1fvxXm4

1.2. Our approachQualitative and quantitative research toolswere used in order to ensure that findings hadsolid foundations. An innovative technique –the Crowd-sourced Research Tool (CRTOOL)– was piloted in order to secure first-handaccounts from young people regarding theirattitudes and experiences in the area of discriminationin sport. The CRTOOL consistedof an interactive online survey and a manageddiscussion forum. One positive side-effect ofthis research tool was that children were ableto gain experience of using social media.The online survey consisted of questions onparticipants’ backgrounds, attitudes towardssport, membership of clubs, and opinions onracism and gender-related discrimination.Several animations and pictures were usedto make the process more fun. Three videoclips were produced, demonstrating differenttypes of discrimination, and added to thesurvey. 3The ethnicity of the respondents was determinedon the basis of the language they spokein to their parents and/or grandparents. Askingthe children directly was deemed toocomplex and inappropriate for the age group.One-third of the surveyed children stated thatthey spoke to one or both of their parents ina language other than that used with theirteacher at school (and were therefore categorisedas “first-generation migrants” in ourresearch). The same percentage indicatedthat they spoke to one or both of their grandparentsin a language other than that usedwith their parents and teacher (making them“second-generation migrants”). The remainder,those that spoke the same language totheir teachers, parents and grandparents,were categorised as “natives” in our research.The surveys were conducted in both publicand private schools in the capital cities ofeach country. Six different schools werechosen in each country, and these camefrom different neighbourhoods in order togather more comprehensive data across thefull socioeconomic spectrum. Each countryprovided a sample of roughly 120 children,with a total of 1,233 children participating,and boys and girls were represented innearly equal proportions (see Chart 1.03).There were passionate discussions onlinevia the CRTOOL. In total, more than 1,000comments were registered, with the mostactive discussion taking place in Netherlands(where there were 276 comments on a singlediscussion thread).Background information■ Crowd-sourcedResearch ToolCrowd-sourcing is the practiceof obtaining feedback froma large group of people usingthe power of social media.To complete the research task,a special application – theCRTOOL – was created.There are several advantagesto using the CRTOOL:• measurable – qualitative andquantitative data could becollected• monitored – experts guidedthe participants and monitoredthe process carefully• flexible – user-friendly 24-houraccess for participants givingfeedback• fun – with animations, photosand video clips• low-cost – less expensive thantraditional techniques(e.g. focus group discussions)• educational – participantscould gain awareness of socialmedia.350Number of children(44 refused to answer)300250200150100Σ 1,233 pupils5009 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 >17Age (in years)Chart 1.03: Survey participants by age and gender3The clips were produced with the help of the Under-10 and Under-11 teams of FC Zürich “LetziKids”.DISCRIMINATION IN SPORTKING BAUDOUIN FOUNDATION3