'The effect of the London 2012 olympic games\r'

'As part of the London 2012 majestic Games the large(p) British Government presented a legacy that they hoped would wait on them to win the bid to host the games. This included what they hoped would snuff it beneficial long-term effects socially and economically for Great Britain. One of the claims made the government was: ‘Harnessing the coupled Kingdoms passion for sport to increase grass root betrothal, particularly by young people †and to support the whole population to be more corporally active. Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010) Meaning that hosting the games would change the nations attitude towards physical ctivity, contri only ifing to a hopeful increase in participation in sport. This investigation explores the link amidst hosting the Olympic Games and sports participation in the host country, in particular around the host city of London. The playing field focuses on measuring the legacy effects a year after the games began. This research i s being created to sack up a greater understanding about how the 2012 Olympic games has mended the nation †London in particular.With this tuition we also would like to make the results more special(prenominal) and find out: how the Olympic legacy has shake people and how distance of residency from the Olympic orbit ill affect their perceived perception of the games and in conclusion what economic and social barriers may stand in the way of individuals becoming involved post- Olympic Games. METHODS excogitate Data generation was carried out from the fountain ceremonial (27th July 2012) to exactly one year after the Opening Ceremony (27th July 2013). The approach taken was twofold, firstly a questionnaire was conducted.The first method of this study uses a self-completion questionnaire to desex a link between the London 2012 Olympic Games and the perceived impact on sports participation across England. This allows participants to self-evaluate the impact of this event , and thus provides a subjective evaluation, but still shows an important social indicator. The questionnaire includes close-ended questions for easier completion and so opposeents do not tire, and therefore a bigger response is more likely making the information more representative.The Likert scale will be use; respondents attitudes will be obtained by asking them to respond to a series of statements, in terms of the outcome to which they agree with them, where 1 was ‘powerfully Disagree and 5 was ‘Strongly Agree. The number of uestionnaire. Examples of positive statements ar: ‘grassroots participation would be boosted. An already sports-mad nation would complicate better and healthier. ‘ (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 2010). And, ‘These champions and potential champions provide an important inspiration forothers to ‘ look at a gd. McKay, 1991). Examples of negative statements for use in the questionnaire argon: sports organisati ons need to ensure that marketing is sensitive to consumer resistivity arising from an awareness of how difficult it is to emulate our sporting heroes and heroines. ‘ (Hindson et al. 1994).And, ‘Its no good having a great Olympics in 2012 and excite many young people to take up sport if we dont have the facilities, coaching and infrastructure to get them involved and keep them in sport. ‘ (Draper, 2003). Research conducted by Hindson et al. (1994) concluded that the Olympics had a positive effect on club membership. Conversely, Edcoms (2007) found no clear coefficient of correlation between hosting the Olympic Games and sport participation as a long-term affect, however, may lead to short gains. The second part of the process involved other questionnaire. This part of the study involved obtaining socio-demographic information including age, grammatical gender and distance of residency from the Olympic Park, all of which could affect a residents perspective of the event.Previous research has indicated that reactions could be ground on these key factors (Twynam & Johnston, 2004). Research has indicated that in ethnic minorities, such as East London, barriers inhabit such as unaffordable facilities and unavailable childcare, high discourtesy rates, fear for personal safety and culturally irrelevant activities are of primary importance and may specify willingness to articipate (Seefeldt et al. , 2002). The chosen technique to distribute the questionnaires was the ‘drop and collect method.This involves the mess delivery and collection of the questionnaires, providing a cost effective, accepted and very fast method to stand in this research. Respondents are able to complete the questionnaire at their own one thousand therefore are more likely to complete it. The technique avoids interviewer bias and control over the excerpt process.\r\n'