Blurred Lines: Performance Enhancement, Common Mental Disorders and Referral in the U.K. Athletic Population

Through the awareness-raising efforts of several high-profile current and former athletes, the issue of common mental disorders (CMD) in this population is gaining increasing attention from researchers and practitioners alike. Yet the prevalence is unclear and most likely, under-reported. Whilst the characteristics of the sporting environment may generate CMD within the athletic population, it also may exacerbate pre-existing conditions, and hence it is not surprising that sport psychology and sport science practitioners are anecdotally reporting increased incidences of athletes seeking support for CMDs. In a population where there are many barriers to reporting and seeking help for CMD, due in part to the culture of the high performance sporting environment, anecdotal reports suggest that those athletes asking for help are approaching personnel who they are most comfortable talking to. In some cases, this may be a sport scientist, the sport psychologist or sport psychology consultant. Among personnel in the sporting domain, there is a perception that the sport psychologist or sport psychology consultant is best placed to assist athletes seeking assistance for CMD. However, sport psychology as a profession is split by two competing philosophical perspectives; one of which suggests that sport psychologists should work exclusively with athletes on performance enhancement, and the other views the athlete more holistically and accepts that their welfare may directly impact on their performance. To add further complication, the development of the profession of sport psychology varies widely between countries, meaning that practice in this field is not always clearly defined. This article examines case studies that illustrate the blurred lines in applied sport psychology practice, highlighting challenges with the process of referral in the U.K. athletic population. The article concludes with suggestions for ensuring the field of applied sport psychology is continually evolving and reconfiguring to ensure that it continues to meet the demands of its clients.

'Producing the Scene': the Evolution of the Director in British Theatre 1900-50

The role of the director as the individual who harnesses and controls resources to shape the theatrical product to a personal artistic vision, begins to emerge in British theatre in the early years of the twentieth century. What distinguishes the role from that of the actor-manager who had led the profession since the seventeenth century, is that it separates off from the leading actor in performance. The power and authority of the director (or producer as he or she tended to be known initially) is exercised in the pre-performance stage. In the first half of the century there were still old-style actor-managers—Donald Wolfit is a prime example—and many of the new directors had begun their careers as actors and some continued to act their in their own productions. But the perception of the function of the director began to change radically. In part this was linked to the early attempts to create a new model of producing company or ‘repertory’ theatre which required a different set of administrative as well as artistic skills to tackle the challenge of a short-run system of multiple play production. This became especially important in the developing network of regional repertory theatres which were established as autonomous, locally-specific institutions predicated on policies opposed to the dominant commercial ethos. The best-known of the early directors, most notably H.Granville Barker, confined their radical experiments to short-lived metropolitan experiments, or, as in the case of Terence Gray and J.B.Fagan, operated within the influential Oxbridge nexus. Others such as H.K.Ayliff, Herbert Prentice, William Armstrong and William Bridges-Adams remain comparatively obscure because of their long-term ‘provincial’ connections or, as in the case of Nugent Monck and Edy Craig because their creativity was largely channelled through amateur actors. This chapter will explore the evolving role of the director as both a necessary functionary and an artistic innovator within the changing structures of British theatre.