To What Extent do Bourdieu’s Theories Help us to Understand
How Physical Activity Participation in Children is Influenced by
Wider Social Structures?
Name: Ciara Larney
Supervisor: Delma Byrne
Submission date: 26th April 2018
Department of Sociology
Maynooth University
2018
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 1
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 3
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 5
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 7
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 13
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 13
Previous Studies ................................................................................................................... 13
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................ 14
Habitus ................................................................................................................................. 15
Fields (Family and School Field) ......................................................................................... 16
Interaction of Field and Capital ............................................................................................ 19
Structure and Agency ........................................................................................................... 20
Critique of Bourdieu’s work ................................................................................................ 22
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 22
Chapter 3: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 24
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 24
Research Design, Sampling and Method of Data Collection ............................................... 24
Data and Variables ............................................................................................................... 26
Operationalisation and Conceptualisation ............................................................................ 27
Limitations of a Cross Sectional Study ................................................................................ 29
Secondary Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 30
Analytic Plan ........................................................................................................................ 30
Ethical Considerations.......................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 4: Findings .................................................................................................................. 34
Univariate analysis ............................................................................................................... 34
Discussion of Key Dependent Variables .......................................................................... 34
Discussion of Key Independent Variables........................................................................ 38
Bivariate analysis ................................................................................................................. 49
Social Class Influences on Physical Activity ................................................................... 49
Capital Influences on Physical Activity ........................................................................... 52
Influence of Field .............................................................................................................. 59
Influence of Habitus ......................................................................................................... 62
Children’s Agency and Participation in Sports ................................................................ 63
Chapter 5: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 67
Appendix .................................................................................................................................. 72
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 94
2
3
List of Tables
Table 1: Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Variables .......................................................... 28
Table 2: Amount of Team or Individual Sports Participated in ............................................................ 36
Table 3: Reasons for not Participating in Sport .................................................................................... 37
Table 4: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Education Level of Primary Care
Giver ..................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 5: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Number of Friends ...................... 58
Table 6: Reasons for not Participating in Sport by Number of Friends ................................................ 65
Table A 1: Participation in Hard or Light Exercise .............................................................................. 72
Table A 2: Social Class ......................................................................................................................... 72
Table A 3: Ability to Make Ends Meet ................................................................................................. 72
Table A 4: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Social Class ....................................................................... 73
Table A 5: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver ............................................................ 74
Table A 6: Number of Books in the Home ........................................................................................... 74
Table A 7: Amount of Friends the Child Hangs around with ............................................................... 74
Table A 8: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area ........................................................................ 75
Table A 9: Safety of the Area ............................................................................................................... 75
Table A 10: Adequacy of the School Sports Facilities ......................................................................... 75
Table A 11: Physical Activity Level of the Primary Care Giver .......................................................... 76
Table A 12: Social Class by Physical Activity Level of Child ............................................................. 76
Table A 13: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Social Class ........................... 77
Table A 14: Ability to Make Ends Meet By Physical Activity Level of Child .................................... 78
Table A 15: Education Level of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child .................. 79
Table A 16: Number of Books in the Home by Physical Activity Level of Child ............................... 82
Table A 17: Number of Friends by Physical Activity Level of Child .................................................. 83
4
Table A 18: Safety of Area by Physical Activity Level of Child ......................................................... 85
Table A 19: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area by Physical Activity Level of Child ............ 86
Table A 20:Adequecy of School Sports Facilities by Phyiscal Activity Level of Child ...................... 87
Table A 21: Physical Activity Level of Primary Caregiver by Physical Activity Level of Child ........ 88
Table A 22: Number of Friends by 'I don't like team games' ................................................................ 89
Table A 23:Number of Friends by 'I have no opportunities to play' ..................................................... 89
Table A 24: Number of Friends by 'I feel like people would laugh at me because of my size' ............ 90
Table A 25: Number of Friends by 'I have a disability or health problem that prevents me from
playing' .................................................................................................................................................. 91
Table A 26: Number of Friends by 'I prefer to watch sports on tv' ....................................................... 91
Table A 27: Number of Friends by 'I don't fit in with the sporty crowd' .............................................. 92
Table A 28: Number of Friends by 'I prefer to play computer games' .................................................. 93
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Participation in Hard or Light Exercise ................................................................................. 35
Figure 2: Social Class ........................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3: Ability to Make Ends Meet ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 4: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Social Class .......................................................................... 41
Figure 5: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver .............................................................. 42
Figure 6: Number of Books in the Home .............................................................................................. 43
Figure 7: Number of Friends the Child Hangs around with .................................................................. 44
Figure 8: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area .......................................................................... 46
Figure 9: Safety of the Area .................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 10: Adequacy of School Sports Facilities .................................................................................. 47
Figure 11: Physical Activity Level of the Primary Care Giver ............................................................. 48
Figure 12: Social Class by Physical Activity Level of the Child .......................................................... 50
Figure 13: Average number of Sports Participated in Depending on Social Class ............................... 52
Figure 14: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Physical Activity Level of Child........................................ 53
Figure 15: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child .. 54
Figure 16: Number of Books in the Home by Physical Activity Level of Child .................................. 56
Figure 17: Number of Friends by Physical Activity Level of Child ..................................................... 57
Figure 18: Adequacy of Sports Facilities by Physical Activity Level of the Child .............................. 61
Figure 19: Physical Activity Level of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child ......... 63
Figure A 1: Average Number of Sports Participated in depending on Education Level of Primary
Caregiver ............................................................................................................................................... 80
Figure A 2: Average Number of Sports Participated in depending on Number of Friends .................. 84
6
7
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Delma Byrne for the
amazing support and encouragement she gave me throughout this research project. She is a
wonderful source of inspiration and always had her door open when I needed advice. Thanks
also to the sociology lecturers for all I have learned over the past three years, and contributed
to this thesis. Thanks also to my family for being there for me throughout my studies,
supporting me during the highs and lows, and providing practical support.
8
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify the barriers to physical activity participation
among children living in Ireland, and examine how activity levels vary among children from
different social classes. The work of Bourdieu was used as a theoretical framework to
explore how his key concepts of habitus, field and capital, can explain inequalities in
children’s physical activity participation. This is a cross sectional study, using secondary data
analysis, based on the Growing Up in Ireland study, which provides data from a nationally
representative cohort of 13 year olds. The results from this research show that children from
lower social classes are less physically active and face more barriers than children in higher
social classes. The main influencing factors identified in this study include social class,
cultural and economic capital of the primary caregiver, social capital of the child, and activity
level of the primary caregiver. Unlike international studies on this topic, neighbourhood and
school fields are not found to have a significant influence on children’s physical activity
levels. This study has also uncovered the importance of children’s individual agency to
overcome the barriers they face. A significant issue that emerges, in non-participation in
sport, is children feeling that they don’t belong and are not good enough. This applies to
children in all social classes and levels of cultural capital, but is higher among children with
lower social capital. The results of this study will be useful for exploring solutions to support
children with their individual agency, to become more physically active. It is a unique study
that adds to the literature on the subject of physical activity participation among children.
9
Chapter 1: Introduction
Physical activity participation among children is of fundamental importance and it is essential
for optimal physical growth and child development (Drenowatz et al. 2010). It is one of the
greatest predictors of physical health, mental health and having a good quality of life (Bakken
Ulseth and Seippel 2011). It is particularly important for both children and adolescents to
participate in sport and physical activity as it is associated with lower levels of anti-social
behaviour and higher levels of positive emotional well-being (Federico, Falese and Capelli
2009). Children who engage in a high and continued amount of physical activity are more
likely to have physically active lifestyles in adulthood (Mutz and Albrecht 2017). However,
the literature promoting physical activity among children comes largely from the fields of
medicine and sport, and somewhat simplifies/ignores the unequal opportunities of children –
that is, not all children have the same opportunities to be physically active. Previous research
on this topic has found that children in lower social classes have lower levels of physical
activity than those in higher social classes (Johnsen et al. 2017; Mutz and Albrecht 2017;
Drenowatz et al. 2010). Yet, social inequalities in relation to physical activity which tend to
be embedded in society, are often side-lined in favour of research findings which suggest that
low levels of physical activity in childhood can lead to poor health in later life (Johnsen et al.
2017) or that a lack of physical activity is one of the main causes of childhood obesity, which
can lead to inequalities in health (Federico et al. 2009). An understanding of the factors at
play can help inform interventions and public policy to increase physical activity among all
children.
The aim of this research is to explain social class differences in physical activity participation
and to provide an insight into the types of barriers faced by children living in Ireland which
may inhibit their physical activity participation. This research is guided by Bourdieu’s
10
theories, including his key concepts of habitus, field and capital. Bourdieu’s considerations of
structure and agency within these concepts are also explored.
Children from lower social classes often encounter structural barriers within their particular
field, such as characteristics of the built environment. For example, a lack of sports facilities
in their school or neighbourhood can restrict their opportunity to participate in physical
activity. Economic, cultural and social capital are unevenly distributed between fields.
Economic capital is related to an individual’s fortune and revenues and is directly convertible
into money (Walther 2018). Cultural capital is gained from one’s upbringing and education
(Wilson 2002), while social capital represents an individual’s entire network of social
relations (Walther 2018). A child’s habitus structures their behaviour and attitudes toward
physical activity (Lee and Macdonald 2009). Bourdieu identified the complex interplay
between field, capital and habitus (Wilson 2002). An important aspect of Bourdieu’s theory is
the dialectic relationship between structure and agency that is manifested in the habitus.
Structure determines and shapes individual thoughts and behaviours, while agency is an
individual’s ability to make their own choices and overcome the structural barriers they face
(Walther 2018).
The rationale for carrying out this research is to show how physical activity participation isn’t
just determined by a person’s free choice to be physically active, but these wider social
factors influence the choices available to them, and consequently, their physical activity
levels. There is a wide range of literature relating to social class inequalities in physical
activity participation. International, European and Irish studies have explored this topic, and
have identified the barriers and factors influencing physical activity participation. Examples
of such barriers and factors include; low income and education of parents, lack of sports
facilities in the neighbourhood and school, physical activity level of parents and lack of
parental support (Johnsen et al. 2017; Mutz and Albrecht 2017; American Academy of
11
Pediatrics 2009). A number of international studies have also examined social class
inequalities in physical activity participation among children using Bourdieu as a theoretical
framework (Wiltshire, Lee and Williams 2017; Dagkas and Quarmby 2012; Stuij 2013;
Quarmby and Dagkas 2010). No Irish study has used this framework for exploring
inequalities in children’s physical activity participation. This research fills a gap in the
literature, as it explores whether children in Ireland from lower social classes are in fact less
physically active, and whether Bourdieu’s theory applies to the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI)
cohort. It also examines whether they experience similar or additional barriers to physical
activity participation as found in previous studies.
The key objectives of this research are to:
Explain the relationship between social class and physical activity and to link this to
the wider sociological literature.
Investigate the extent to which children from lower social classes are less physically
active than children from higher social classes.
Explore the ways in which habitus, field, capital, structure and agency influence
physical activity participation of children.
In keeping with the aims and objectives, the central research questions of this research
include:
What are the physical activity levels of 13-year olds in Ireland?
Is there a difference in physical activity levels between children in lower social
classes and higher social classes?
Does the amount of economic and cultural capital of the family and the amount of
social capital of the child influence physical activity levels of children?
12
Do fields such as the neighbourhood and school fields influence children’s physical
activity levels?
Does a child’s habitus, such as parental involvement in physical activity influence
children’s physical activity participation?
Are the reasons why some children don’t participate in sport influenced by social
class and cultural capital of their parents and the amount of social capital of the child?
These questions are explored using information derived from key variables from the Growing
up in Ireland (GUI) study which is the most comprehensive and nationally representative
children’s health survey currently available in Ireland (Cadogan, Keane and Kearney 2014).
13
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
There are many physical, psychological and social benefits of physical activity and sports
participation, which increase health and quality of life. Therefore, an understanding of the
structural barriers to physical activity participation among children is of crucial importance
(Dagkas and Stathi 2007). People are not physically inactive simply as a consequence of
individual decision making. There are certain structural barriers that make it much more
difficult for some children to be physically active, especially children from lower social class
groups. Using Bourdieu as a theoretical framework provides an understanding of how
individual behaviour is determined by an interplay between structure and agency within an
individual’s habitus, which guides individual behaviour in a particular field such as the
family in combination with capital (Stuij 2013; Walther 2018). This chapter explores
inequalities in children’s physical activity participation; how activity levels of children differ
by social class background; and how Bourdieu’s key concepts of economic, cultural and
social capital, habitus, field, structure and agency can help explain how wider structural
forces shape children’s behaviours, attitudes and involvement in physical activity.
Previous Studies
According to the empirical literature, just as poor health and prevalence of obesity are
strongly class related, participation in physical activity is dependent on socio-economic
factors such as income and education levels (Bakken Ulseth and Seippel 2011). Participation
in physical activity follows a social gradient (Ball et al. 2015). It is context dependant as it’s
closely associated with socio-economic status (Dagkas and Stathi 2007). Several studies have
shown an association between socio-economic status and adolescents physical activity levels
(Mutz and Albrecht 2017; Johnsen et al. 2017; Drenowatz et al. 2010). European studies
14
have found a lower level of moderate to vigorous physical activity among children from
lower social classes (Mutz and Albrecht 2017). An Italian study found that children and
adolescents with more educated parents were 80 percent more likely to take part in moderate
to vigorous physical activity (Federico et al. 2009). An international longitudinal study which
collected data across Europe and North America found that Ireland ranked worst of 34
countries for socio-economic inequalities in the amount of exercise taken by young people
aged between 11 and 15 and income-based differences in physical activity among Irish
adolescents grew between 2002 and 2010 (Cullen 2015).
Theoretical Framework
This research draws upon the social theory of Bourdieu to help explain how physical activity
participation of children is influenced not just by free choice and individual preferences but
by wider structural forces in society. Bourdieu’s key concepts of habitus, field, capital and
his consideration of structure and agency within these concepts are of particular importance
for this research. Previous studies have drawn on Bourdieu as a theoretical framework for
understanding inequalities in physical activity participation (Wiltshire et al. 2017; Dagkas
and Quarmby 2012; Stuij 2013; Quarmby and Dagkas 2010). Bourdieu helps us to understand
how physical activity participation is influenced by wider social structures (Quarmby and
Dagkas 2013). The disposition to engage in physical activity arises from a complex interplay
of various economic, cultural and social factors (Bourdieu 1984). In his famous work,
‘Distinction’, Bourdieu explains how an individual’s cultural consumption is structured by
the resources or capital they possess, the social spaces or fields they inhabit and an
individual’s own perceptions and actions within their habitus (Bunn 2016). Habitus refers to
a system of dispositions that guide people’s attitudes and choices such as physical activity
participation (Pinxten and Lievens 2014). It involves the different ways individuals act in
different fields such as the family field (Fitzpatrick 2011). A field is a ‘site of cultural
15
reproduction with particular norms, boundaries and forces of power at work’ (Fitzpatrick
2011:355). People from different social positions differ from one another with regard to their
possession of three different forms of capital which include economic, social and cultural
capital (Bourdieu 1984). Habitus, field and capital have a ‘co-constituent relationship’
(Fitzpatrick 2011:356). The family field is the primary socialising structure where social,
cultural and economic capital is accumulated and dispositions of habitus are attained
(Hunter, Smith and Emerald 2015).
Habitus
Habitus, which is linked to social class, is key to understanding inequalities in physical
activity (Wiltshire et al. 2017). The habitus is the embodiment of social values, dispositions
and tastes (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012). Children are influenced by their habitus from an
early age through interactions with family members and other social groups such as schools
and neighbourhoods (Dagkas and Stathi 2007). Habitus is a ‘structured and structuring
structure’ and lifestyles are the ‘systematic products of habitus’ (Bourdieu 1984:170-2). An
individual’s habitus is key to the social reproduction of certain behaviours such as physical
activity participation (Quarmby and Dagkas 2010), which is determined by their social
backgrounds and family circumstances (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012). It shapes individual
actions, involvement and attitudes towards physical activity (Lee and Macdonald 2009).
Bourdieu deals with class differences in sports participation in which activities differ
significantly between different social classes. Different social class groups tend to value
different kinds of sports (Bourdieu 1984). Studies in the sociology of sport have found a
paradox whereby the higher an individual’s social class, the greater their involvement in
sports but they are less likely to be involved in working class sports or ‘prole’ sports.
Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural and economic capital can explain this paradox. Cultural
capital is gained through one’s upbringing and education and acts as a marker of social
16
difference. Sports consumption is largely determined by preferences and tastes. Those with a
large amount of cultural capital often do not want to be associated with sports that are
associated with lower social classes. Class based differences in economic capital also allow
those in higher classes to engage in more expensive sports (Wilson 2002).
Within a habitus, individuals behave in ways that are expected of them. Children within
lower social classes may feel that sports associated with higher social classes are not for
‘people like them’. In an English study, children in a fee-paying school had a wide variety of
sports available to them and didn’t take part in sports, such as football, that were not
considered posh enough for their school (Wiltshire et al. 2017). Children from a school with
lower socio-economic characteristics took part in more informal activities, such as running
and scootering, due to the lack of capital within their field and symbolic value was also
attached to these kinds of activities (Wiltshire et al. 2017). Individuals follow the learnings of
their habitus to find an activity that is entirely ‘them’ (Bourdieu 1984). In Ireland, ‘The
Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study’, identified that social
disadvantage has been given little attention in relation to sports provision. Participation in
extracurricular school sports activities is an important strategy to help young people achieve
their recommended daily amount of physical activity, however, children and teenagers from
lower social classes participate less in extra school sports than children from higher social
classes (Woods et al. 2010).
Fields (Family and School Field)
Corsaro’s orb web model provides an understanding of how children are influenced by
different institutional fields (Corsaro 2018). These fields are the various locations where
institutional interaction and behaviour takes place. Within the centre of the model is the
family of origin and radiating out from the centre are different institutional fields such as the
school field, family field, economic field, community field, all of which influence the
17
experiences of children and their physical activity participation (Corsaro 2018). Previous
research has taken a top down view of the effect of parents on their children and their
capability to invest in their well-being (Share, Corcoran and Conway 2012). Childhood
experiences are shaped by socialisation within the family and other social groups, such as
school and neighbourhoods (Reay 2004). The family field in particular influences young
people’s actions and attitudes towards physical activity (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012). The
family acts as a ‘pedagogical field’ which is where social reproduction occurs (Dagkas and
Quarmby 2012; Bourdieu 1984). The family is a particularly important social field, which
fosters physical activity tastes, preferences and interests (Bourdieu 1996; Quarmby and
Dagkas 2013). Parents are believed to be one of the strongest socializing agents for children
(Anderssen, Wold and Torsheim 2006).
Within a child’s habitus, parents shape their children’s current and continued physical
activity participation (Quarmby and Dagkas 2010). Parents play a key role in teaching their
children about physical activity as a healthy behaviour. Pedagogical practices within the
family environment are crucial to the embodied dispositions toward physical activity (Dagkas
and Quarmby 2012). A study carried out by Evans and Davies (2018), found that middle
class families encouraged their children to take part in a high amount of sport and physical
activity at an early age to maintain educational superiority and class distinction.
When parents are supportive, their children are more likely to take part in physical activity
(Federico et al. 2009). Children’s sports and exercise participation is closely associated with
their parents lifestyle. If parents are physically active children are more likely to be
physically active also. A study carried out by Dagkas and Stathi (2007) on the physical
activity participation of adolescents in the UK, found that adolescents in higher social classes
had more parental influence and motivation to be physically active compared to those in
lower social classes. They reported taking part in physical activity as a family at the weekend,
18
such as visiting local leisure centres or going on country walks (Dagkas and Stathi 2007).
Parents act as role models for their children and often convey their own class-based sports
practises to them through intergenerational transmission (Mutz and Albrecht 2017; Hunter et
al. 2015). Parents who show interest in their children’s activity levels will increase the
likelihood of their children’s prolonged involvement in physical activity (Lindner 2002).
Parents within different fields tend to have different parenting styles, which can result in
inequalities in children’s participation in extracurricular sports activities. A study carried out
by Lareau, found that middle class parents had a type of parenting style where they ‘actively
fostered and assessed their children’s talents, opinions and skills’ (Corsaro 2018:98). This
may be done through enrolling their children in extracurricular, structured activities such as
sports, which is known as concerted cultivation (Corsaro 2018). In a study carried out by
Stuij (2013), it was found that children in higher socio-economic groups took part in certain
sports as a result of gentle persuasion from their parents who used to play a particular sport
themselves, resulting in the transmission of life skills through organised leisure activities,
which is part of Lareau’s idea of concerted cultivation (Stuij 2013).
The school field is also considered to be an important environment for promoting physical
activity, since children spend a large amount of time at school. This can be achieved through
physical education classes and extracurricular sports (Haerens et al. 2009). However not all
schools place the same amount of emphasis on the importance of physical activity or can
afford the necessary facilities (Hunter et al. 2015). The delivery of extracurricular sport
greatly depends on teachers’ willingness to volunteer their time outside of school hours
(Woods et al. 2010). Children in higher social classes may go to schools which provide more
opportunities to be physically active for example grass playing fields, sports halls and a range
of other facilities, while children from lower social classes may go to schools with limited
sports facilities and those they have, are less likely to be well maintained (Hunter et al. 2015).
19
This varying availability of school physical education (PE) facilities affects the provision of
PE in schools, which exacerbates inequalities. In Ireland it is recommended that all schools
have access to suitable indoor spaces with changing rooms and showers, but not all schools
have such facilities. Middle class schools can provide such facilities through fundraising or
voluntary contributions, but more disadvantaged schools may not have this option (Woods et
al. 2010).
Interaction of Field and Capital
Bourdieu’s concept of field is a social arena, and children in different fields don’t have the
same access to resources (Quarmby and Dagkas 2010). Socio-economic status is a prevalent
factor determining, not just choice and preference of what kind of physical activity to take
part in, but also the capacity to realise these choices and preferences (Hunter et al. 2015).
Taking part in sport or leisure activities is socially constructed, reflecting the possession of
varying degrees of economic, cultural and social capital (Connor 2003). Bourdieu uses these
three forms of capital together, which Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992:25) referred to as the
‘conceptual triad’. There is a strong interplay between different forms of capital as they can
be converted into one another (Pinxten and Lievens 2014). Bourdieu associated fields with
struggles for power and he referred to all forms of power as capital (Lee and Macdonald
2009). Power within a field in the form of capital, particularly economic and cultural capital,
can control an individual’s position in a particular field such as sport or physical activity (Lee
and Macdonald 2009).
Capital and field are strongly interlinked, as the amount of capital accumulated by an
individual will determine the range of available choices within a particular field (Dagkas and
Quarmby 2012). The amount of economic capital a person has can be more decisive in
motivating physical activity than a person’s willingness to exercise (Bakken Ulseth and
Seippel 2011). Parents with more cultural capital, such as a greater level of education, are
20
more likely to have better knowledge of the importance of physical activity for their children
(Wells, Nermo and Östberg 2016). Sporting capital can be considered a form of cultural
capital which consists of skills and knowledge necessary to participate in sport and physical
activity (Stuij 2013). Parents with more economic capital may have a greater amount of
disposable income to enable their children to join leisure activities that cost money (Wells,
Nermo and Östberg 2016).
Capital refers to the economic, social and cultural resources that people get access to in order
to gain power and status through interactions with others in society (Shilling 2003). However,
the types of capital that are rewarded by society are unevenly distributed across socio-
economic groups, resulting in lower social classes not being able to engage in what is
considered a healthy lifestyle due to capital constraints (Wiltshire et al. 2017). Children and
families who are rich in social capital are more likely to access a large amount of social
support and access to resources. Economic capital interacts with social capital which gives
rise to social inequalities in society (Share et al. 2012). Power within a field in the form of
capital, economic and cultural capital in particular, has an impact on an individual’s
participation in a particular field such as sport or physical activity (Bourdieu 1978).
Structure and Agency
Structural forces are not the only thing that influence variation in physical activity
participation and preferences (Wiltshire et al. 2017). Children are not passive but active
social agents, and play a key role in shaping their own lives (Corsaro 2018). They have
individual agency, which also plays a key role in influencing their physical activity
participation (Wiltshire et al. 2017). The day to day activities of individuals are produced by
the interaction of structure and agency. Structure creates barriers to a child’s agency as it
steers them towards certain ways of behaving. Children in certain fields may place less value
on physical activity and follow the most common behaviours of other children in their field,
21
such as high levels of television viewing and less physical activity (Quarmby and Dagkas
2010).
The built environment of a community, such as how it is designed, planned and built, can
create structural barriers affecting children’s opportunities to be physically active (Eime et al.
2015). Neighbourhoods can support opportunities to be physically active by providing parks,
open spaces, footpaths, cycle lanes and sports facilities as well as creating safe environments.
However, children living in low income or minority neighbourhoods tend to have less access
to parks and recreational facilities (American Academy of Pediatrics 2009). It’s very difficult
for individuals to increase their physical activity levels even if they would like to, if their
environment creates barriers which are outside their control (Bakken Ulseth and Seippel
2011). An American national study found that access to parks and physical activity facilities
were most often found in neighbourhoods in which most of the population had a college
education (American Academy of Pediatrics 2009). In a study looking at the associations
between socio-economic status and geographical remoteness, it was found that low socio-
economic neighbourhoods had much less physical activity facilities than higher socio-
economic status neighbourhoods. The low socio-economic status neighbourhoods also had
fewer “free for use” facilities (Eime et al. 2015).
Individuals in higher social classes are more likely to be able to afford to live in a physical
activity friendly environment (Eime et al. 2015). Higher socio-economic neighbourhoods
tend to have more aesthetically pleasing environments which can promote physical activity,
with people more likely to feel safe enough to be physically active (Eime et al. 2015). A
study carried out in the UK, found that adolescents living in low income neighbourhoods
reported a lack of facilities such as parks or fields where they could be physically active.
Parents restricted where their children could play due to safety fears, as parts of the
neighbourhood had high crime rates (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012).
22
Critique of Bourdieu’s work
A criticism of Bourdieu’s work is his overemphasis on the role of social structures in
influencing human action. Within his structure/agency theoretical framework, there is an
imbalance, with more of a focus on structure rather than agency. He overemphasises the
deterministic and constraining nature of habitus which limits the choices available to people,
and the power of socialisation, leaving little room for individual willpower or an individual’s
ability to transform the social structures of fields. Agency is seen as a menu from which a
person can choose. based on their social background and available capital rather than free
choice (Perez n.d.). This emphasis on structure may result in the belief of individuals as
passive agents. Corsaro counters this view with his concept of interpretive reproduction. He
explains that children are both constrained by society but also have agency to shape their own
lives. According to Qvortrup, children are active co-constructors of their social worlds
(Corsaro 2018).
Conclusion
A review of the literature identifies a strong relationship between social class and physical
activity participation of children, with wider structural forces influencing individual’s
physical activity levels. Arising from this previous research, the following hypotheses are
explored in this study:
Children from lower social classes are less physically active than children from higher
social classes.
Physical activity participation of children decreases with lower economic capital of
their parents.
Physical activity participation of children decreases with lower cultural capital of their
parents.
23
Physical activity participation decreases with lower social capital of children.
Fields such as the neighbourhood and school fields influence children’s physical
activity participation through access to sports facilities, safety of the neighbourhood
and adequacy of the school sports facilities.
Within a child’s habitus, their parents influence their physical activity participation by
being physically active themselves.
Children’s decisions not to participate in sport are influenced by social class, the
amount of cultural capital of their parents and the amount of social capital of the
child.
A number of Irish studies have looked at the general physical activity levels of children in
Ireland. For example The ‘Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study’ found
that only 19% of primary and 12% of post primary school children met the national physical
activity guidelines of at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day
(Woods et al. 2010). This study not only looks at the current physical activity levels of
children in Ireland, but explores how levels of physical activity participation vary across
different socio-economic groups using a Bourdieusian approach.
24
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
This research aims to explain social class differences in children’s physical activity
participation and highlight the barriers children in Ireland face, which may inhibit their
physical activity levels. This was explored through an analysis of Bourdieu’s key concepts of
habitus, field, economic, cultural and social capital and the complex interplay between
structure and agency which determines individual behaviour. This chapter describes the
methods employed, and how the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) dataset was used to address
the aims, objectives and central research questions. The items outlined include; the GUI
study’s data collection method and sampling frame, this study’s research design, how the
research questions were conceptualised and operationalised by choosing the key independent
and dependent variables, the analytic plan and the ethical considerations that needed to be
considered before carrying out this research.
Research Design, Sampling and Method of Data Collection
The research design is a cross sectional study, using secondary data analysis based on the
longitudinal Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) study. The data collected from the GUI study
allows for the analysis of the factors that contribute to or undermine the wellbeing of children
in Ireland (Thornton et al. 2016). A key intention of the GUI study is to understand the
children’s point of view and how they perceive their own lives and what it means to be a
child growing up in Ireland today (Gray, Geraghty and Ralph 2016). The GUI study
interviewed a random sample of nine year olds and their parents/ guardians, teachers and
school principal. The research instrument that was used by the GUI team, which this
research draws from, is questionnaires which were completed face to face with multiple
sources (Quail et al. 2014). In order to identify a suitable sampling frame a two stage design
25
was carried out. A random sample of primary schools were selected and a sample of 9 year
olds were selected from the sample of schools. The design required that the sample be
representative of the national population of 9 year olds (Quail et al. 2014).
The GUI study follows two nationally representative cohorts, the infant cohort and the child
cohort. The first wave of the child cohort included 8,568 children, the primary and secondary
caregiver and the principals and teachers who were first interviewed when the children were
9 years old between August 2007 and May 2008. The 8,568 children in the child cohort were
born between 1st November 1997 and 31st October 1998 (Quail et al. 2014). This is
important to know, as individuals who are born around the same time, often share similar
experiences, moving through the same stages of life together (Gray et al. 2016). For example,
the physical activity norms and policy developments in Irish society since 2007/2008 would
have an impact on all these children. 7,400 were re-interviewed when the children were 13
years old between August 2011 and March 2012, which was the wave 2 sample (Growing Up
in Ireland 2012). There were issues of attrition as a result of this method of data collection,
whereby after the wave 1 interviews some participants dropped out of the study and didn’t
participate in the interviews for wave 2, such as those who were no longer living in Ireland.
To account for this differential attrition, the data from wave 2 of the survey were statistically
adjusted or reweighted to ensure that they were fully representative of the population of
children who were resident in Ireland at 9 years old and still living in Ireland at 13 years
(Quail et al. 2014).
This study focuses on the wave 2 child cohort of 13 year olds. The unit of analysis focuses on
the responses of the primary caregiver, the 13 year olds and the school principal. This unit of
analysis was most appropriate for this research as it allowed for the analysis of variables
associated with the individual child, the family and the school, which provided an
understanding of the children’s experiences in the wider context of the family and school life.
26
It was necessary for the questions asked to the 13 year olds to be analysed as it’s important
to understand the child’s point of view as well as their parents or teachers, as children play an
active role in their own development and it’s important that their voices are heard (Morgan,
Thornton and McCrory 2016). The GUI data was relevant for answering this study’s research
questions which are a combination of descriptive and explanatory questions. The data
provided a wide range of information on children and their families and the factors which
influence child development and wellbeing (Thornton et al. 2016).
Data and Variables
The wave 2 data dictionary and questionnaire were scanned to select the most suitable
variables that would indicate the level of physical activity of the 13 year olds, their family’s
socio-economic position and the potential barriers to physical activity participation. This was
done by selecting the most suitable variables that would represent habitus, field, capital and
agency in order to answer the research questions. A combination of nominal, ordinal and ratio
variables were selected. There is considerable complexity involved in working with a large
scale dataset containing 913 variables and 7,525 cases. Thus, a new dataset was created in
SPSS to reduce the size of the dataset, maintaining the full number of cases but containing
only the smaller number of variables that were required to answer the research questions. The
creation of the new dataset was achieved through the use of a syntax file in the SPSS. This
syntax file was then used to run univariate and bivariate analyses and descriptive and
inferential statistics. New variables were created when necessary; the two variables
participation in hard exercise and participation in light exercise were recoded into a single
variable; variables such as ‘ability to make ends meet’ were recoded to ensure no cell size
was less than 5, enabling the calculation of a reliable chi square test; the ratio variable
“number of sports the child participated in” was recoded by changing the code of ‘no sporting
27
activities’ from a value of 1 to a value of 0 to reflect the true ratio characteristic of the
variable.
Operationalisation and Conceptualisation
In order to operationalise the variables for study, these terms first had to be conceptualised.
According to Caspersen (1985:126) ‘physical activity is defined as any bodily movement
produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure’. To measure the 13 year
old’s level of physical activity and the potential barriers to physical activity participation,
physical activity, social class, economic, cultural and social capital, field, habitus and agency
were conceptualised and operationalised. They are shown in Table 1. All the variables were
derived from responses by the primary caregiver (PCG), the child (C) and school principal
(SP).
28
Table 1: Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Variables
Conceptualisation Operationalisation
Physical Activity
Frequency and intensity of
physical activity
Participation in sport
Amount of days the child took
part in at least 20 minutes of
hard or light exercise in the last
14 days (C)
Participation in individual or
team sports outside of PE (C)
Social class
Social Class Group
Occupational level of parent
(PCG)
Economic capital
Income level of parent
Ability of family to make ends
meet (PCG)
Cultural capital
Education level of the caregiver
Material resources
Highest level of education
completed (PCG)
Number of books in the home
(PCG)
Social capital
Friends and networks
Social capital of child - How
many friends they normally
hang around with (C)
Field
Neighbourhood barriers to
physical activity participation
School barriers to physical
activity participation
If the area is safe for the 13
year old (PCG)
Availability of sports facilities
for teenagers in the area (PCG)
How adequate the school sports
facilities are (SP)
Habitus
Physical activity level of the
caregiver
In their free time is the
caregiver physically active or
not physically active (PCG)
Agency
Attitudes towards physical
activity
Why the child does not take
part in sport – e.g prefer to play
computer games or don’t fit in
with the sporty crowd (C)
29
The physical activity variables, including whether they participate in sport and the amount of
days they took part in hard or light exercise, provided an understanding of the GUI cohort of
13 year olds physical activity levels. The variable to measure economic capital (ability to
make ends meet), cultural capital (the caregiver’s education level and number of books in the
home) and the social class variable, provided information on the socio-economic background
of the child which may create barriers to physical activity participation. The variables
associated with the school field such as adequacy of sports facilities, and the neighbourhood
field such as availability of sports facilities, the variables associated with habitus, such as
physical activity level of the caregiver and the amount of social capital of the child (their
number of friends), allowed for an exploration of how habitus, field and social capital can
create barriers to physical activity participation. The variables associated with attitudes
towards physical activity (reasons for children not participating in sport), were used to
explore how children have agency to make their own decisions about sports participation.
The key dependent variables include participation in hard or light exercise in the last 14 days,
participation in team or individual sports outside of PE and the reasons for non-participation
in sport. The key independent variables are social class, and the variables that measure,
economic, cultural, social capital, field and habitus.
Limitations of a Cross Sectional Study
The limitations of cross sectional studies were considered before carrying out this research.
Cross sectional studies analyse data collected at a single point in time. Unlike longitudinal
studies, they do not follow subjects over time and cannot infer causality. The level of internal
validity is lower than that of a longitudinal design. (Bryman 2016). Despite these limitations
a cross sectional study was suitable for this research, as it provided a snapshot of the physical
activity levels of a nationally representative sample of 13 year olds in Ireland and allowed for
the examination of the potential barriers to physical activity participation in the Irish context.
30
Secondary Data Analysis
Secondary data analysis provides access to good quality data gathered from experienced
researchers, allowing for a large sample size to be studied (Bryman 2016), which applies to
the GUI study. However, there are also limitations to secondary data analysis. The large
volume of data may be difficult to manage and may not suit the researcher’s needs as certain
key variables may be absent (Bryman 2016). The GUI data provides a wide range of
variables regarding socio-economic position including social class, ability to make ends meet,
parental education level and includes a number of different measures of physical activity
participation such as participation in light and hard exercise and the extent of involvement in
individual and team based sports. This allowed for the examination of how social
circumstances can influence physical activity levels of children. However, there were key
variables missing which created a challenge for answering the research questions. There were
limited measures of physical activity within the GUI data, for example, there were no
questions relating to the types of sports children participate in. This made it impossible to
explore class differences in sports participation among children from different types of
habitus. It was also not possible to examine the degree to which the 13 year olds were
meeting the national physical activity guidelines. There were no variables relating to parent’s
attitudes towards physical activity, which made it difficult to determine whether parents pass
their values about physical activity onto their children.
Analytic Plan
Both univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to analyse the data and answer the
research questions. The level of measurement of each variable was first identified, in order to
determine the appropriate method of analysis. Univariate analysis was carried out to explore
the key dependent variables in order to understand the physical activity levels of 13 year olds
in Ireland and children’s reasons for not participating in sport. The key independent variables
31
were also explored to understand their family’s socio-economic position and the potential
barriers to physical activity participation by examining the variables used to measure
economic, cultural and social capital, field and habitus. Bivariate analysis was then carried
out, to explore the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, and test the
hypotheses which include:
Children from lower social classes are less physically active than children from higher
social classes.
Physical activity participation of children decreases with lower economic capital of
their parents.
Physical activity participation of children decreases with lower cultural capital of their
parents.
Physical activity participation decreases with lower social capital of children
Fields such as the neighbourhood and school fields influence children’s physical
activity participation through access to sports facilities, safety of the neighbourhood
and adequacy of the school sports facilities.
Within a child’s habitus, their parents influence their physical activity participation by
being physically active themselves.
Children’s decision not to participate in sport is influenced by social class, the amount
of cultural capital of their parents and the amount of social capital of the child.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the distribution of and the relationship among the
chosen variables. The appropriate measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion
were selected based on the level of measurement of each variable. The chosen variables were
a combination of ordinal, nominal and ratio variables. The mode and the percent distribution
32
were examined for the nominal variables, the mode, median, percent distribution and range
were examined for the ordinal variables, while the mean, range and the standard deviation
were examined for the ratio variable.
Inferential statistics were used to determine the statistical significance of the results,
estimating the likelihood that the result was due to chance and whether a statistical result
based on data from the random sample of 13 year olds was representative of the wider
population from which the sample was drawn. The chi square test measures the statistical
significance of an association between the independent and dependent variables (Chambliss
and Schutt n.d.) but it doesn’t say anything about the strength of the relationship. The
strength of association between the independent and dependent variables was measured using
the Gamma test, when conducting a cross tabulation of two ordinal variables. Cramers V was
used when one variable was ordinal and the other was nominal. The one-way analysis of
variance, Anova was used when the dependent variable was continuous and the independent
variable was nominal with three or more categories to derive the F-statistic (e.g. when
comparing the mean number of sports that children from different social classes engage in).
The results were displayed in tables and graphs.
Ethical Considerations
As the GUI study gathers information on children, who are a vulnerable group within society,
ethical considerations were of upmost importance. The questionnaire contains some
questions, which may be considered sensitive, so parents were able to access the
questionnaire beforehand, to see the exact questions their child would be asked. All the
interviewers and staff involved in the study were vetted by An Garda Siochana (Thornton et
al. 2016). The Sociological Association of Ireland’s ethical guidelines stress the importance
of researchers respecting the anonymity and privacy of all participants, and for researchers to
be sensitive to participants whose vulnerability may be increased by issues such as social
33
class (Sociological Association of Ireland 2016). There were also ethical issues to be
considered when analysing secondary data for this study. It is the responsibility of the
secondary data analysist to ensure the analysis is conducted appropriately and ethically. As
the original data was not collected to answer the secondary data analyst’s research questions,
certain criteria such as the methodology and purpose for the data collection should be
evaluated to ensure that it’s suitable for answering the analyst’s research questions. Data must
be kept safe from unauthorized access or accidental loss and the data shouldn’t be kept longer
than is necessary (Tripathy 2013).
34
Chapter 4: Findings
Univariate analysis
The presentation of findings begins with univariate analysis to obtain an understanding of the
physical activity levels of 13 year olds in Ireland, reasons for non-participation in sport, their
family’s socio-economic position and the potential barriers to physical activity participation
using Bourdieu’s key concepts of habitus, field and capital.
Discussion of Key Dependent Variables
The first research question is ‘what are the physical activity levels of 13 year olds in Ireland?’
According to the National Guidelines on physical activity for Ireland, children and young
people should be active at a moderate to vigorous level for at least 60 minutes every day
(Department of Health and Children 2014). Univariate analysis looks at the two central
dependent variables that capture the level of physical activity of 13 year olds which include
participation in at least 20 minutes of hard or light exercise in the last 14 days and
participation in individual or team based sports outside of PE.
Participation in Hard or Light Exercise
The 13 year olds were asked two questions regarding the number of days in the past 14 days
they participated in at least 20 minutes of hard or light exercise. Hard exercise was defined as
exercise hard enough to make your heart beat faster such as playing football while light
exercise was defined as exercise not hard enough to make your heart beat fast such as
walking (Growing Up in Ireland 2012). Participation in hard exercise and participation in
light exercise are two separate variables. However, they were recoded into a single variable
so that the frequency of any exercise whether light or hard was measured.
The level of measurement for this variable is ordinal as there are 5 categories with responses
ranging from none or no days to 9 days or more. The median value is 6 to 8 days. The mode
35
is 9 days or more, with 41.1% of 13 year olds reporting taking part in 9 days or more of hard
or light exercise. Only 1.9% took part in no exercise (See Figure 1, Table A1 in Appendix)
Figure 1: Participation in Hard or Light Exercise
Participation in Individual and Team Sports
An important component of children’s total physical activity comes from participating in
extracurricular sports especially those played outside the school curriculum (Rodrigues,
Padez and Machado-Rodrigues 2018). The children were asked how many team or individual
sports or activities they participated in during the past 12 months outside of PE. The level of
measurement of this variable is ratio. There are 5 categories ranging from no activities to four
or more activities. 81.7% participated in 1 activity or more while 18.3% participated in no
activities. The mean value is 1.99 sports. The standard deviation value (the spread of scores
above and below the mean) is 1.39. (See Table 2).
36
Table 2: Amount of Team or Individual Sports Participated in
In general the GUI cohort of 13 year olds are physically active, but not every day. It’s
unknown how many are meeting the recommended physical activity levels of 60 minutes of
physical activity per day but over half definitely not meeting the guidelines. A large
proportion of 13 year olds participate in sport outside of school taking part in an average of
two sports but a large number do not. Understanding why, may provide insight into how to
increase physical activity levels.
Children’s Agency and Participation in Sports
The reasons for non-participation in sport, are shown in Table 3 which are also key dependent
variables in this study. According to the literature, individual behaviour is not just influenced
by structural forces (Wiltshire et al. 2017). Children also have agency and can make the
choice to be sedentary rather than physically active (Salvy et al. 2008). In this study, the
children who did not participate in any individual or team sports outside of PE (18.3%), were
asked to select the reasons why they did not participate. The modal category is ‘I am no good
at games’ with 39% choosing this option. Other common reasons selected included ‘I do not
fit in with the sporty crowd’ (33.5%) followed by ‘I am not competitive’ (29.5%)’, ‘I do not
like team games’ (24.7%) and ‘I prefer to play computer games’ (21.8%). (See Table 3)
37
Table 3: Reasons for not Participating in Sport
A high proportion of reasons given for not participating in sport relate to perceptions of not
being good enough or not fitting in, rather than a lack of desire to take part. While 24.7% say
they do not like team games, 39% say that they are no good at games and 33.5% say they do
not fit in with the sporty crowd. Some children cite their size (13%) or a health problem or
disability (6.4%) as a reason for not participating. Many children may want to be physically
active and participate in sport but don’t feel like they belong or that it is for “people like
them”. This finding identifies a previously unappreciated barrier to participation in physical
activity among children, and a potential area for intervention.
Reasons for not participating in sport Number % (of 1358)
I am no good at games 529 39.0
I do not fit in with the sporty crowd 455 33.5
I am not competitive 401 29.5
I do not like team games 335 24.7
I prefer to play computer games 296 21.8
I do not like to get dirty or sweaty 273 20.1
I have no opportunities to play 214 15.8
I feel that people laugh at me because of my
size
176 13.0
I prefer to watch sports on TV 154 11.3
I have a disability or health problem which
prevents me from playing
87 6.4
Other reasons 257 18.9
38
Discussion of Key Independent Variables
The next section of the univariate analysis examines the key independent variables which
measure the children’s socio-economic position and the potential barriers to physical activity
participation through Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, field and habitus.
Family’s Social Class
There is intergenerational transmission of social class status from parents to their children
which has a major impact on children’s life experiences (McCoy, Byrne and Banks 2011).
The level of measurement for this variable is nominal. The mode is professional/managerial,
with the majority of children (55.8%) falling into this category. 30.2% are in the non-manual
or skilled group, 8.4% in the semi-skilled or unskilled group, while 5.6% of respondents
social class is unknown. (See Figure 2, Table A2 in Appendix)
Figure 2: Social Class
39
Capital
Bourdieu identified three forms of capital including social, cultural and economic capital
which are unequally distributed across social class groups and which are often passed on
within families. Capital is very important in terms of physical activity as the resources
available in a child’s family may influence the child’s daily agency including physical
activity participation (Nielsen et al. 2012).
Economic Capital
Economic capital refers to material assets that are ‘immediately and directly convertible into
money and may be institutionalised in the form of property rights’ (Bourdieu 1986: 242). To
measure economic capital the variable degree of ease or difficulty in making ends meet was
selected in order to give an indication of the available income of the children’s caregiver.
Ability to Make Ends Meet
The caregiver was asked, ‘concerning your household’s total monthly or weekly income, with
which degree of ease or difficulty is the household able to make ends meet? The level of
measurement for this variable is ordinal as there are four categories ranging from with
difficulty or great difficulty to easily or very easily. The median value and modal value are
with some difficulty. Overall more respondents reported finding it difficult than finding it
easy to make ends meet. Over half (55.1%) find it difficult to some extent. (See Figure 3,
Table A3 in Appendix)
40
Figure 3: Ability to Make Ends Meet
Social Class by Ability to Make Ends Meet
Economic capital is unequally distributed across different social class groups. As shown in
Figure 5, those in lower social classes were more likely to find it difficult to make ends meet.
There is a clear gradient with 28.4% from the semi-skilled/unskilled group, 23.7% from the
non-manual/skilled manual group and 11.9% from the professional/ managerial group finding
it difficult or very difficult to make ends meet. Higher social classes were more likely to
easily make ends meet. This too follows a gradient with 20.1% from the professional/
managerial group, 8.4% from the non-manual/skilled manual group and 4.6% from the semi-
skilled/unskilled group who could easily or very easily make ends meet. The chi square test
was statistically significant, but the association was weak. (See Figure 4, Table A4 in
Appendix).
41
Figure 4: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Social Class
A high proportion of children in the GUI cohort are in higher social classes, with over half in
the professional/managerial group. This variable should not be used as a proxy for affluence,
as many families in the higher social groups reported difficulty in making ends meet. Over
half of all households have some difficulty in making ends meet, with the lower classes
having more difficulty. This reflects the time period when the GUI survey took place, during
a time of economic difficulty in Ireland. Looking at social class alone, would provide an
incomplete picture of a family’s experience of economic capital.
Chi square test: X²(1)=796.828, df=9, p=.000.
Strength of association: (Cramers v = .188).
42
Cultural Capital
Cultural capital exits in the embodied state (cultural knowledge), the objectified state
(cultural goods, books) and the institutionalised state (educational credentials) (Bourdieu
1986). To measure cultural capital, variables were selected that provide information on the
education level of the caregiver and the amount of material resources such as the number of
books in the home.
Education Level of Primary Care Giver
The caregiver was asked their highest level of completed education (full-time or part-time).
The level of measurement for this variable is ordinal, as there are three categories with
responses ranging from none or primary to tertiary. The median is tertiary. The mode is also
tertiary, with the majority of caregivers having a tertiary degree (56.7%). However, a large
proportion (43.4%) did not have a third level education, with 1.6% with none or only a
primary education. (See Figure 5, Table A5 in Appendix).
Figure 5: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver
43
Number of Books in the Home
To measure the amount of material resources, the caregiver was asked how many books their
child has access to in the home. The level of measurement for this variable is ordinal, as there
are six categories with responses ranging from none or no books to more than 100. The
median is 31 to 50 books, while the mode is more than 100 books, with 26.2% having access
to more than 100 books and 15.7% having none or less than 10. (See Figure 6, Table A6 in
Appendix).
Figure 6: Number of Books in the Home
Among the GUI cohort, over half of caregivers have a third level education and a quarter of
children have access to more than 100 books at home. This can influence children’s physical
activity levels, as those with a higher level of education may be more likely to know the
importance and health benefits of physical activity, have higher paid jobs, and be more likely
to have the disposable income to invest in their child’s physical activity, including sports
participation (Wells, Nermo and Östberg 2016). Parents ensure the transmission of cultural
capital to their children, which can be achieved by investing in books to increase their skills
and knowledge (Georg 2016).
44
Social capital
Number of Friends of the Child
Social capital refers to a person’s social contacts and personal networks (Nielsen et al. 2012).
To measure the amount of social capital of the child, the variable asking them ‘how many
friends do you usually hang around with’ was selected. The level of measurement for this
variable is ordinal, as there are five categories with responses ranging from none or no friends
to more than 10 friends. 17.8% normally hang around with more than 10 friends. 0.8% don’t
hang around with any one. The median value is between 6 and 10 friends. The modal value is
between 3 and 5 friends with 38.3% reporting hanging around with this number of friends.
(See Figure 7, Table A7 in Appendix).
Figure 7: Number of Friends the Child Hangs around with
The majority of 13 year olds reported having friends to hang around, some with larger social
networks than others. This social support can influence physical activity participation for
example, through positive communication regarding physical activity. Also, if their friends
are physically active, this may encourage them to be physically active (Maturo and
Cunningham 2013).
45
Field
Economic, cultural and social capital are unevenly distributed between different fields
(Wiltshire et al. 2017). To examine characteristics of fields which may influence physical
activity participation, variables were selected to provide information on neighbourhood
barriers to physical activity participation, including availability of sports facilities in the
neighbourhood and safety of the neighbourhood. The variable adequacy of school sports
facilities was selected to provide information on potential school barriers to physical activity
participation.
Neighbourhood Barriers to Physical Activity Participation
Availability of Sports Facilities in Area
Research has shown that the built environment such as the availability of sports facilities has
a facilitative role in promoting physical activity among children (American Academy of
Pediatrics 2009). The caregiver was asked if there are facilities such as youth clubs,
swimming clubs and sports clubs for teenagers in the area. The level of measurement for this
variable is ordinal, as there are four categories with responses ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree. The median is agree, while the mode is also agree, with 44.2% of
caregivers choosing this option. 76.4% either agreed or strongly agreed while 23.7% either
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. (See Figure 8, Table A8 in Appendix).
46
Figure 8: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area
Safety of the Neighbourhood
The caregiver was asked if their area is safe for their 13 year old. There were four possible
categories with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Both the median
and the mode are strongly agree. The majority of respondents agreed that their area was safe
with 93.6% of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing to this statement, while only
6.5% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. (See Figure 9, Table A9 in Appendix).
Figure 9: Safety of the Area
47
School barriers to physical activity participation
How adequate the school sports facilities are
The school environment plays an important role in facilitating and promoting physcial activty
among children (Huberty et al. 2012). The school principal was asked how adequate their
school sports facilities are. The level of measurement for this variable is ordinal as there are
four categories with responses ranging from poor to excellent. The median is good while the
mode is excellent. 69.7% reported that their sports facilities were either good or excellent.
However a large number considered their schools sports facilities to be fair or poor (30.3%).
(See Figure 10, Table A10 in Appendix).
Figure 10: Adequacy of School Sports Facilities
Generally, the families are living in safe neighbourhoods with the majority reporting having
sports facilities available. This is important, as one of the main determinants of physical
activity is an individual’s immediate environment (Eitler, McMahon and Thoerig 2013). As
indicated above a high number of schools reported not having adequate facilities, which may
make participation in physical activity or sport at school less appealing for children.
48
Habitus
Within a child’s habitus their parents play a major role in influencing their physical activity
participation (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012). To examine this, the variable related to the
physical activity level of the caregiver was selected.
Physical Activity Level of Primary Care Giver
The caregiver was asked how physically active they are. The level of measurement for this
variable is ordinal, as there are four categories with responses ranging from very physically
active to not at all physically active. Both the median and the mode are fairly physically
active. 76.6% reported being either fairly or very physically active while 23.4% reported
being not very or not at all physically active. (See Figure 11, Table A11 in Appendix).
Figure 11: Physical Activity Level of the Primary Care Giver
The majority of caregivers reported being physically active to some extent, but few had a
high physical activity level. It’s important to examine the physical activity level of the
caregiver, as social learning theory indicates that children develop attitudes towards physical
49
activity very early in their development by observing and imitating their parents, increasing
the likelihood of children also being physically active (Zecevic et al. 2010).
Bivariate analysis
The univariate analysis has explored the key dependent and independent variables of this
study which has provided a general understanding of the physical activity levels of the GUI
cohort of 13 year olds in Ireland, reasons for non-participation in sport, the socio-economic
position of their families and the potential barriers to physical activity participation of
children through Bourdieu’s key concepts of capital, field and habitus.
The bivariate analysis explores how physical activity participation among children varies
across social class and how it is influenced by social, economic and cultural capital, field,
habitus, structure and agency. The dependent variable, participation in hard or light exercise
is cross tabulated against the variables related to capital, field and habitus - the independent
variables. Analysis of the dependent variable, participation in individual and team sports
outside of PE (a ratio variable) uses comparison of means for social class, cultural capital,
and social capital. The dependant variables, reasons for non-participation in sport are cross
tabulated against social class, cultural and social capital.
Social Class Influences on Physical Activity
Social Class by Physical Activity Level of Child
The second research question asks ‘is there a difference in physical activity levels between
children in lower social classes and higher social classes?’ Research has found that children’s
physical activity levels follow a social gradient, with children and adolescents from higher
socio-economic backgrounds likely to take part in more physical activity than those from
lower socio-economic backgrounds (Johnsen et al. 2017). The hypothesis examined here is
that children from lower social classes are less physically active than children from higher
social classes. This is found to be true for the GUI cohort. While the modal category for all
50
social class groups is 9 days or more, there is a social class gradient with children from the
professional/managerial groups indicating that they typically take part in 9 days or more of
hard or light exercise (45.5%) compared to 37.6% in the non-manual/ skilled-manual groups
and 32.3% in the semi-skilled/ unskilled groups. Likewise, a greater share of children in the
semi-skilled/unskilled groups typically take part in only 1 to 2 days of hard or light exercise
(14.4%) than children from the professional/ managerial groups (8.2%). (See Figure 12,
Table A12 in Appendix)
Figure 12: Social Class by Physical Activity Level of the Child
Chi square test: statistically significant (X²(1)=169.828, df=12, p=.000.)
Strength of association: weak (Cramers V= .087)
51
Social Class and Participation in Sport
Participation in sports clubs not only contributes to children’s daily activity levels but
facilitates children’s network (social capital) building (Nielsen et al. 2012). Parents in lower
social classes may not have the disposable income to enable their children to be members of
sports clubs. Figure 13 shows the mean number of sports undertaken by children in each
social class group. There is a social gradient whereby children from professional/ managerial
backgrounds participate in the greatest number of sports (2.16), followed by the non-manual
group (1.8) and then children from the semi-skilled/ unskilled manual backgrounds are
engaged in a smaller number of sports (1.70).
There is a statistically significant difference between social class groups as determined by
one-way ANOVA (F (3; 7,421) = 58.340, p = .000). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the
average number of sporting activities was statistically significantly higher for the
professional/managerial group (2.16 ± 1.3, p=.000), compared to all other social class groups
(non-manual/skilled manual group (1.82 ± 1.3, p=.000); semi-skilled/unskilled manual (1.70
± 1.3, p=.000). There was no statistically significant difference between the non-
manual/skilled manual and the semi-skilled/unskilled manual group (p=.212). (See Figure
A13 in appendix).
52
Figure 13: Average number of Sports Participated in Depending on Social Class
Findings shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrate how social class influences physical
activity participation, with children from higher social classes being more physically active
and playing more sports. It highlights how opportunities available to children are influenced
by social class, as cultural resources passed on to children vary by social class, contributing
to inequalities in society (McCoy, Byrne and Banks 2011).
Capital Influences on Physical Activity
The third research question asks, ‘does the amount of economic and cultural capital of the
family and the amount of social capital of the child influence physical activity levels of
children?’ This section explores how economic, cultural and social capital influences
children’s physical activity participation.
Economic Capital
Ability to Make Ends Meet by Physical Activity Level of the Child
A family’s amount of economic capital can affect children’s physical activity levels as
participation can be expensive, requiring fees, equipment and car transport, which those on
53
low incomes may not be able to afford (Nielsen et al. 2012). The hypothesis examined here is
that children’s physical activity participation decreases with lower levels of economic capital
of their parents. It is found to be true. The univariate analysis shows that over half of
caregiver’s (55.1%) find it difficult to make ends meet. This influences children’s physical
activity levels. Figure 14 shows the clear social gradient as a higher proportion of children
whose family could easily or very easily make ends meet (48%) exercised 9 days or more
compared to those who had difficulty or great difficulty making ends meet (36.5%). Children
whose families found it difficult or very difficult to make ends meet (13.5%), were more
likely to have done none or only 1-2 days of hard or light exercise, compared to those who
found it easy or very easy to make ends meet (7.9%). (See Table A14 in Appendix)
Figure 14: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Physical Activity Level of Child
Chi square test: Statistically significant (X²(1)=91.671, df=12, p=.000.)
Strength of association: weak (gamma =.113)
54
Cultural Capital
Level of Education of Caregiver by Physical Activity Level of Child
Educational resources within a family can influence children’s participation in physical
activity. These educational resources act as a knowledge resource, such as understanding the
importance of physical activity for heathy living (Nielsen et al. 2012). The hypothesis
examined here is that physical activity participation of children decreases with lower levels of
cultural capital of their parents. It is found to be true. Figure 15 shows the clear gradient;
44.9% of children of caregivers with a third level education do 9 days or more of hard or light
exercise, compared to 24.3% of children whose caregiver had a primary or lower level of
education. A higher proportion of children whose caregiver had a primary or lower level of
education (16.5%) participated in 1 to 2 days of hard or light exercise compared to those
whose caregiver had a third level education (8.5%). (See Table A15 in Appendix).
Figure 15: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child
Chi square test: X²(1)=105.847, df=8, p=.000.
Strength of association: weak (Gamma= .172)
55
Level of Education of Caregiver and Participation in Sport
Education level of the caregiver also influences children’s participation in sport. Table 4
shows the mean number of sports undertaken by children according to the education level of
their caregiver. There is a social gradient whereby children who’s caregiver has a third level
education participate in a greater number of sports at 2.15, than a second level education
(1.78) and a primary or lower level of education (1.63).
There is a statistically significant difference between education levels as determined by the
One-way ANOVA (F (2; 7,420) = 66.308, p = .000). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that the
average number of sporting activities was statistically significantly higher for the children
whose caregiver had a tertiary education (2.15 ± 1.3, p=.000), compared to children whose
caregiver had a secondary education (1.78 ± 1.3, p=.000) and a primary education or lower
(1.63 ± 1.4, p=.000). There was no statistically significant difference between children whose
caregiver had a secondary education and children whose caregiver had a primary degree or
lower (p=.467). (See Figure A1 in Appendix).
Table 4: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Education Level of Primary Care Giver
Number of Books in the Home by Physical Activity Level of the Child
Access to books in the home is also related to children’s physical activity levels. Figure 16
shows the clear gradient as a higher proportion of children with access to more than 100
books (45.4%) take part in 9 or more days of physical activity compared to those with less
56
than 10 (35.7%) or none (30%). A higher proportion of those with access to no books (20%)
take part in only 1 to 2 days of hard or light exercise compared to those with more than 100
(8.5%). (See Table A16 in Appendix)
Figure 16: Number of Books in the Home by Physical Activity Level of Child
Chi square test: X²(1)=106.717, df=20, p=.000.
Strength of association: weak (Gamma = .104).
Social Capital
Number of Friends by Physical Activity Level of the Child
Peers are important for providing social support. Studies have found that children with a
greater presence of peers in their lives report engaging in a greater amount of physical
activity (Salvy et al. 2008). The hypothesis examined here is that physical activity
participation decreases with lower levels of social capital of children. This is found to be true.
The amount of social capital of the child is measured in terms of the number of friends they
57
usually hang around with. Figure 17 shows a gradient as 29% of children with no friends
participated in 9 days or more of hard or light exercise compared to children who usually
hang around with more than 10 friends (51.4%). More children with no friends (19.4%) did
no exercise, compared to children who hang around with more than 10 friends (2.3%). (See
Table A17 in Appendix).
Figure 17: Number of Friends by Physical Activity Level of Child
Chi square test: statistically significant X²(1)=266.035, df=16, p=.000.
Strength of association: weak (Gamma= .141)
Number of Friends and Participation in Sport
One of the ways friends may influence physical activity is through participation in sport.
Studies have shown that having active friends who engage in sport encourages physical
activity and sports participation among children, especially since it provides an opportunity to
spend time with their friends (Maturo and Cunningham 2013). Table 5 shows the mean
58
number of sports undertaken by children according to the number of friends they have. There
is a gradient whereby children with more than 10 friends take part in a greater number of
sports (2.28), compared to those who hang around with between 6 and 10 friends (2.06),
between 3 and 5 friends (1.87), one or two friends (1.58) and those with no friends (1.09).
There was a statistically significant difference between children with different numbers of
friends as determined by the One-way ANOVA (F (4; 7,413) = 39.241, p = .000)). A Tukey
post hoc test revealed that the average number of sporting activities was statistically
significantly higher for the children who hang around with more than 10 friends (2.28 ± 1.3,
p=.000) compared to between 6 and 10 friends (2.06 ± 1.3, p=.000), between 3 and 5 (1.87 ±
1.3, p=.000), one or two (1.58 ± 1.3, p=.000) or no friends (1.09 ± 1.3, p=.000). There was no
statistically significant difference between children who hang around one or two friends and
no friends (p=.063). (See Figure A2 in Appendix).
Table 5: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Number of Friends
These findings show how low levels of economic, cultural and social capital can act as a
barrier to physical activity participation for children. Children are less physically active in
families that have difficulty making ends meet, where the caregiver is less educated and
where there is low access to books in the home. Cultural and economic capital interrelate, as
59
education level not only influences parents knowledge of the importance of physical activity,
but also influences employment status, which has a direct impact on financial resources
(economic capital), which can affect children’s ability to be physically active or join a sports
club (Nielsen et al. 2012). Children with lower levels of social capital are also less physically
active which suggests that peers play a role in influencing physical activity behaviours
through support and encouragement. Perhaps building social capital could offset some of the
challenges due to low economic and cultural capital, which may be more difficulty to tackle.
Influence of Field
Neighbourhood Field
The fourth research question asks ‘Do fields such as the neighbourhood and school fields
influence children’s physical activity levels?’ Previous research has found that characteristics
of the built environment, such as a lack of sports facilities influence physical activity levels
(Dagkas and Quarmby 2012). The hypothesis examined here is that fields such as the
neighbourhood and school fields influence children’s physical activity participation through
access to sports facilities, safety of the neighbourhood and adequacy of the school sports
facilities.
Safety of area by physical activity level of child
Lack of neighbourhood safety has been identified as a potential barrier to children’s physical
activity participation, with increased parental concerns about playing outdoors, and risks such
as road safety and ‘stranger danger’ (Carver, Timperio and Crawford 2008). In this study
there doesn’t appear to be a relationship between safety of the area and the physical activity
level of children, with no statistically significant association found (p=.008). (See Table A18
in appendix).
60
Availability of Sports Facilities in Area by Physical Activity Level of Child
Availability of sports facilities was found to be an important predictor of physical activity
participation in some studies (Reimers et al. 2014). However, as seen in Table A19 in the
appendix, there does not appear to be a clear relationship between sports facility availability
and activity levels in this study. A large amount of children whose caregiver strongly
disagreed that there were available sports facilities in the area still took part in 9 days or more
of hard or light exercise (37.6%).
School Field
How Adequate School Sports Facilities are by Physical Activity Level of Child
Previous research has found that lower socio-economic class schools are less likely to have
adequate provision of sports facilities providing less opportunities for children to be
physically active (Hunter et al. 2015). In this study, physical activity levels are similar for
children who go to schools with adequate sports facilities as those children who go to schools
with inadequate sports facilities. However a higher proportion of children (45%) who go to
schools with excellent sports facilities, participated in 9 days or more of hard or light exercise
compared to children who go to schools with poor facilities (37.6%). (See Figure 18, Table
A20 in Appendix).
61
Figure 18: Adequacy of Sports Facilities by Physical Activity Level of the Child
Chi square test: X²(1)=44.512, df=12, p=.000.
Strength of association: weak (gamma = .059)
The neighbourhood and school fields don’t appear to create a major barrier to children’s
physical activity participation in this cohort of children. Perceived safety doesn’t influence
physical activity levels, which may partly relate to the fact that a large proportion of
caregiver’s considered their area to be safe. Limited availability of sports facilities in an area
may discourage their usage, especially for adolescents who have greater autonomy and may
be expected to organise their physical activity by themselves (Reimers et al. 2014). However
the results in this study indicate that despite some children living in areas with low
availability of sports facilities, they are still physically active. A large proportion of children
who go to schools with poor sports facilities are still physically active, however children may
be provided with more opportunities to engage in physical activity outside of school.
62
Influence of Habitus
Physical Activity Level of the Caregiver by Physical Activity Level of Child
The fifth research question asks ‘Does a child’s habitus such as parental involvement in
physical activity influence children’s physical activity participation?’ Role modelling such as
a parent’s interest in physical activity as well as being active themselves promotes physical
activity among children (Zecevic et al. 2010). The hypothesis examined is that within a
child’s habitus, their parents influence their physical activity participation by being physically
active themselves. Children whose caregiver is very physically active are more likely to
participate in 9 days or more of hard or light exercise. Figure 20 shows that 44.6% of children
whose parents were very physically active participated in 9 days or more compared to 36.3%
whose parents were not at all physically active, whereas 28.3% of children whose caregiver
wasn’t at all physically active undertook only 3 to 5 days of physical activity compared to
21.6% of those with very physically active parents. (See Table A21 in Appendix).
63
Figure 19: Physical Activity Level of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child
Parents appear to play a role in influencing physical activity participation, with children with
less physically active parents being less active. This supports the idea that the family is an
important field as habitus is a product of socialisation within the family influencing
children’s dispositions towards physical activity (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012).
Children’s Agency and Participation in Sports
The sixth research question asks ‘are the reasons why some children don’t participate in sport
influenced by social class, cultural capital of their parents and the amount of social capital of
the child?’ A child’s dispositions (their tastes and what they like to do), which is strongly
associated with habitus, is influenced by their parent’s socio-economic position (Nielsen et al.
2012). Studies have found that children’s physical activity is positively associated with
Chi square test: X²(1)=40.247, df=12, p=.000.
Strength of association: weak (gamma = -.087)
64
encouragement from friends (Maturo and Cunningham 2013) and this study has found that
there is a gradient in the number of sports engaged in and the number of friends children
have. The hypothesis examined here is that children’s decision not to participate in sport, is
influenced by social class, the amount of cultural capital of their parents and the amount of
social capital of the child.
A cross tabulation of the reasons why children do not participate in sport with social class and
the highest level of education of the caregiver identifies no statistically significant
relationship. However, there is a statistically significant relationship between the child’s
social capital and reasons for not participating in sport. The reasons for non-participation
were cross tabulated with ‘how many friends do you usually hang around with’. The
relationship is statistically significant for all reasons except ‘I don’t like to get dirty or
sweaty’ or ‘I am not competitive’.
As seen in Table 6, a high proportion of children with no friends (66.7%) gave their reason
for not participating in sport as not fitting in with the sporty crowd. Their next highest reason
was being no good at games (50%), with 46.7% saying they have no opportunity to play, are
not competitive or prefer computer games. (See Table A22-28 in Appendix)
65
Table 6: Reasons for not Participating in Sport by Number of Friends
The univariate analysis identifies that non-participation in sport is more due to a feeling of
not belonging and a perception of not being good enough, rather than a desire not to take part.
The bivariate analysis explores this further and reveals that this applies to children of all
social classes and levels of cultural capital, as there is no relationship between reasons for
non-participation and social class or cultural capital. Social capital, as measured by having
friends, appears to influence children’s reasons for not participating in sport, as a statistically
significant relationship has been found.
For children with no friends who do not take part in sport, not fitting in and not being good at
games is particularly high. A consequence of this is that these children are not only not
benefiting from the physical and mental health benefits of sports participation, they also may
Reason not participate in sport no friends 1or2 3to5 6to10 more than 10
I am no good at games 50.0 41.9 38.3 36.6 42.1
I do not fit in with the sporty crowd 66.7 41.2 35.0 28.3 29.8
I am not competitive 46.7 28.7 28.8 28.3 32.7
I do not like team games 43.3 32.4 24.4 20.0 28.1
I prefer to play computer games 46.7 33.1 22.1 16.4 21.1
I do not like to get dirty or sweaty 40.0 19.1 19.2 19.1 22.8
I have no opportunities to play 46.7 11.8 15.4 14.7 17.5
I feel people laugh at me because of my size 40.0 21.3 11.5 9.0 17.0
I prefer to watch sports on TV 40.0 11.0 11.3 8.8 13.5
I have a disability or health problem which prevents me from playing
36.7 6.6 5.7 4.4 8.8
66
become further isolated from their peers as friendship groups are often built around shared
activities such as sports (Lodge 2005).
67
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The aim of this research was to examine social class differences in physical activity
participation and to provide an insight into the type of barriers, faced by children in Ireland,
which may inhibit their physical activity participation. This study provides a snapshot of the
lives of children in Ireland, exploring the place of physical activity in their lives and the
structural constraints that influence their physical activity levels. It highlights inequalities that
exist in Irish society and the influence this has on children’s everyday experiences.
Social class, economic, cultural and social capital and physical activity levels of parents are
identified as key factors influencing children’s physical activity levels. This study supports
previous research showing that physical activity participation is ‘context dependent’, as it
varies by social class background (Dagkas and Stathi 2007). Children in higher social classes
are more physically active and take part in more sports than lower social classes. This shows
the impact that intergenerational transmission of social class status from parents to children
has on these children, particularly in the various forms of capital. This supports Bourdieu’s
claim that the family as a social field is a key site of social reproduction, maintaining the
social order (Dagkas and Quarmby 2012).
The interrelated forms of capital determine the options available to children and the amount
of barriers they have to overcome to be physically active. Cultural capital, including level of
education of the caregiver and number of books in the home, are major factors influencing
physical activity levels. Children whose caregiver has a higher level of education and
children with more access to books in the home, are more likely to be physically active and
participate in more sports, than children of less educated parents and children who have
access to fewer books. Economic capital, which is measured in terms of the ability of the
family to make ends meet, has a major influence as children of parents with greater ease in
68
making ends meet are more physically active. Even though a high proportion of respondents
are in the higher social classes, a significant amount of families report some degree of
difficulty in making ends meet, which shows the impact the recession had on all social class
groups. However, it is still the lower social classes who are more likely to experience
difficulty. Resources rewarded by society are unequally distributed across social class groups.
The amount of social capital of the child is also an important factor influencing physical
activity levels. Children with more friends are more physically active and take part in more
sport. Social capital is strongly associated with children’s negative attitudes towards sports
participation, with children with no friends more likely not to play sport. This not only
prevents these children from getting the health benefits of physical activity but may further
isolate them by not being involved in sport as this is an important way of building social
capital (Nielsen et al. 2012).
Whether or not the caregiver is physically active is also an important factor, as children with
physically active parents are more likely to be physically active. This highlights the important
role parents play in acting as role models, teaching their children the importance of physical
activity and influencing their physical activity tastes and behaviours. This supports the idea
that parents may place different levels of value on physical activity depending on the
learnings of their habitus (Mutz and Albrecht 2017).
The neighbourhood and school field do not have the same level of influence on children’s
physical activity participation that is seen in international studies. Generally, parents consider
their neighbourhood to be safe. This highlights the difference of the Irish context as a
number of previous studies which identified neighbourhood safety as a barrier were
conducted in countries such as the United States where issues such as gun violence and other
crime may be more prevalent (Kneeshaw-Price et al. 2015).
69
Using Bourdieu as a theoretical framework provides a useful lens for exploring the structural
barriers that constrain children’s lives and influence the choices available to them and their
behaviours; physical activity participation is not simply a matter of individual choice.
However, Bourdieu’s overemphasis on these wider social structures determining individual
behaviour makes it appear as if children are passive and have no power to overcome these
barriers. This study reveals the importance of children’s individual agency to overcome the
barriers they face, while also adding to the understanding of the factors at play in society that
affect children’s activity levels. Habitus, field and capital influence the value children place
on sport, and the resources and social support that impact the choices available to them.
Learning within their habitus affects their sense of belonging and sense of sports not being
for “people like them”, with some children for example feeling they don’t fit in with the
sporty crowd. While they are constrained by barriers such as social class, as noted by
Corsaro, children also have agency to shape their own lives (Corsaro 2018).
A significant issue that emerges from this research is children feeling like they don’t belong,
which applies to children of all social classes, but more for children with low levels of social
capital. This is clearly seen from the analysis of why children don’t participate in sport, with
children saying they don’t fit in with the sporty crowd, they feel they would be laughed at
because of their size or feel they are no good at games. It highlights the importance of social
support for increasing children’s physical activity participation and also the importance of
understanding barriers to physical activity from the child’s point of view. Intervening in this
issue would be a powerful way of helping them. It would not only help increase physically
activity participation but also increase their sense of belonging, improve their mental health,
and empower them to be active agents shaping theirs own lives.
A key strength of using secondary data analysis in this study is that the GUI dataset, provides
a large sample size of 13 year olds which is nationally representative, which allows for an in-
70
depth analysis and a better understanding of inequalities in physical activity participation
among children in Ireland today. However a limitation to this research is that, as this is a
cross sectional study, a causal relationship cannot be inferred. For example it was not
possible to explore whether improving economic situation makes a difference in children’s
physical activity levels. A limitation of conducting secondary data analysis is that it may not
be possible to answer all potential questions. It was not possible to compare the type of
sports children from different social classes participate in. This was examined in previous
studies and can provide a better understanding of how habitus shapes children’s physical
activity behaviours. Further research should also seek to get beyond bivariate analyses, to
reduce the possibility of spurious bivariate relationships, and to better understand the role that
the interrelated forms of capital, habitus and social class simultaneously play on the physical
activity levels of children.
Previous studies have also used Bourdieu as a theoretical framework for exploring
inequalities in children’s physical activity participation, but none have been undertaken in
Ireland to date. This study has also identified some new findings, which relate to the physical
and economic environment in Ireland, which shows the importance of exploring this issue in
the Irish context. This research provides useful information for policy makers who wish to
improve physical activity levels among Irish children. Efforts to increase children’s physical
activity levels shouldn’t just focus on investing in structural responses, such as improved
sports facilities in schools and neighbourhoods, but should focus on reducing inequalities in
society and empowering children themselves. Children should be helped make friends and
feel like they belong, which in turn may provide them with the support to be more physically
active.
Unless inequalities in Irish society are addressed, this socio-economic gap in physical activity
levels is likely to continue in years to come. Not only are children who are not physically
71
active not getting the physical health benefits of being active, such as optimal physical
growth and development and reduced risk of obesity, they are also not benefiting from the
psychological and social health benefits, such as making new friends, improved self-esteem
and reduced stress and anxiety, which improves overall quality of life.
72
Appendix
Table A 1: Participation in Hard or Light Exercise
Table A 2: Social Class
Table A 3: Ability to Make Ends Meet
73
Table A 4: Ability to Make Ends Meet by Social Class
74
Table A 5: Highest Level of Education of Primary Care Giver
Table A 6: Number of Books in the Home
Table A 7: Amount of Friends the Child Hangs around with
75
Table A 8: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area
Table A 9: Safety of the Area
Table A 10: Adequacy of the School Sports Facilities
76
Table A 11: Physical Activity Level of the Primary Care Giver
Table A 12: Social Class by Physical Activity Level of Child
77
Table A 13: Average Number of Sports Participated in Depending on Social Class
78
Table A 14: Ability to Make Ends Meet By Physical Activity Level of Child
79
Table A 15: Education Level of Primary Care Giver by Physical Activity Level of Child
80
Figure A 1: Average Number of Sports Participated in depending on Education Level of Primary Caregiver
81
82
Table A 16: Number of Books in the Home by Physical Activity Level of Child
83
Table A 17: Number of Friends by Physical Activity Level of Child
84
Figure A 2: Average Number of Sports Participated in depending on Number of Friends
85
Table A 18: Safety of Area by Physical Activity Level of Child
86
Table A 19: Availability of Sports Facilities in the Area by Physical Activity Level of Child
87
Table A 20:Adequecy of School Sports Facilities by Phyiscal Activity Level of Child
88
Table A 21: Physical Activity Level of Primary Caregiver by Physical Activity Level of Child
89
Table A 22: Number of Friends by 'I don't like team games'
Table A 23:Number of Friends by 'I have no opportunities to play'
90
Table A 24: Number of Friends by 'I feel like people would laugh at me because of my size'
91
Table A 25: Number of Friends by 'I have a disability or health problem that prevents me from playing'
Table A 26: Number of Friends by 'I prefer to watch sports on tv'
92
Table A 27: Number of Friends by 'I don't fit in with the sporty crowd'
93
Table A 28: Number of Friends by 'I prefer to play computer games'
94
Bibliography American Academy of Pediatrics. 2009. "The Built Environment: Designing Communities to
Promote Physical Activity in Children." PEDIATRICS 123(6):1591-1598. Retrieved
December 7, 2017 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/6/1591).
Anderssen, Norman, Bente Wold, and Torbjørn Torsheim. 2006. "Are Parental Health Habits
Transmitted to Their Children? An Eight Year Longitudinal Study of Physical Activity in
Adolescents and Their Parents." Journal of Adolescence 29(4):513-524. Retrieved February
8, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16188308).
Bakken Ulseth, Anne-Lene, and Ornulf Seippel. 2011. "Fitness, Class and Culture: Social
Inequality in Fitness."1-14. Retrieved December 8, 2017
(http://idrottsforum.org/articles/ulseth_seippel/ulseth_seippel111123.pdf).
Ball, Kylie, Alison Carver, Katherine Downing, Michelle Jackson, and Kerryn O'Rourke.
2015. "Addressing the Social Determinants of Inequities in Physical Activity and Sedentary
Behaviours." Health Promotion International 30(2):8-19. Retrieved February 8, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855784).
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic J. D Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Cambrige: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1978. "Sport And Social Class." Social Science Information 17(6):819-840.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. "The Forms of Capital." Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J Richardson. New York: Greenwood.
Bryman, Alan. 2016. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bunn, Chris. 2016. "The Social Distribution of Physical Activity: Can Bourdieu
Help?" Institute of Health and Wellbeing Early Career Researchers' Blog. Retrieved
December 7, 2017 (http://ihawkes.academicblogs.co.uk/2016/07/05/the-social-distribution-
of-physical-activity-can-bourdieu-help/)
Cadogan, Sharon L, Eimear Keane, and Patricia M Kearney. 2014. "The Effects of
Individual, Family and Environmental Factors on Physical Activity Levels in Children: A
Cross-Sectional Study." BMC Pediatrics 14(1). Retrieved April 8, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24745362).
Carver, Alison, Anna Timperio, and David Crawford. 2008. "Playing It Safe: The Influence
of Neighbourhood Safety on Children's Physical Activity—A Review." Health &
Place 14(2):217-227. Retrieved March 16, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662638).
Caspersen, Carl J, Kenneth E Powell, and Gregory M Christenson. 1985. "Physical Activity,
Exercise, and Physical Fitness: Definitions and Distinctions for Health-Related Research."
100(2):126. Retrieved December 8, 2017
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1424733/).
95
Chambliss, Daniel F, and Russell K Schutt. n.d. Making Sense Of The Social World. 5th ed.
SAGE.
Connor, Seán. 2003. Youth Sport In Ireland: The Sporting, Leisure, And Lifestyle Patterns Of
Irish Adolescents. Dublin: Liffey Press.
Corsaro, William A. 2018. The Sociology of Childhood. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.
Cullen, Paul. 2015. "Big Gap in Health Between Rich and Poor Young Irish." The Irish
Times. Retrieved December 7, 2017 (https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/big-gap-in-
health-between-rich-and-poor-young-irish-1.2103415)
Dagkas, Symeon, and Afroditi Stathi. 2007. "Exploring Social and Environmental Factors
Affecting Adolescents' Participation in Physical Activity." European Physical Education
Review 13(3):369-384. Retrieved February 8, 2018
(http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1356336X07081800).
Dagkas, Symeon, and Thomas Quarmby. 2012. "Young People’s Embodiment of Physical
Activity: The Role of the ‘Pedagogized’ Family." Sociology of Sport Journal 29(2):210-226.
Retrieved December 7, 2017 (http://umdknes.com/knes287resources/Readings/07/R04.pdf).
Department of Health and Children. 2014. The National Guidelines on Physical Activity for
Ireland.
Drenowatz, Clemens, Joey C Eisenmann, Karin A Pfeiffer, Greg Welk, Kate Heelan, Douglas
Gentile, and David Walsh. 2010. "Influence of Socio-Economic Status on Habitual Physical
Activity and Sedentary Behavior in 8- to 11-Year Old Children." BMC Public Health 10(1).
Retrieved December 8, 2017 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873582/)
Eime, Rochelle M, Melanie J Charity, Jack T Harvey, and Warren R Payne. 2015.
"Participation in Sport and Physical Activity: Associations with Socio-Economic Status and
Geographical Remoteness." BMC Public Health 15(1). Retrieved December 10, 2017
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25928848).
Eitler, Thomas W, Edward T McMahon, and Theodore C Thoerig. 2013. Ten Principles for
Building Healthy Places. Washington DC: Urban Land Institute. Retrieved April 15, 2018
(http://uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/10-Principles-for-Building-Healthy-
Places.pdf).
Evans, J, and Brian Davies. 2018. "Social Class and Physical Education." Pp. 796-808
in Handbook of Physical Education, edited by David Kirk, Doune MacDonald and Mary
O'Sullivan. London: SAGE.
Federico, Bruno, Lavinia Falese, and Giovanni Capelli. 2009. "Socio-Economic Inequalities
in Physical Activity Practice Among Italian Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional
Study." Journal of Public Health 17(6):377-384. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2967259/).
Fitzpatrick, Katie. 2011. "Obesity, Health and Physical Education: A Bourdieuean
Perspective." Policy Futures in Education 9(3):353-366. Retrieved February 19, 2018
(http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.3.353).
96
Georg, Werner. 2016. "Transmission of Cultural Capital and Status Attainment – An
Analysis of Development Between 15 And 45 Years Of Age." Longitudinal and Life Course
Studies 7(2):106-123. Retrieved (http://www.llcsjournal.org/index.php/llcs/article/view/341).
Gray, Jane, Ruth Geraghty, and David Ralph. 2016. Family Rhythms: The Changing Textures
of Family Life in Ireland. Manchester University Press.
Growing Up In Ireland. 2012. Key Findings: 13 Year Olds No.2 Physical Activity and
Obesity among 13 Year Olds. Dublin: Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Retrieved
December 9, 2017 (http://www.esri.ie/pubs/OPEA113.pdf).
Haerens, Leen, Mietje Craeynest, Beredicte Deforche, Lea Maes, Greet Cardon, and Ilse De
Bourdeaudhuij. 2009. "The Contribution of Home, Neighbourhood and School
Environmental Factors In Explaining Physical Activity Among Adolescents." Journal of
Environmental and Public Health 2009:1-10. Retrieved February 7, 2018
(https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8bb9/5f5c2ef3c52f7c59104b1afd6e34c05dbea2.pdf).
Huberty, J., D. Dinkel, J. Coleman, A. Beighle, and B. Apenteng. 2012. "The Role of Schools
in Children's Physical Activity Participation: Staff Perceptions." Health Education
Research 27(6):986-995. Retrieved March 14, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22717940).
Hunter, Lisa, Wayne Smith, and Elke Emerald. 2015. Pierre Bourdieu And Physical Culture.
Routledge.
Johnsen, N.F., M. Toftager, O. Melkevik, B.E. Holstein, and M. Rasmussen. 2017. "Trends in
Social Inequality in Physical Inactivity among Danish Adolescents 1991–2014." SSM -
Population Health 3:534-538. Retrieved December 9, 2017
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827316301288).
Kirby, J., K. A. Levin, and J. Inchley. 2013. "Socio-Environmental Influences On Physical
Activity among Young People: A Qualitative Study." Health Education Research 28(6):954-
969. Retrieved April 1, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23969630).
Kneeshaw-Price, Stephanie H, Brian E. Saelens, James F. Sallis, Lawrence D. Frank, David
E. Grembowski, Peggy A. Hannon, Nicholas L. Smith, and K.C. Gary Chan. 2015.
"Neighborhood Crime-Related Safety and its Relation to Children’s Physical
Activity." Journal of Urban Health 92(3):472-489. Retrieved April 14, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25801486).
Lavin, Teresa, Owen Metcalfe, and Claire Higgens. 2011. Active Travel - Healthy Lives.
Dublin: The Institute of Public Health in Ireland. Retrieved April 15, 2018
(https://www.publichealth.ie/files/file/Active%20travel/Active%20travel%20-
%20healthy%20lives.pdf).
Lee, Jessica, and Doune Macdonald. 2009. "Rural Young People and Physical Activity:
Understanding Participation through Social Theory." Sociology of Health &
Illness 31(3):360-374. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01138.x/full).
Lindner, Koenraad J. 2002. "The Physical Activity Participation–Academic Performance
Relationship Revisited: Perceived and Actual Performance and the Effect of Banding
97
(Academic Tracking)." Pediatric Exercise Science 14(2):155-169. Retrieved February 5,
2018 (https://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/pes.14.2.155).
Lodge, Anne. 2005. "Gender and Children's Social World: Esteemed and Marginalised
Masculinities in the Primary School Playground." Irish Journal of Sociology 14(2):177-192.
Retrieved April 13, 2018
(http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/079160350501400210?journalCode=irja).
Maturo, Claire C., and Solveig A. Cunningham. 2013. "Influence of Friends on Children’s
Physical Activity: A Review." American Journal of Public Health 103(7):23-38. Retrieved
March 12, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23678914).
McCoy, Selina, Delma Byrne, and Joanne Banks. 2011. "Too Much of A Good Thing?
Gender, ‘Concerted Cultivation’ and Unequal Achievement in Primary Education." Child
Indicators Research 5(1):155-178.
Morgan, Mark, Maeve Thornton, and Cathal McCrory. 2016. Growing Up In Ireland
National Longitudinal Study Review of the Literature Pertaining to the Second Wave of Data
Collection with the Child Cohort at Age 13. Dublin: Department of Health.
Mutz, Michael, and Peggy Albrecht. 2017. "Parents’ Social Status and Children’s Daily
Physical Activity: The Role of Familial Socialization and Support." Journal of Child and
Family Studies 26(11):3026-3035. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29081641).
Nielsen, Glen, Vivian Grønfeldt, Jan Toftegaard-Støckel, and Lars Bo Andersen. 2012.
"Predisposed to Participate? The Influence of Family Socio-Economic Background on
Children's Sports Participation and Daily Amount of Physical Activity." Sport in
Society 15(1):1-27. Retrieved March 14, 2018
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03031853.2011.625271?journalCode=fcss20)
.
Perez, Francisco Perales. n.d. "Voluntarism And Determinism In Giddens's And Bourdieu's
Theories Of Human Agency.". Retrieved April 6, 2018
(https://www.issr.uq.edu.au/filething/get/37781/Essex%20Graduate%20Journal%20of%20So
ciology%2C%202008.pdf).
Pinxten, Wouter, and John Lievens. 2014. "The Importance of Economic, Social and Cultural
Capital in Understanding Health Inequalities: Using a Bourdieu-Based Approach in Research
on Physical and Mental Health Perceptions." Sociology of Health & Illness 36(7):1095-1110.
Retrieved February 8, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25040507).
Quail, Amanda, James Williams, Maeve Thornton, and Aisling Murray. 2014. A Summary
Guide to Wave 2 of the Child Cohort (At 13 Years) of Growing Up in Ireland. Dublin:
Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
Quarmby, Thomas, and Symeon Dagkas. 2010. "Children's Engagement in Leisure Time
Physical Activity: Exploring Family Structure as a Determinant." Leisure Studies 29(1):53-
66. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02614360903242560).
98
Quarmby, Thomas, and Symeon Dagkas. 2013. "Locating the Place and Meaning of Physical
Activity in the Lives of Young People from Low-Income, Lone-Parent Families." Physical
Education & Sport Pedagogy 18(5):459-474. Retrieved December 9, 2017
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17408989.2012.690384).
Reay, Diane. 2004. "‘It's All Becoming a Habitus’: Beyond the Habitual Use of Habitus in
Educational Research." British Journal of Sociology of Education 25(4):431-444.
Reimers, Anne K. Matthias Wagner, Seraphim Alvanides, Andreas Steinmayr, Miriam
Reiner, Steffen Schmidt, and Alexander Woll. 2014. "Proximity to Sports Facilities and
Sports Participation for Adolescents in Germany." PLOS ONE 9(3):e93059. Retrieved March
13, 2018 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0093059).
Rodrigues, Daniela, Cristina Padez, and Aristides M Machado-Rodrigues. 2018. "Active
Parents, Active Children: The Importance of Parental Organized Physical Activity in
Children’s Extracurricular Sport Participation." Journal of Child Health Care 22(1):159-170.
Retrieved April 9, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29166768).
Salvy, Sarah-Jeanne, James N. Roemmich, Julie C. Bowker, Natalie D. Romero, Phillip J.
Stadler, and Leonard H. Epstein. 2008. "Effect of Peers and Friends on Youth Physical
Activity and Motivation to be Physically Active." Journal of Pediatric
Psychology 34(2):217-225. Retrieved May 11, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202936).
Share, Perry, Mary P Corcoran, and Brian Conway. 2012. A Sociology of Ireland. 4th ed.
Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Shilling, Chris. 2003. The Body and Social Theory. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.
Sociological Association of Ireland. 2016. "Ethical Guidelines Sociological Association of
Ireland." Sociological Association of Ireland (SAI). Retrieved December 11, 2017
(https://www.sociology.ie/uploads/4/2/5/2/42525367/sai_ethical_guidelines.pdf).
Stuij, Mirjam. 2013. "Habitus and Social Class: A Case Study on Socialisation into Sports
and Exercise." Sport, Education and Society 20(6):780-798. Retrieved February 9, 2018
(https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13573322.2013.827568).
Thornton, Maeve, James Williams, Cathal McCrory, Aisling Murray, and Amanda Quail.
2016. Growing Up in Ireland National Longitudinal Study of Children Design,
Instrumentation and Procedures for the Child Cohort at Wave Two (13 Years). Dublin:
Department of Children and Youth Affairs. Retrieved December 8, 2017
(http://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT307.pdf).
Tripathy, Jaya Prasad. 2013. "Secondary Data Analysis: Ethical Issues and Challenges."
Iranian Journal of Public Health 42(12):1478-1479. Retrieved March 4, 2018
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441947/).
Walther, Matthias. 2018. Repatriation To France And Germany: A Comparative Study Based
on Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Springer.
Wells, Laura, Magnus Nermo, and Viveca Östberg. 2016. "Physical Inactivity from
Adolescence to Young Adulthood: The Relevance of Various Dimensions of Inequality in a
99
Swedish Longitudinal Sample." Health Education & Behavior 44(3):376-384. Retrieved
February 8, 2018 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27758839).
Wilson, Thomas C. 2002. "The Paradox of Social Class and Sports
Involvement." International Review for the Sociology of Sport 37(1):5-16. Retrieved
February 8, 2018 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1012690202037001001).
Wiltshire, Gareth, Jessica Lee, and Oli Williams. 2017. "Understanding the Reproduction of
Health Inequalities: Physical Activity, Social Class and Bourdieu’s Habitus." Sport,
Education and Society 1-15. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13573322.2017.1367657?journalCode=cses20)
.
Woods, Catherine B, Niall Moyna, Aoileann Quinlan, Deborah Tannehill, and Julia Walsh.
2010. The Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study (CSPPA Study).
Dublin. Retrieved December 7, 2017
(https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/CCLSP_Study_Report1.pdf).
Zecevic, Cheryl A., Line Tremblay, Tanya Lovsin, and Lariviere Michel. 2010. "Parental
Influence on Young Children's Physical Activity." International Journal of
Pediatrics 2010:1-9. Retrieved April 11, 2018
(https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijpedi/2010/468526/).
