Surveillance as a technique of power in physical education

This paper analyses surveillance as a technique of power in the culture of physical education, including its impact upon the health of teachers. Additionally, gendered aspects of surveillance are investigated because physical education is an important location in and through which bodies are inscribed with gendered identities. The embodied nature of physical educators' work renders the body as particularly significant in patterns of privilege and domination. The research was guided by Michel Foucault's work and poststructural feminist perspectives on the importance of power in social life. At nine schools across two international research sites, the functioning of surveillance was evidenced through the multi-directional workings of power in top-down, lateral, and bottom-up configurations. Data indicated that surveillance occurred on, through and about bodies. It had a strong gender dimension as the male gaze inscribed both female teachers' and students' bodies with value and competence. In terms of teachers' health, as well as responses to surveillance on a physical and emotional level, the workings of power were also influential in shaping teachers' identities.

Validating the functional capacity index: A comparison of predicted versus observed total body scores

Background: The Functional Capacity Index (FCI) was designed to predict physical function 12 months after injury. We report a validation study of the FCI. Methods: This was a consecutive case series registered in the Queensland Trauma Registry who consented to the prospective 12-month telephone-administered follow-up study. FCI scores measured at 12 months were compared with those originally predicted. Results: Complete Abbreviated Injury Scale score information was available for 617 individuals, of whom 587 (95%) could be assigned at least one FCI score (range, 1-17). Agreement between the largest predicted FCI and observed FCI score was poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.10) and explained only 1% of the variability in observed FCI. Using an encompassing model that included all FCI assignments, agreement remained poor (kappa = 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.02-0.12), and the model explained only 9% of the variability in observed FCI. Conclusion: The predicted functional capacity poorly agrees with actual functional outcomes. Further research should consider including other (noninjury) explanatory factors in predicting FCI at 12 months.