Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This commentary paper draws on existing theory and literature to explore the application of an intersectional lens to research regarding social capital development through sport. Sport is frequently endorsed as a site to facilitate social capital development for those from newly arrived and migrant backgrounds due to its potential to diversify social networks. However, systemic discrimination has marginalized and minoritized groups of people based on attributes such as race, gender and class, making access to capital associated with positive life outcomes less attainable for some. An intersectional lens is vital for understanding the impact of systemic discrimination on access to resources via social networks, and for research into the mechanisms involved in social capital development for diverse individuals and settings. This paper argues that there has been insufficient attention given to ways in which intersectionality shapes experiences and outcomes associated with social networks, particularly in sport settings. We apply this argued case to a discussion regarding the specific role sports participation may have in social capital development for migrant background women from culturally and racially marginalized groups.

Keywords

intersectionality social capital women in sport culturally and racially marginalized population equity

Introduction

Sport is often touted as the ‘great equalizer’ (Lemke, 2016), with positive evidence for sport clubs being a site that provides access to diverse social networks to develop social capital (Cunningham et al., 2020; Ottesen et al., 2010; Tacon, 2019; Theeboom et al., 2012). Gender relations of power are replicated within sporting spaces however (Toffoletti et al., 2023). Whilst there are recent gains for women in terms of equal opportunity and remuneration, these typically apply to white women with ‘Western liberal values’ and middle and upper class backgrounds (Evans and Pfister, 2021; Melton and Bryant, 2017). Progress for women within sport is generally analyzed applying a blunt binary (Man vs Woman) perspective. Such an analysis rarely considers the multiple forms of discrimination experienced by women from marginalized communities - often due to race, ethnicity, religious, sexual and gender diverse orientations and dis/ability - and the large role this plays in limiting opportunities (Sherry et al., 2023). In this paper, we discuss the intersectional barriers women have experienced in gaining access to sport – from grassroots through to elite programs – due to systemic processes of marginalization (Agergaard et al., 2021). Building on our previous work, we then discuss the operationalization of social networks to gain access to social capital by women from culturally and racially marginalized backgrounds (Young and Block, 2023). We argue that there has simply been too little attention paid to the ways in which intersectionality shapes how people develop and/or maintain social capital, particularly through sport, and therefore the outcomes they do (or do not) experience through their networks. Nuanced intersectional considerations are required to understand how sporting spaces can be safe for identity expression and facilitate social connectivity for multiple marginalized women to enable them to leverage and benefit from diverse social networks.

Social capital–a contested term

Social capital has been defined in various ways by prominent theorists, and while there is no consensus on one definition, it can be generally understood as access to resources and opportunities related to an individual's social networks and sociability (Bourdieu, 1986; Navarro, 2006; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2000). Social capital resides in social connections, group membership and interactions with others: via institutions, for example, workplaces and community-based organizations; and through informal networking (Spaaij, 2012). Personal experiences are indeed interpersonal as individual life trajectories are influenced by many types of social relationships with family, like-minded peers and community members (Alwin et al., 2018; Hagestad and Settersten, 2017). The socioeconomic and demographic composition of a community (i.e., members’ social class, race, gender, and migration status) plays a large role in the types of people with whom we may come into contact and form relationships (Settersten 2018, 32). Positive outcomes related to the development of social capital can be educational and economic opportunities, upward mobility alongside social connectivity, positive mental health and societal wellbeing (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022; Cowie, 2011: 153; Ellen et al., 2001; Narayan, 2002).

The network approach to social capital is generally attributed to Pierre Bourdieu. He proposed that four kinds of capital are at stake within society: economic capital (e.g., cash, assets); cultural capital (e.g., educational qualifications, cultural knowledge); symbolic capital (prestige and honor); and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu's concept is connected to class, and effectively power, therefore his definition focuses on the benefits accruing to individuals due to their membership of groups, the quality of their participation and the deliberate construction of sociability for the purpose of creating access to resources (Portes, 1998). These forms of capital are unequally distributed within society. Of particular note in regard to social capital, is the potential for individuals and groups to negotiate different forms of power within and through diverse social interactions in an attempt to access other forms of capital (Cowie, 2011: 153). A conceptual twist was introduced by political scientists who associated social capital with civicness in neighborhoods, towns or cities. Robert Putnam was one of the most prominent advocates of this conceptualization, and defined it as referring to “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995: 67). In contrast to Bourdieu, Putnam's conceptualization of social capital is understood as the communitarian approach (Alecu et al., 2022), with social capital seen as a social glue holding societies together. From the abundance of literature on defining or attempting to make sense of previous definitions, Lin (2001) simply defined social capital as ‘‘investment in social relations with expected returns’’ (Lin, 2001: 19). He also discussed why embedded resources in social networks can have returns for individuals relating to: 1) the flow of information – assuming the more people you know the more opportunities you will hear about; 2) the fact that some social ties carry influence – i.e., ‘putting in a word’ can make opportunities come to fruition; 3) certain relationships (i.e., well-connected personnel) within a network can provide a positive social credential; and 4) being socially connected can reinforce one's worthiness as an individual, boosting self-esteem and the sense of being entitled to resources and returns (Lin, 2017). These concepts link back to Bourdieu's theory where other forms of capital may be accessed through social capital, allowing people to move up the social ladder and, hence, ‘get ahead’.

Putnam's later work differentiated social capital into bonding capital (arising from relationships with people similar to oneself) and bridging capital (arising from associations with people different from oneself e.g., various ethnic/racial/class groups). He conceptualized that bonding capital enabled one ‘to get by’ due to having a support system with like-minded individuals, whereas bridging social capital enabled one to ‘get ahead’ through the expansion of one's network (Rodgers et al., 2019). In addition to bonding and bridging social capital, linking social capital - social links to organizations and institutions - can be of vital importance as a facilitator for integration (Strang and Quinn, 2021). These quite simplistic definitions do not however allude to the complex and interrelated aspects of these forms of social capital. Varying benefits flow from these different types of social connections, which we examine further in this paper.

The case for an intersectional lens

This paper draws attention to the hitherto limited focus on ways in which intersectionality shapes experiences and outcomes associated with social networks, sport and social capital development. Intersectionality is a useful theoretical tool to capture the simultaneity of discrimination and privilege related to race, gender and other markers of identity as social processes (Crenshaw, 1992: 403; Kelly et al., 2021). Growing from the work of black feminist scholars and activists, the term was coined by Kimberle Crenshaw in her 1989 paper detailing the multi-layered macro-level discrimination - sexism, racism and classism - that black women in the United States were facing in the job market (Crenshaw, 1989). She exposed inadequacies in the feminist discourse of the time regarding how overlapping, simultaneously unequal power relations impacted employment opportunities for women of color. A person's identity and social location are influenced by the intersection of characteristics such as gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, dis/ability and migratory background, etc. It is the intersection (not addition) of these social constructs that shape people's experiences of discrimination and/or privilege, and inclusion or exclusion within society due to social processes which have favored particular attributes. As Carolyn D’Cruz aptly wrote:

“intersectionality can be hard to define and easy to abuse. Still, the term remains essential for analyzing and changing patterns of inequality and injustice… a feminism that focuses on women —without also addressing the fact that women come from different classes, and are marked by differences in ethnicity, sexuality, ability and more —favors the needs of those who are white, middle-class, heterosexual and able bodied” (D’Cruz, 2020: 157).

Reinforcement of dominant hierarchies across society through systemic discrimination (e.g., racism, sexism) has been to the detriment of minority groups accessing opportunities and, hence, potential social capital (Carter-Francique and Flowers, 2013; Moore-Berg and Karpinski, 2019). The seminal work of Putnam, Bourdieu, Coleman and Lin is most frequently drawn on to frame new research and commentary pieces regarding social capital. Arguably the existing definitions of social capital predominantly encapsulate and reproduce the social networking experience of those in dominant groups, whereby the norm has been framed as Western, white and male. However, when examining outcomes of social capital, the experiences of diverse and marginalized communities and the influence of intra-group hierarchies are often overlooked and underrepresented (Erel, 2010: 654). More research is therefore needed to explore the strengths and limitations of existing social capital conceptualizations for capturing its nuances for more diverse population groups. Applying an intersectional lens to scholarship that discusses social networks and social capital development can provide new insights and is a step toward ensuring further representation within the evidence base (e.g., Erel, 2015; Goodson and Phillimore, 2008; Yang et al., 2021).

When applied to marginalized groups, research related to social capital often points to the potential ‘dark side’ of social capital development whereby groups (such as ‘gangs’) demonstrate strong bonding capital but weak bridging capital, which can lead to the exclusion of ‘out groups’ and development of coercive norms (Spracklen et al., 2015; Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi, 2017). Aptly described by (Portes, 1998: 15) “the same strong ties which bring benefits to members of a group can commonly bar others from access”. Strong bonding capital - formed from bounded solidarity and trust - amongst marginalized groups has also been associated with downward levelling norms, in which systemic discrimination operates across generations, allowing only the most ambitious to 'emerge' from disadvantage (Portes, 1998). Critiques of Putnam's communitarian approach point out that it essentially framed social capital as another ‘thing’ that defines success in a Western context - in contrast to Bourdieu's notion of capital aligning with a theory of privilege (Arneil, 2006a: 204; Morrow, 1999). Notwithstanding this, Bourdieu paid limited attention to feminist theory, with his early work overlooking the gendering of social structures (Skeggs, 2004; Jeffrey and Thorpe, 2024). Moreover, to our knowledge, a decolonial approach to social capital theory within the literature is scarce. Also relevant to this argument is a critique by Arneil (2006a) regarding the broader applicability of Putnam's work due to its American roots – a theory born from the hope that renewed civicness and community participation could (re)build a happy American society. Hence, the embedded Western, white male-centric norm which frames the concept of social capital will continue to be reproduced if intersectional considerations are not applied. Research that has explored social capital development for women from diverse backgrounds has noted that much social capital development by women benefits their families – namely partners and children – and the broader community through voluntary work (Arneil, 2006b: 6; Warr, 2006). Notwithstanding such concerns, bonding capital and shared habitus can also support labor market entry for newly arrived migrants (Erel, 2010). Amongst current social capital definitions, we suggest therefore that a Bourdieusian perspective emphasizing differentiated access to social capital resources is likely to be most useful when considering the experiences of women from marginalized groups. Such a perspective allows for the application of an intersectional lens to the examination of persistent injustices experienced by women of color, cultural minority groups and/or those from the LGBTIQA+ community (as examples).

Impact of discrimination, power and privilege on social capital development for migrants

Development of social capital is highly regarded in Western countries as a means to facilitate belonging, social inclusion and mental and social wellbeing (Cheong et al., 2007; du Plooy et al., 2020). A recent Canadian study demonstrated that migrants who participated in local community organizations developed more cross-ethnic friendships Lauer (2024), hence increasing the potential for bridging capital. Migrants in various phases of the settlement process are often encouraged to connect with local place-based associations to extend opportunities in which to connect with a diversity of people across social classes and ethnicities, thereby facilitating integration. However, the diversity of an individual's network is inherently influenced and impacted by structural discrimination (Cheong et al., 2007; Diversity Council Australia, 2023). Bourdieu's (1986) analysis is important to refer to here, whereby power and privilege determine how influential the capital on offer is, and whether it can be leveraged to gain new opportunities (Cheong et al., 2007; Long et al., 2014; Warr, 2006). An example of social capital being readily available to those in historically privileged positions is demonstrated by an American study whereby people in white, male networks receive twice as many job leads as those in female and minority networks (McDonald, 2011). Despite this gendered and racialized difference, on a more positive note, in that particular study there was no evidence for differences in benefits due to race or gender once you had access to this white, male network. But how does one access this type of network as a migrant to a country where one is racially marginalized? As noted by Lock et al. (2008) a network rich in social capital can only provide benefits to those able to firstly access, and secondly effectively mobilize, the resources within the network (Lock et al., 2008: 320). Jeffrey and Thorpe (2024) have more recently analyzed the experiences of professional surfers. They demonstrate not only the continued struggle, but also the symbolic violence, that women have faced when attempting to gain fair access, recognition and remuneration in historically male-dominated sporting arenas (Jeffrey and Thorpe, 2024: 339–341).

Marginalization and growing inequity have eroded trust broadly across society. As Barbara Arneil suggests, if trust - a key mechanism facilitating social capital development and social mobility - is eroding, there are implications for social cohesion (Arneil, 2006a: 207). If social capital development is limited by (multiple forms of) discrimination and exclusion (Walker, 2018), it is unsurprising that newly arrived migrants are more likely to connect first with people from their own or similar cultural backgrounds, when this differs from the dominant majority (Strang and Quinn, 2021). Therefore, bonding capital often develops through dense networks of family, kin and those who have similar paths of migration (Zontini, 2010) which are vitally important for personal and social support when navigating a new country. Individuals can bond across some social dimensions and bridge across others (Putnam, 2000), however, the absence of progressive development of bridging capital alongside bonding capital has been found to be a hindrance rather than a facilitator to long-term career trajectories (Colic-Peisker, 2006; Yang et al., 2021). If, due to discriminatory practices, the social networks of a migrant are relatively small, dispersed and/or gendered this may impact access to developing bridging networks and capital in the form of new information and resources in their new destination country (Katila and Wahlbeck, 2012; Lee and Lam, 2016; Warr, 2006). Studies have found this can compound for women, particularly women who assume the caregiver role in a family and are therefore absent from the job market for extended periods of time (Warr, 2006). It is essential we understand, and advocate to break down, intersectional barriers that may contribute to this.

Social capital development for migrants via sport participation

Alongside positive physical and mental health benefits, and taken from the viewpoint that it can be the ‘great equalizer’, sport has been frequently discussed in the literature as a site linked to social connectivity, belonging, a sense of identity and social capital development (Darcy et al., 2014; Delaney and Keaney, 2005; Hoye et al., 2015; Lock et al., 2008; Ottesen et al., 2010; Perks, 2007; Spaaij, 2012). Additionally, there is an acknowledgement that a passion and interest in sport transcends cultural boundaries (Rowe, 2017), which has been the foundation for many sports-based programs aiming to engage with newly arrived refugees and migrants (Block and Gibbs, 2017; Jeanes et al., 2015; McDonald and Spaaij, 2021; Nathan et al., 2010; Young and Block, 2023). It is yet to be firmly established however, whether sports participation promotes the development of social capital or whether people with a relatively higher stock of social capital are more likely to participate in sport (Theeboom et al., 2012). For those from a refugee and migrant background, there is recent evidence for the former (Cunningham et al., 2020; Janssens and Verweel, 2014; McDonald et al., 2019). Other studies have that found neighborhood trust (Widdop et al., 2016), social class and economic capital (Gemar, 2021; Long et al., 2014; Walseth, 2008) played a large role in the development and type of social capital accrued. Specific to the development of linking social capital via sport for migrant background men, Spaaij (2012) found key mediators to be language proficiency, education and local cultural ‘knowledge of the system’, often aided by volunteering at the club. (Spaaij, 2012).

Social attributes such as gender, race, ethnicity, social class and migration status can determine not only the rates of participation, but experiences within, and benefits accrued due to this social activity (Coalter, 2007; Cortis, 2009; Janssens and Verweel, 2014; Jeffrey and Thorpe, 2024; Long et al., 2014; McGovern, 2021; Sabo and Veliz, 2016; Walseth, 2014; Yang et al., 2021; Young and Block, 2023). Moreover, for non-white refugees and migrants, access to mainstream sports opportunities and therefore the capacity of sport to promote positive outcomes has often been limited and shaped by broader exclusionary processes. These processes continue to perpetuate discrimination due to the embedded culture of hegemonic - sometimes toxic - masculinity, privileging of whiteness, and ‘otherness’ directed towards migrants (Jeanes and Lucas, 2022: 800; Long et al., 2014; Nesse et al., 2023). Social networks and connections are vitally important to assist settlement, integration and access to local employment opportunities (Wali and Renzaho, 2018). Sports clubs theoretically provide a space in which migrants can ‘fit in’, however, this process often assumes new migrants should be assimilating by adopting the cultural capital of their destination country, i.e., language, customs and norms (Smith et al., 2019).

In the context of deeply embedded forms of structural exclusion across the global sports system, a growing body of research has explored more informal, self-organized forms of participation. This includes informal participation in the culturally dominant sports (e.g., soccer, basketball) (Jeanes et al., 2019; Spaaij et al., 2024), and in culturally significant sports unfamiliar to the destination country (Spaaij et al., 2023). The very act of participating in sports that are unfamiliar to a destination country can be a form of resistance against what would be considered ‘mainstream’ (Hay, 2008: 12; Kukreja, 2023; Spaaij et al., 2023). In these cases, migrants can continue playing the sports they are familiar with, without the structural constraints of a sporting association or formal competition. Yet from an integrative viewpoint, this may sometimes present barriers to forming social networks outside one's ethnic and cultural group within their new-found homeland or temporary host destination (Fink, 2015; Forrest and Dunn, 2006; Jeanes et al., 2015; Spaaij et al., 2020). Strong bonding capital within non-white, ethnocentric clubs or informal sport settings has been shown to foster solidarity, belonging and identity formation for new migrants in predominantly western contexts. After a period of time, individuals within such clubs have then demonstrated reciprocity with their local community by supporting the settlement of newly arrived individuals through sport (McDonald et al., 2019; Spaaij, 2012). Previous research, however, has also illustrated a ‘dark side’ to social capital development within both mixed and ethnocentric sports clubs. Strong or uneven bonding capital can lead to exclusionary practices. Examples include a lack of opportunity for women to participate, a clash of values (Maxwell et al., 2013; Tonts, 2005) or limited recruitment of people from diverse backgrounds to volunteer or assist within the club – which happens consciously or subconsciously (Whittaker and Holland-Smith, 2016).

Exploration of the ‘dark side’ of strong bonding capital in sports settings leads to the question of how to address exclusion in situations of strong bonding capital between members of historically dominant social groups (e.g., male and/or white). Such situations perpetuate the cycle of benefits flowing to those already with power, privilege and resources. Carter-Francique & Flowers (2013) discussed how exclusionary practices in sport, and broader society, have often been framed as a race and/or gender issue, with recent reviews demonstrating how this limited framing is still predominantly operationalized in the sports literature (Carter-Francique and Flowers, 2013; Lim et al., 2021; Sherry et al., 2023). To truly realize goals to address inequity in sport, we need to acknowledge the differences in experience for women with multiply marginalized identities and privilege diverse voices from the Global South to counteract the predominantly Eurocentric framing of research agendas and findings (Hussain and Cunningham, 2024; Toffoletti et al., 2018). It is duly noted that we do write this article as white, Anglo women whose research spans health equity, social justice, migration studies and anti-racism, and intersectional feminist practices.

Considerations for migrant women in sport

For migrant background women, access to sport in addition to their ability to leverage resources from a social network developed via sport, is, as discussed, often simultaneously influenced by exclusionary and oppressive systems beyond gender (McGovern, 2021). Thus, an intersectional lens to sport scholarship is imperative. For those from non-white backgrounds, exclusionary experiences are often felt even more so by women and girls, and this has been noted to be largely due to an interplay between actual and perceived influences of gendered cultural norms (Ahmad et al., 2020; Ratna and Samie, 2017: 9–11; Sawrikar and Muir, 2010; Thorpe et al., 2022; Toffoletti and Palmer, 2017). For Muslim women in Western contexts in particular, evidence exists of structural racism and Islamophobia limiting opportunities based on assumptions and stereotyping related to religious beliefs and practices (Agergaard, 2016; Maxwell et al., 2013; Walseth and Fasting, 2004). However, research conducted in Western contexts which involves Muslim women and girls and explores their sporting habitus demonstrates interconnected religious beliefs and (gendered) cultural practices do not have a hegemonic influence on participation, rather, individual choices generally prevail (Cheng, 2019; Jiwani and Rail, 2010; Thorpe et al., 2022). Meanwhile, in Australia, and other Western nations, it remains that sporting organizations are still failing to make appropriate accommodations for women in general (Anderson et al., 2023; Pavlidis, 2018). In many cases, when aiming to modify programs to include women from diverse backgrounds, negative stereotypes can be reinforced. This happens when policy or program deliverers do not seek to find out what is actually required at both the community and individual levels in order to foster a welcoming, inclusive and culturally safe environment (Jiwani and Rail, 2010; Spaaij et al., 2020; Thorpe et al., 2022; Young and Block, 2023). As raised by Thorpe et al. (2022), in their study focusing on Muslim women's experiences of sport in Aotearoa New Zealand, consideration of how culturally safe these spaces are for women is required. Are they able to express and embody their cultural and religious identities without risk of prejudice? Thorpe et al.'s (2022) study is an exemplar of applying an intersectional lens to capture the nuance surrounding spatial access and the daily acts of resistance required against racial and cultural stereotyping of Muslim women in sport. Further research could explore the potential for developing bridging and linking capital by women in these settings when they experience discrimination from many fronts.

An intersectional future for social capital research?

As access to economic and cultural capital through group memberships in Western societies is highly influenced by the patriarchy, social class and whiteness, this article seeks to highlight the overarching role of embedded social power relations on social capital development. We argue an intersectional lens will account for the discrimination that is based on more than racial or gendered constructs. McGovern suggested Bourdieu's (1998) concept of habitus can assist in understanding how a personal decision, such as sports participation, is made within a larger social context that consistently exhibits varying barriers for people from minority groups (Bourdieu, 1998; McGovern, 2021). For example, as previously discussed, flexible and informal sport activities may suit the sporting habitus of some culturally diverse groups (Spaaij et al., 2023, 2024; Walseth, 2014; Young and Block, 2023). Further research is needed to capture the varying mechanisms within a sport setting that facilitate or inhibit the development of social capital for women who have been marginalized by Western society (Erel, 2010). Yang et al. (2021) demonstrated how applying an intersectional lens to studies exploring social capital can illuminate such mechanisms. Using a nationally representative dataset, they explored access to social capital among three racial groups, by gender, and showed how the existence of different patterns in network diversity, mobilization and returns on social capital did not follow hypothesized gender/racial hierarchies.

There are several questions we suggest that require further examination. What types of relationships are able to be mobilized, and how is discrimination impacting this mobilisation? What are the underlying factors that are influencing the development of social capital specific to sport settings? How are contextual factors related to diverse sports environments (i.e., mixed and ethno-specific mainstream clubs, informal sport environments) influencing social capital development for diverse groups of women? If membership of a sporting team is obtained, are opportunities readily available to take up positions on the club's committee to volunteer, and to develop and demonstrate leadership skills? Are women with diverse backgrounds openly welcomed and encouraged to take on these roles? Hence, intersectional theory needs to inform future research regarding social capital development through sport to account for and address the inequalities experienced by women from diverse, multiply marginalized backgrounds. Practically, in addition to increased inclusion of diverse women's voices, we suggest this can be as simple as ensuring data collection methods are robust enough to capture and report on the multiple identities of research participants that go beyond the often used binary (male v female) gender questions and single proxy cultural or ethnic identifiers such as country of birth (Bowleg, 2008; Bruening, 2005; Klar and Leeper, 2019). Additionally, participatory research with community members can ensure research and its interpretation reflects the issues that matter to individuals and communities from diverse and marginalized backgrounds, and that solutions are grounded by lived experience (Luguetti et al., 2022; McIntyre, 2003).

Conclusion

Many families migrate to provide opportunities and a ‘better future’ for their children (Orellana et al. 2001), but this future is shaped by the economic and social capital that the family is able to access in their destination country (Sime and Fox 2015). Spracklen et al. (2015) aptly drew attention to a widespread and problematic presumption that sports participation provided wholesome and positive benefits to all who chose to participate. Research resoundingly supports this is not the case, as we point to in this article. An intersectional approach can aid our understanding of the contexts in which social capital may develop, including examination of the – positive and/or negative - significance of sport in people's lives. It has the potential to deepen understanding of the nuanced complexity surrounding access to community-based groups, mobilization of resources within these groups, and the role of the overarching, persistent unequal power dynamics within society which underpins inequality for individuals and groups (Arneil, 2006a; Choo and Ferree, 2010; Yang et al., 2021). An intersectional, social equity framing is integral if we as scholars are to truly understand and advocate ways in which to bridge inequalities. Alongside this, a nuanced understanding of social capital development can help to promote conditions that support women and other marginalised groups often systematically oppressed. Moreover, rather than compare experiences against a Western (white) framed norm of social capital development, and conduct comparisons between men and women alone, we advocate future applications of social capital theory explicitly take an intersectional lens. An intersectional lens can help us to understand, account for, and celebrate how women from diverse backgrounds mobilize their social networks in various contexts, and ensure we as scholars advocate for sports settings to provide such opportunities.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

Dana Young disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Postgraduate Scholarship Scheme (Grant ID: 1150323).

National Health and Medical Research Council, (grant number Postgraduate Scholarship 1150326).

ORCID iD

Dana Young

References

Agergaard

(2016) Religious culture as a barrier? A counter-narrative of danish muslim girls’ participation in sports. Qualitative Research In Sport, Exercise And Health 8(2): 213–224.

Agergaard

Lenneis

Simonsen

, et al. (2021) Granted asylum and healthy living?: Women newcomers’ experiences of accessing leisure time physical activity in Denmark. In: Cauldwell

Ugolotti

NDM

(eds) Leisure and Forced Migration. London, UK: Routledge, 105–120.

Ahmad

Thorpe

Richards

, et al. (2020) Building cultural diversity in sport: A critical dialogue with muslim women and sports facilitators. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 12(4): 637–653.

Alecu

Helland

, Hjellbrekke et al. (2022) Who you know: The classed structure of social capital. The British Journal of Sociology 73(3): 505–535.

Alwin

Felmlee

Kreager

(2018) Social Networks and the Life Course: Integrating the Development of Human Lives and Social Relational Networks. 2 Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 4.

Anderson

Robinson

Verhagen

, et al. (2023) Under-representation of women is alive and well in sport and exercise medicine: What it looks like and what we can do about it. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine 9(2): e001606.

Arneil

(2006a) Justice in diverse communities: lessons for the future. In: Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 200–240.

Arneil

(2006b) Social Capital, justice and diversity. In: Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1–14.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) Health across socioeconomic groups. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/health-across-socioeconomic-groups#Burden (accessed 11 May 2023).

10.

Block

Gibbs

(2017) Promoting social inclusion through sport for refugee-background youth in Australia: Analysing different participation models. Social Inclusion 5(2): 91.

11.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

12.

Bourdieu

(1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press, 6.

13.

Bowleg

(2008) When black + lesbian + woman ≠ black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles 59(5): 312–325.

14.

Bruening

(2005) Gender and racial analysis in sport: Are all the women white and all the blacks men? Quest 57(3): 330–349.

15.

Carter-Francique

Flowers

(2013) Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender in sport. In: Roper

(ed) Gender Relations in Sport. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers, 73–93.

16.

Cheng

(2019) Religiosity, integration and sport: Muslim women playing Australian rules football. Journal of Australian Studies 43(1): 55–70.

17.

Cheong

Edwards

Goulbourne

, et al. (2007) Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review. Critical Social Policy 27(1): 24–49.

18.

Choo

Ferree

(2010) Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory 28(2): 129–149.

19.

Coalter

(2007) Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration: ‘Ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes’? Sport in Society 10(4): 537–559.

20.

Colic-Peisker

(2006) Employment niches for recent refugees: Segmented labour market in twenty-first century Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies 19(2): 203–229.

21.

Cortis

(2009) Social inclusion and sport: Culturally diverse women’s perspectives. Australian Journal of Social Issues 44(1): 91–106.

22.

Cowie

(2011) Symbolic, cultural, and social capital. In: Cowie

(ed) The Plurality of Power: An Archaeology of Industrial Capitalism. New York, NY: Springer, 152–172

23.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics . University of Chicago Legal Forum (Article 8): 139–160.

24.

Crenshaw

(1992) Whose story is it anyway? Feminist and antiracist appropriations of Anita Hill. In: Morrison

(ed) Race-Ing Justice, Engendering Power. New York, USA: Pantheon, 402–440.

25.

Cunningham

Bunde-Birouste

Rawstorne

, et al. (2020) Young people’s perceptions of the influence of a sport-for-social-change program on their life trajectories. Social Inclusion 8(3): 162–176.

26.

Darcy

Maxwell

Edwards

, et al. (2014) More than a sport and volunteer organisation: Investigating social capital development in a sporting organisation. Sport Management Review 17: 395–406.

27.

D’Cruz

(2020) Democracy in Difference: Debating key terms of gender, sexuality, race and identity. Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University Ebureau, 156–159.

28.

Delaney

Keaney

(2005) Sport and Social Capital in the United Kingdom: Statistical Evidence from National and International Survey Data. Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, Ireland: Institute for Public Policy Research.

29.

Diversity Council Australia (2023) Culturally and Racially Marginalised Women in Leadership: A framework for (Intersectional) organisational action. Available at: https://www.dca.org.au/research/culturally-and-racially-marginalised-carm-women-in-leadership.

30.

du Plooy

Lyons

Kashima

(2020) Social capital and the well-being of migrants to Australia: Exploring the role of generalised trust and social network resources. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 79: 1–12.

31.

Ellen

Mijanovich

Dillman

K-N

(2001) Neighborhood effects on health: Exploring the links and assessing the evidence. Journal of Urban Affairs 23(3–4): 391–408.

32.

Erel

(2010) Migrating Cultural Capital: Bourdieu in Migration Studies. Sociology 44(4): 642–660.

33.

Erel

(2015) Thinking migrant capitals intersectionally: Using a biographical approach. In: Ryan

Erel

D’Angelo

(eds) Migrant Capital. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 18–32.

34.

Evans

Pfister

(2021) Women in sports leadership: A systematic narrative review. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 56(3): 317–342.

35.

Fink

(2015) Female athletes, women’s sport, and the sport media commercial complex: Have we really ‘come a long way, baby’? Sport Management Review 18(3): 331–342.

36.

Forrest

Dunn

(2006) ‘Core’culture hegemony and multiculturalism: Perceptions of the privileged position of Australians with British backgrounds. Ethnicities 6(2). SAGE Publications: 203–230.

37.

Gemar

(2021) Social capital networks in sports spectatorship and participation. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 56(4): 514–536.

38.

Goodson

Phillimore

(2008) Social capital and integration: The importance of social relationships and social space to refugee women. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities & Nations 7(6): 181–193.

39.

Hagestad

Settersten

Jr (2017) Aging: It’s interpersonal! reflections from two life course migrants. The Gerontologist 57(1): 136–144.

40.

Hay

(2008) ‘Our Wicked Foreign Game’: Why has Association Football (Soccer) not become the Main Code of Football in Australia?. In: Bandyopadhyay

Mallick

(eds) Fringe Nations in World Soccer. London: Routledge.

41.

Hoye

Nicholson

Brown

(2015) Involvement in sport and social connectedness. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50(1): 3–21.

42.

Hussain

Cunningham

(2024) The muslim community and sport scholarship: A scoping review to advance sport management research. European Sport Management Quarterly 24(2): 536–558.

43.

Janssens

Verweel

(2014) The significance of sports clubs within multicultural society. On the accumulation of social capital by migrants in culturally “mixed” and “separate” sports clubs. European Journal for Sport and Society 11(1): 35–58.

44.

Jeanes

Lucas

(2022) Sport, Social Exclusion, and Discrimination. In: Wenner

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Society. New York, USA: Oxford University Press, 787–809.

45.

Jeanes

O’ Connor

Alfrey

(2015) Sport and the resettlement of young people from refugee backgrounds in Australia. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 39(6): 480–500.

46.

Jeanes

Spaaij

Penney

, et al. (2019) Managing informal sport participation: Tensions and opportunities. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 11(1): 79–95.

47.

Jeffrey

Thorpe

(2024) Bourdieu on the field: Gender, power and the organization of sport. In: Markula

Knoppers

(eds) Research Handbook on Gender and Diversity in Sport Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 331–344.

48.

Jiwani

Rail

(2010) Islam, hijab and young shia muslim Canadian women’s discursive constructions of physical activity. Sociology of Sport Journal 27(3): 251–267.

49.

Katila

Wahlbeck

(2012) The role of (transnational) social capital in the start-up processes of immigrant businesses: The case of Chinese and turkish restaurant businesses in Finland. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship 30(3): 294–309.

50.

Kelly

Kasperavicius

Duncan

, et al. (2021) ‘Doing’ or ‘using’ intersectionality? Opportunities and challenges in incorporating intersectionality into knowledge translation theory and practice. International Journal for Equity in Health 20(187).

51.

Klar

Leeper

(2019) Identities and intersectionality: A case for purposive sampling in survey-experimental research. In: Lavrakas

Traugott

Kennedy

, et al (eds) Experimental Methods in Survey Research. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 419–433.

52.

Kukreja

(2023) Using indigenous sport as resistance against migrant exclusion: Kabaddi and south Asian male migrants in Greece. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49(5): 1173–1190.

53.

Lauer

(2024) Cosmopolitan social infrastructure and immigrant cross-ethnic friendship. Current Sociology. 72(1): 3–24.

54.

Lee

Lam

BO-Y

(2016) The academic achievement of socioeconomically disadvantaged immigrant adolescents: A social capital perspective. International Review of Sociology 26(1): 144–173.

55.

Lemke

(2016) The role of sport in achieving the sustainable development goals Sport Aims for the Goals. United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-sport-achieving-sustainable-development-goals (accessed 12 January 2024).

56.

Lim

Jung

Jodoin

, et al. (2021) Operationalization of intersectionality in physical activity and sport research: A systematic scoping review. SSM - Population Health 14: 100808.

57.

Lin

(2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 19–28

58.

Lin

(2017) Building a network theory of social capital. In: Dubos

(ed) Social Capital. New York, USA: Routledge, 3–28.

59.

Lock

Taylor

Darcy

(2008) Soccer and social capital in Australia: Social networks in transition. In: Nicholson

Hoye

(eds) Sport and Social Capital. London, UK: Routledge, 317–338.

60.

Long

Hylton

Spracklen

(2014) Whiteness, blackness and settlement: Leisure and the integration of new migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(11): 1779–1797.

61.

Luguetti

Jice

Singehebhuye

, et al (2022) ‘I know how researchers are […] taking more from you than they give you’: tensions and possibilities of youth participatory action research in sport for development. Sport, Education and Society 28(7): 755–770.

62.

Maxwell

Foley

Taylor

, et al. (2013) Social inclusion in community sport: A case study of muslim women in Australia. Journal of Sport Management 27(6): 467–481.

63.

McDonald

Spaaij

(2021) Social inclusion and solidarity building through sport for recently arrived migrants and refugees in Australia. In: Liamputtong

(ed) Handbook of Social Inclusion: Research and practices in health and social sciences. Switzerland: Springer Nature, 1777–1791.

64.

McDonald

Spaaij

Dukic

(2019) Moments of social inclusion: Asylum seekers, football and solidarity. Sport in Society 22(6): 935–949.

65.

McDonald

(2011) What’s in the “old boys” network? Accessing social capital in gendered and racialized networks. Social Networks 33(4): 317–330.

66.

McGovern

(2021) The intersection of class, race, gender and generation in shaping Latinas’ sport experiences. Sociological Spectrum 41(1): 96–114.

67.

McIntyre

(2003) Through the eyes of women: Photovoice and participatory research as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place & Culture 10(1): 47–66.

68.

Melton

Bryant

(2017) Intersectionality: The impact of negotiating multiple identities for women in sport leadership. In: Burton

Leberman

(eds) Women in Sport Leadership. London: Routledge, 62–82.

69.

Moore-Berg

Karpinski

(2019) An intersectional approach to understanding how race and social class affect intergroup processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13(1): e12426.

70.

Morrow

(1999) Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: A critical review. The Sociological Review 47(4): 744–765.

71.

Narayan

(2002) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. In: Isham

Kelly

Ramaswamy

(eds) Social Capital and Economic Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 58–81.

72.

Nathan

Bunde-Birouste

Evers

, et al. (2010) Social cohesion through football: A quasi-experimental mixed methods design to evaluate a complex health promotion program. BMC Public Health 10(1): 1–12.

73.

Navarro

(2006) In search of a cultural interpretation of power: The contribution of Pierre Bourdieu. IDS Bulletin 37(6).

74.

Nesse

Agergaard

Piggott

(2023) Young refugees’ experiences of accumulating horizontal and vertical social capital through organised and informal sports. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 59(5): 642–659.

75.

Orellana

Thorne

Chee

, et al. (2001) Transnational Childhoods: The Participation of Children in Processes of Family Migration. Social Problems 48(4).

76.

Ottesen

Jeppesen

Krustrup

(2010) The development of social capital through football and running: Studying an intervention program for inactive women. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 20 (Suppl 1): 118–131.

77.

Pavlidis

(2018) Making “space” for women and girls in sport: An agenda for Australian geography. Geographical Research 56(4): 343–352.

78.

Perks

(2007) Does sport foster social capital? The contribution of sport to a lifestyle of community participation. Sociology of Sport Journal 24(4): 378–401.

79.

Portes

(1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.

80.

Putnam

(1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65–78.

81.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. In: Crothers

Lockhart

(eds) Culture and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

82.

Ratna

Samie

(2017) Mapping the Field: Research about ethnic ‘Other’ females, sport and physical culture. In: Ratna

Samie

(eds) Race, Gender and Sport: The Politics of Ethnic ‘Other’ Girls and Women. London, UK: Routledge, 10–32.

83.

Rodgers

Valuev

Hswen

, et al. (2019) Social capital and physical health: An updated review of the literature for 2007–2018. Social Science & Medicine 236: 112360.

84.

Rowe

(2017) We're all transnational now: sport in dynamic sociocultural environments. Sport in Society 20(10): 1470–1484.

85.

Sabo

Veliz

(2016) Inequalities in athletic participation during adolescence: A nationwide study of attrition rates in organized sports in the United States. Health Behavior and Policy Review 3(2): 88–98.

86.

Sawrikar

Muir

(2010) The myth of a ‘fair go’: Barriers to sport and recreational participation among Indian and other ethnic minority women in Australia. Sport Management Review 13: 355–367.

87.

Settersten

(2018) Nine Ways That Social Relationships Matter for the Life Course. In: Alwin

Felmlee

Kreager

(eds) Social Networks and the Life Course. Frontiers in Sociology and Social Research. vol. 2. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

88.

Sherry

Bowell

Symons

, et al. (2023) Researching women in sport development: An intersectional approach. Sport in Society: 27(5): 820–842.

89.

Sime

Fox

(2015) Migrant Children, Social Capital and Access to Services Post-Migration: Transitions, Negotiations and Complex Agencies. Children and Society 29(6).

90.

Skeggs

(2004) Context and Background: Pierre Bourdieu's analysis of Class, Gender and Sexuality. The Sociological Review 52(2): 19–33.

91.

Smith

Spaaij

McDonald

(2019) Migrant integration and cultural capital in the context of sport and physical activity: A systematic review. Journal of International Migration and Integration 20(3): 851–868.

92.

Spaaij

(2012) Beyond the playing field: Experiences of sport, social capital, and integration among Somalis in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(9): 1519–1538.

93.

Spaaij

Knoppers

Jeanes

(2020) “We want more diversity but…”: Resisting diversity in recreational sports clubs. Sport Management Review 23(3): 363–373.

94.

Spaaij

Magee

Jeanes

, et al. (2023) Informal sport and (non)belonging among hazara migrants in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49(17): 4352–4371.

95.

Spaaij

Ravi

Magee

, et al. (2024) “Our Right to Play”: How Afghan Women Navigate Constraints, Agency, and Aspirations On and Off the Soccer Field. American Behavioral Scientist 00(0): 1–9.

96.

Spracklen

Long

Hylton

(2015) Leisure opportunities and new migrant communities: Challenging the contribution of sport. Leisure Studies 34(1): 114–129.

97.

Strang

Quinn

(2021) Integration or isolation? Refugees’ social connections and Wellbeing. Journal of Refugee Studies 34(1): 328–353.

98.

Tacon

(2019) Social capital and social ties in organisations: A case study of two voluntary sports clubs. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 39(9/10): 883–898.

99.

Theeboom

Schaillée

Nols

(2012) Social capital development among ethnic minorities in mixed and separate sport clubs. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(1): 1–21.

100.

Thorpe

Ahmad

Marfell

, et al. (2022) Muslim women’s sporting spatialities: Navigating culture, religion and moving bodies in aotearoa New Zealand. Gender, Place & Culture 29(1): 52–79.

101.

Toffoletti

Palmer

(2017) New approaches for studies of muslim women and sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(2): 146–163.

102.

Toffoletti

Palmer

Samie

(2018) Introduction: Sport, feminism and the global south. Sociology of Sport Journal 35(3): 193–196.

103.

Toffoletti

Thorpe

Pavlidis

, et al. (2023) Visibility and vulnerability on Instagram: Negotiating safety in women’s online-offline fitness spaces. Leisure Sciences 45(8): 705–723.

104.

Tonts

(2005) Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 21(2): 137–149.

105.

Villalonga-Olives

Kawachi

(2017) The dark side of social capital: A systematic review of the negative health effects of social capital. Social Science & Medicine 194: 105–127.

106.

Wali

Renzaho

AMN

(2018) “Our riches are our family”, the changing family dynamics & social capital for new migrant families in Australia. PLOS ONE 13(12) e0209421.

107.

Walker

(2018) The labyrinth of exclusion in sport and steps toward developing a culture of inclusion. Sport & Entertainment Review 4(2): 43–47.

108.

Walseth

(2008) Bridging and bonding social capital in sport—experiences of young women with an immigrant background. Sport, Education and Society 13(1): 1–17.

109.

Walseth

(2014) Young Norwegian-Pakistani women and sport: How does culture and religiosity matter? European Physical Education Review 20(4): 489–507.

110.

Walseth

Fasting

(2004) Sport as a means of integrating minority women. Sport in Society 7(1): 109–129.

111.

Warr

(2006) Gender, class, and the art and craft of social capital. The Sociological Quarterly 47: 497–520.

112.

Whittaker

Holland-Smith

(2016) Exposing the dark side, an exploration of the influence social capital has upon parental sports volunteers. Sport, Education and Society 21(3): 356–373.

113.

Widdop

Cutts

Jarvie

(2016) Omnivorousness in sport: The importance of social capital and networks. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 51(5): 596–616.

114.

Yang

Jackson

Zajicek

(2021) A changing landscape? An intersectional analysis of race and gender disparity in access to social capital. Sociological Spectrum 41(1): 80–95.

115.

Young

Block

(2023) Count me in: A sports participation intervention promoting inclusion for young people from migrant backgrounds in Australia. Sport in Society 26(7): 1227–1249.

116.

Zontini

(2010) Enabling and constraining aspects of social capital in migrant families: Ethnicity, gender and generation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 33(5): 816–831.

Developing social capital through sport? The case for an intersectional lens

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Social capital–a contested term

The case for an intersectional lens

Impact of discrimination, power and privilege on social capital development for migrants

Social capital development for migrants via sport participation

Considerations for migrant women in sport

An intersectional future for social capital research?

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References