Athlete Maltreatment as a Wicked Problem and Contested Terrain

Comments 1: The manuscript is very well-written, clear and well-organized, and referenced using recent and relevant sources. The cited purpose of the paper is to “explore athlete maltreatment as a ‘wicked problem’ in society -   that is, a problem that defies definition and planned efforts to solve it. Accordingly, this research uses the wicked problems approach … to identify the complexity of athlete maltreatment, including the divergent interests of stakeholders.” The authors effectively convey the complexity of the occurrence and prevention of, and intervention in, cases of athlete maltreatment. But, beyond highlighting this complexity, the reader is left wondering why this is important and how it may inform prevention and intervention. Although the authors address the reasons why understanding maltreatment as a wicked problem is important (section 3.4 on page 9), I would argue that this section does not go far enough. How might prevention and intervention be advanced by applying this perspective? Are there examples the authors could cite related to athlete maltreatment? For example, what are some additional causes or novel solutions that may be advanced with a framework of a wicked problem? In what ways could the authors bring these notions to life for the reader?

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. As the reviewer points out, we have already described the importance of understanding wicked problems throughout the manuscript, for example in section 2 (p. 3, lines 98-103), section 3.1 (p. 4, lines 178-180) and section 3.4 (p.9, lines 383-388). We have incorporated two additional sentences in section 3.4 (p. 9, lines 389-393) explaining why understanding the concept of wicked problems is significant for stakeholders particularly scholars and policymakers. Additionally, we have suggested that wicked problems draw attention to the importance of coordinated responses, while also underscoring the need for continual effort, adaptation and change (see p. 12, lines 528-533). 

Comments 2: Further, although section 4 on doping and match-fixing as wicked problems is interesting and the similarities with maltreatment are highlighted, I don’t think this section adds to the reader’s understanding of why viewing maltreatment as a wicked problem is advised. Without these enhancements to the paper, the reader is left with the ‘so what?’ question; the content is very interesting but why does it matter?

Response 2: Thank you to the reviewer for raising this with us. We acknowledge that our purposes for comparing should have been clearer. By outlining the similarities between doping, match-fixing and maltreatment, we were aiming to show that their definitions are often regarded as cultural practices by both the public and researchers (p. 10, lines 423-433). Likewise, solutions to these problems have historically been challenged by the combined views of experts and the government because the solutions are paradoxically connected to the actors who are the cause of the issues (p. 10, lines 434-446). While this overview shows why these three problems persist in sport (with incomplete remedies available), we suggest that attempts to address the problems of doping and match-fixing have been around for decades, consequently allowing the opportunity for maltreatment policymakers to observe the promises and pitfalls of older remedies and interventions (p. 10, lines 451-454).

Comments 3: Unless the competing interests, values and needs of each stakeholder group can be incorporated, the Figure simply illustrates the various stakeholders without reference or connection to athlete maltreatment.

Response 3: The opinions and perceptions of various stakeholders depicted in the Figure 1 are intended to show the complexity of the system and its interlapping interests. Our aim for the Figure was to show that the definitions, causes and resolution regarding athlete maltreatment are intertwined with the maintenance and legitimization of sport systems (p. 12, lines 534-536). By extension, this speaks to the need for a more coordinated responses and continual adaptation/adjustment by the stakeholders themselves (a point now linked with the new passage, p.10, lines 528-533).

Comments 1: The aim of the paper was to use Rittel ad Webber’s (1973) ‘wicked’ framework to explore athlete maltreatment in society. Using the wicked models approach widely used in policy analysis, the authors discuss (1) the general concept of wicked problems; (2) why athlete maltreatment may be considered as a wicked problem; and (3) compare athlete maltreatment to wicked problems of doping and match-fixing to understand similarities but also the challenges of definition related to laws, policies, and rules. Overall, the paper advocates for a more multidimensional approach to solving athlete maltreatment (and doping, match-fixing) that acknowledges maltreatment as a wicked problem in order to address it effectively.

General concept comments:

The manuscript is clearly written, relevant for the field, and presented in a well-structured manner. The range of references reflects a deep understanding of the topic (i.e., athlete maltreatment), which generally enhances the arguments put forward that maltreatment should be viewed as being a wicked societal problem.

The manuscript strongly focuses on Canadian and South Korean exemplars (e.g., pp. 4 – line 157, 163; pp. 5 – line 195, 242 + pp. 5 – line 216, 221, 235); however, this is not highlighted in the manuscript title. For example, many other countries have instigated comprehensive policies to try and address athlete maltreatment e.g., New Zealand, Norway & Australia. Do the authors feel that the two countries mentioned represent the strongest examples of athlete maltreatment or are the authors more familiar with those two areas examples?  

Response 1: While many countries have developed policies including reporting systems, education programs and new implemented strong rules etc., this study focuses on South Korea and Canada for two reasons. First, this study is part of a much larger study related to the institutional factors that contribute to athlete maltreatment in South Korea. Second, Canadian policies are referred to given that Canada has been at the forefront of sport maltreatment policy. We thank the reviewer for suggesting the inclusion of other countries. The USA Gymnastics case is included here and we have introduced Australia and New Zealand integrity reforms as examples of attempts to create ‘independent’ bodies to mitigate against vested interests (see p. 12, lines 524-525).

Comments 2: The manuscript methodology adopts the ‘wicked problem approach’ (pp.2 – line 55), justified by providing the potential to provide new insights regarding why numerous programs and policies trigger controversy (pp.2 – line 59). However, if a ‘wicked problem approach’ for policy analysis is aimed at developing more robust and sustainable policy solutions, is it strong enough to conclude the paper with a generalised re-evaluation of existing research/policies and more multidimensional approach (pp.1 – line 13) i.e., could stronger statements or problem solutions be potentially put forward that incorporate the contested terrain e.g., pp.12 – line 520 rather than simply reiterating that the problem “may resist simple remedies” (pp.11 – line 505)?

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective on this. We agree that the ‘call for a re-evaluation of existing research/policies’ is not strongly supported (though we allude to it by suggesting that some policies have had reverse effects). To clarify this and to avoid reiterating that wicked problems are simply intractable, we have first added a short passage on p. 12 to incorporate a more multi-dimensional consideration of the problem alongside the metaphor of a contested terrain:

Yet, even so, to mitigate maltreatment in sport will require a wider scope than most remedies can provide. This exploration would thus suggest attending to the contested terrain more broadly as a means of developing coordinated responses among stakeholders. While such responses may only achieve partial and temporary successes, this approach will nevertheless invite a continuing attention and effort, perhaps amenable to continuous adaptation and change (see p. 12, lines 528-533).  

Second, we have edited the abstract to reflect this passage and particularly in regards to the need for continual evaluation and adjustment. 

Comments 3: The statement about “the negative impact of the power/authority of coaches being exacerbated by two main factors” (pp.5 – line 223) is interesting; however, this tends to simplify or downplay the complexities of coach learning and development e.g., would a more experienced coach be more aware of the power/authority ratio; are there differences in coaching in different cultures; what level of competition is the statement referring to; and what about the combination of lifetime processes/experiences that impact the way in a coach delivers a session? Maintaining the position and legitimacy of coaches (pp.5 – line 226) does take place but at what level, as not all sport coaches and policies define themselves in terms of winning (pp.5 – line 228).  

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer 2 for this observation, and notably, these comments (about coach learning being over-simplified) fit well with the wicked problem approach adopted here and so we are grateful for the engagement. While it may seem logical to assume that coaches’ greater experience in different cultures and levels of competition contributes significantly, the exiting research does not support this within this particular Korean context. Indeed, this is one of the key points – that the cultural and institutional context/factors appear to constrain and limit the potential positive impact of education programs. We have added ‘elite sport’ on p. 5, line 223 to clarify the levels of competition. Regarding the last query, we have included ‘national and professional levels’ to make this point clear (p. 5, line 228).

Comments 4: Section 3.3. (pp.7 – line 305-370) appears to take a long time to reach the ‘summary’ paragraph. In the first two paragraphs of this section, the manuscript reads repetitively e.g., pp.7 – line 321 “Indeed”, line 335 “Indeed” and line 348 “Similarly”.

Response 4: In the third paragraph, ‘indeed’ is replaced with ‘in this regard’ to avoid repetition. Also, the term ‘similarly’ and the Japan example are deleted to introduce unintended consequences of Korean example.

Comments 5: The conclusion paragraph speaks about “results” (pp.11 – line 493); however, results, in the traditional sense generally mean the end products or consequences of a particular action, process, or event. Instead of ‘results’, perhaps the term outcomes or consequences might be better terms to describe why athlete maltreatment is initially difficult to frame.

Response 5: Thank you to the reviewer for this suggestion. We have revised the sentence by deleting ‘results’ on p. 11 (original lines 493-494).

Comments 6: Scholars observe statement (pp.11 – line 480) – requires more than one reference.

Response 6: We have added additional references on p. 11, line 478 for further support.

Comments 7: Maltreatment is recognized as a major issue in society statement (pp.11 – line 474) – requires supporting references.

Response 7: We have added additional references on p. 11, line 483 for further support.