coaching practice

The ordinary principles of the law of negligence are applicable in the context of sport, including claims brought against volunteer and professional coaches. Adopting the perspective of the coach, this article intends to raise awareness of the emerging intersection between the law of negligence and sports coaching, by utilising an interdisciplinary analysis designed to better safeguard and reassure coaches mindful of legal liability. Detailed scrutiny of two cases concerning alleged negligent coaching, with complementary discussion of some of the ethical dilemmas facing modern coaches, reinforces the legal duty and obligation of all coaches to adopt objectively reasonable and justifiable coaching practices when interacting with athletes. Problematically, since research suggests that some coaching practice may be underpinned by “entrenched legitimacy” and “uncritical inertia”, it is argued that coach education and training should place a greater emphasis on developing a coach’s awareness and understanding of the evolving legal context in which they discharge the duty of care incumbent upon them.

Beyond the ‘Tomlinson Trap’: Analysing the Effectiveness of Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006

One of the intentions underpinning section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 was to provide reassurance to individual volunteers, and voluntary organisations, involved in what the provision called ‘desirable activities’ and including sport. The perception was that such volunteers, motivated by an apprehension about their increased vulnerability to negligence liability, and as driven by a fear of a wider societal compensation culture, were engaging excessively in risk-averse behaviour to the detriment of such socially desirable activities. Academic commentary on section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 has largely regarded the provision as unnecessary and doing little more than restating existing common law practice. This article argues otherwise and, on critically reviewing the emerging jurisprudence, posits the alternative view that section 1, in practice, affords an enhanced level of protection and safeguarding for individuals undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity. Nonetheless, the occasionally idiosyncratic judicial interpretation given to term ‘desirable activity’, potentially compounded by recent enactment of the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, remains problematic. Two points of interest will be used to inform this debate. First, an analysis of the then House of Lords’ decision in Tomlinson and its celebrated ‘balancing exercise’ when assessing reasonableness in the context of negligence liability. Second, a fuller analysis of the application of section 1 in the specific context of negligence actions relating to the coaching of sport where it is argued that the, albeit limited, jurisprudence might support the practical utility of a heightened evidential threshold of gross negligence.

MODERN SPORT COACHING AND THE LAW: IMPLICATIONS FOR COACH EDUCATION

Introduction
The intersection between the law of negligence and sport coaching in the UK is a developing area (Partington, 2014; Kevan, 2005). Crucially, since the law of negligence may be regarded as generally similar everywhere (Magnus, 2006), with the predominance of volunteer coaches in the UK reflective of the majority of countries in the world (Duffy et al., 2011), a detailed scrutiny of this relationship from the perspective of the coach uncovers important implications for coach education beyond this jurisdiction.  
Argumentation
Fulfilment of the legal duty of discharging reasonable care may be regarded as consistent with the ethical obligation not to expose athletes to unreasonable risks of injury (Mitten, 2013). More specifically, any ‘profession’ requiring ‘special skill or competence’ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582), including the coaching of sport (e.g., Davenport v Farrow [2010] EWHC 550), requires a higher standard of care to be displayed than would be expected of the ordinary reasonable person (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013; Jones & Dugdale, 2010). For instance, volunteer coaches with no formal qualifications (e.g., Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council [1996] ELR 51) would be judged by this benchmark of professional liability (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Further, as the principles of coaching are constantly assessed and revised (Cassidy et al., 2009; Taylor & Garratt, 2010), so too is the legal standard of care required of coaches (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Problematically, ethical concerns may include coaches being unwilling to increase knowledge, abusive treatment of players and incompetence/inexperience (Haney et al., 1998). These factors accentuate coaches’ exposure to civil liability.
Implications
It is imperative that coaches have an awareness of this emerging intersection and develop a ‘proactive risk assessment lens’ (Hartley, 2010). In addition to supporting the professionalisation of sport coaching, coach education/CPD focused on the legal and ethical aspects of coaching (Duffy et al., 2011; Telfer, 2010; Haney et al., 1998) would enhance the safety and welfare of performers, safeguard coaches from litigation risk, and potentially improve all levels of coaching (Partington, 2014). Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest a demand from coaches for more training on health and safety issues, including risk management and (ir)responsible coaching (Stirling et al., 2012). Accordingly, critical examination of the issue of negligent coaching would inform coach education by: enabling the modelling and sharing of best practice; unpacking important ethical concerns; and, further informing the classification of coaching as a ‘profession’.

The Dynamics of Quadropoly: League Position in English Football between 1888 and 2010

The paper explores competitive balance in top tier English league football from its inception in 1888. It examines the extent to which finishing in the top four positions in successive seasons is the preserve of a small number of clubs. Using a range of statistical measures, the analysis shows that the current high levels of competitive imbalance are not new phenomena. The overall pattern approximates a ‘U curve’: current patterns parallel those in the 1890s. In the early years of English league football, differences in resources between clubs soon became apparent. Clubs from the larger conurbations generated consistently larger revenues than their counterparts in the smaller industrial towns. This was primarily the result of the larger crowds that they could attract to their home games. This enabled them to entice the best players to their clubs away from their smaller rivals. The introduction of the maximum wage in 1901 and the transfer system helped to stem these increasing inequalities between clubs. This coincided with a massive wave of new stadia construction which enabled all the clubs to compete on an increasingly level playing field. These conjunctural changes to English football before 1915 produced the era of relatively competitive football during the inter-war years. This continued until the abolition of the maximum wage in 1961. Since that time, competitive balance has reversed and become increasingly restricted. English top-tier football has re-entered an era of extreme competitive imbalance.