Sport,criminal justice interventions and possible future selves: Towards a research agenda

Abstract

There is growing evidence surrounding the instrumental role of sport and physical activity as a tool to address issues within criminal justice systems and act as a mechanism to engage, educate and develop individuals both in community and correctional settings. This article outlines how sport-based interventions might serve to support the individual aspirations and imagined ‘future selves’ of their participants. Utilising the seminal work of Markus and Nurius, we consider the barriers that may impede the development of an idealised future self for people involved in, or on the margins of, crime. Considering these barriers, the article examines the concept of ‘liminality’, outlining the challenges evident when reconstructing personal identity as the individual transitions ‘betwixt and between’ former and imagined lives. Finally, the article presents evidence which advocates for mentoring within sport-based interventions to facilitate the construction of possible selves, before concluding with suggestions for future research in this area.

Introduction

There is a growing evidence base surrounding the instrumental role of sport and physical activity as a tool to address issues within criminal justice systems. Indeed, research has reported how active participation in sport and physical activity interventions may act as a mechanism to engage, educate and develop individuals both in the community (see Morgan and Parker, 2023; Nichols, 2007) and in correctional settings (see Meek, 2014; Roe, 2021). Traditionally, sport and physical activity have been deployed as a part of rehabilitative or desistance strategies, where sport engagement acts as an antidote to criminal and/or anti-social behaviour. When utilised in this manner, sport can act as a device through which the often cliched ‘lessons’ around the development of discipline, teamworking skills and leadership qualities are used to repair moral deficits in those who are in conflict with the law.

In more recent years, the application of a ‘deficit’ approach as an underlying philosophy within sport-based interventions has received significant criticism, concerned as it is with a narrow focus on the management, mitigation and response to risk (Case, 2021), and its potential to stigmatise those caught up in the criminal justice context (Morgan and Parker, 2023). Furthermore, a ‘deficit’ approach has a tendency for interventions to be done to beneficiaries, where only the actions of external ‘experts’ can resolve the issues that young people face (Saleebey, 2013), often leaving them feeling disempowered and dependent (Garven et al., 2016). In response, there has been a growing advocacy for a ‘strengths-based’ approach to sport-based interventions (see Morgan and Parker, 2023), which is founded on a recognition that beneficiaries possess existing strengths and ‘assets’, which can be developed by working ‘with them’ rather than ‘on them’ (Paraschak and Thompson, 2014).

It has been argued that a strengths-based approach has particular value in supporting interventions which focus on diverting young people away from criminal justice systems (Haines and Case, 2015). However, if we accept that diversion should be the objective of sport-based interventions, it is important to clarify whether, specifically, diversion should be framed as simply diverting away from engagement in crime and anti-social behaviour or diverting towards some other form of activity or life goal (Smith, 2011). ¹ A strengths-based philosophy would likely facilitate the latter, particularly given the strong commitment to co-design and consensus which is embedded within this approach. However, a commitment to ‘working with’ an individual would suggest that gaining a deeper appreciation of what that individual may aspire to be could provide a platform for sport-based interventions to create pathways towards meaningful future selves which do not involve crime.

This positional article maps out how an appreciation of an individual’s aspirations and imagined future self might provide the impetus for focused sport-based interventions that are individualised and tailored towards personalised, co-designed objectives. Following a summary of Markus and Nurius’ (1986) seminal work on possible selves and its utility as a guiding theoretical framework for strengths-based sport-based interventions, the article considers the specific barriers and challenges that may impede the development of an idealised possible future self for (young) people involved in, or on the margins of, crime. In light of these challenges, the article examines the concept of ‘liminality’ (Van Gennep, 1960), and outlines how the reconstruction of identity towards a possible future self is a non-linear process as the individual transitions ‘betwixt and between’ (Turner, 1967) former and imagined selves. In addition, the article reviews the empirical evidence which advocates for mentoring within a strengths-based sport-based intervention to facilitate the construction of possible selves, before concluding with suggestions for future empirical research in this area.

Possible selves, desistance and structural barriers

The concept of possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986) has been widely applied in both psychological and sociological scholarship as a theoretical framework via which to examine understandings of self-concept and self-identity (Harrison and Waller, 2018). Moreover, and pertinent to the parameters of the present discussion, possible selves has provided the conceptual focus of academic studies within the domains of education (see Harrison and Waller, 2018; Stevenson and Clegg, 2011), youth delinquency (see Oyserman and Markus, 1990), incarcerated populations (see Huerta, 2022; Meek, 2011) and sport (Hickey and Roderick, 2017).

First proposed by Markus and Nurius (1986), the concept of ‘possible selves’ refers to the self-knowledge that an individual possesses in relation to personal perceptions of both their potential and their future. Theoretically speaking, the notion of possible selves is grounded within a cognitive approach to understanding self-concept, whereby an individual’s beliefs, perceptions and judgements of themself are influenced by affective–cognitive structures (or schemas), which provide the coherence to individual self-relevant experiences (Markus and Wurf, 1987). In effect, schemas are created selectively, by drawing upon past experience, to present generalisations about the self and to provide the individual with the cognitive boundaries by which they may regulate expectations and/or individual behaviours (Markus and Nurius, 1986; Markus and Wurf, 1987). In this sense, the relationship between schemas and regulated expectations, presents a frame of reference for an individual to generate portrayals of their possible future self.

For Markus and Nurius (1986), possible selves provide the self-relevant form, meaning, organisation and direction for aspirations, motives, fears and threats, while at the same time establishing the causal link between self-concept and motivation. In this sense, possible selves are a collection of ideal selves, which represent what an individual hopes to become, could become or fears to become. Importantly, these representations are not restricted to a solitary possible self, but are often multiple in nature, thus leading to the expression of a broad array of possible selves. However, the breadth of possible selves is constrained by the individual’s sociocultural and historical context, along with their portrayals of other selves that are presented in the media and their immediate experience. Therefore, while possible selves derive from representations of the self in the past, and include representations of the self in the future, they are also a result of social comparison and how individual thoughts, feelings, characteristics and behaviours contrast with others (Markus and Nurius, 1986).

Given the complex and fluid nature of an individual’s sociocultural and comparative context, the construction of possible selves is not fixed, but constantly in flux, responding reflexively to accumulated personal experiences and social encounters (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Nevertheless, possible selves serve two main purposes. First, they have the potential to frame and guide behaviour towards general aspirations, motives and threats, thereby acting as incentives (positive or negative), and are often a catalyst for action, development or change. Second, they serve to provide meaning to current behaviours by presenting an evaluative and interpretive context for the ‘now self’. Consequently, for those engaged within, or at the margins of, criminal justice, the concept of possible selves provides a helpful framework via which to explore and analyse the process of desistance.

Theoretical articulations of the possible self are commonly applied within the literature on crime desistance (Kirkwood, 2023). In many studies, attention focuses on how the ‘feared’ self, or a self that the individual wishes to avoid, acts as a strong motivational factor within desistance behaviour (see Hunter and Farrall, 2018; Paternoster and Bushway, 2009). In contrast, Giordano et al. (2002) note how envisioning an appealing and conventional ‘replacement self’, which is shaped by exposure to a pro-social environment (e.g. a sport-based intervention), may provide the basis for the necessary cognitive transformation that can act as a precursor to desistence. Articulations of the ‘replacement self’ align cogently with a possible self that the individual hopes to or could become (Markus and Nurius, 1986), where the new identity provides a broader, all-encompassing personal construct which serves to organise and guide cognitions and behaviours (Giordano et al., 2002). Notably, Giordano et al. highlight the critical role of possible selves in acting as a ‘cognitive filter’ for decision making, which for chronic offenders is often impaired by prior experience and habits.

That said, many of these theoretical articulations assume that individuals who wish to desist are equipped with the requisite agency to act independently and make free choices about the selves they wish to become. In this view, only a lack of personal motivation and commitment acts as a barrier to the realisation of a ‘replacement self’ (King, 2012), an assumption that is often evident in rhetoric highlighting a perceived lack of aspiration as one of the prevailing invectives levelled at individuals engaged in criminal justice systems (Finlay et al., 2010; Yates et al., 2010). For King (2012), assumptions surrounding agency, and the associated motivation and personal commitment required to realise a preferred future self, is a clear oversight in analyses of possible selves and crime desistance. Instead, King points to a wealth of social, cultural or material barriers – in other words structural barriers – that constrain the choices, opportunities and possible selves that an individual may otherwise readily construct.

As noted above, when generating a future (replacement) self that an individual hopes to or could become, sociocultural influences, including the media and their immediate experience, significantly influence the repertoire of selves that are envisioned (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Mirroring the literature on aspiration, these influences guide the construction of future selves which may be classified as either ‘normal’ or ‘misaligned’ (Finlay et al., 2010; Yates et al., 2010). Accordingly, some individuals may aspire to comparatively modest (normal) future selves related to job stability or raising a family (Finlay et al., 2010), while others may express future selves which are redolent with definitions of the ‘misaligned’ aspiration (Yates et al., 2010), where the future self may appear overly optimistic, being inspired and influenced by media representations of an associated role model (Finlay et al., 2010). However, it is the more immediate structural constraints that are likely to inhibit the construction of the replacement self, where access to economic resources and cultural spaces that facilitate pathways towards change (Healy, 2010) are essential to enable the realisation of a possible self (King, 2012).

Previous research has noted that those who consistently face structural barriers are less likely to desist (see, for example, Burnett, 1992; Farrall, 2002; Farrall et al., 2011), which suggests that those who are excluded from the economic, social and cultural resources required to enable a future self that may lead to successful desistance, are at significant disadvantage (King, 2012; Morgan, 2016). As a case in point, Morgan (2016) reported how structural factors impacted perceived deficiencies in hope, self-efficacy and resilience among young people on the margins of criminal engagement, while also contributing to a lack of social ties to facilitate or accelerate progression towards preferred future selves. More specifically, Morgan found that an absence or limited presence of social ties to accelerate or capitalise on opportunities within education, employment or training diminished access to a network of people who could provide a metaphorical bridge to support the construction of a pro-social possible self. Similarly, King (2012) highlighted how social networks provide an essential conduit to opportunities which may be necessary for desistance to take place, but that where such networks are less pro-social (or anti-social) these opportunities are likely to be reduced. Clearly, and to echo King (2012), where structural conditions restrict the level of agency available to an individual to allow the creation of a pathway towards a preferred future self (as is the case with many ‘would-be desisters’), the transition towards this new self is likely to be more disjointed, consequently leading to non-linear transitions towards desistance.

Possible selves and liminality

Given the complexity and inherent challenges attached to constructing a possible self for those vulnerable to, or already engaged in, criminal justice contexts, the journey from the ‘margins’ to the ‘mainstream’ of society creates a state of flux and instability as the transition between current and possible self takes place. Conceptually, this state of instability draws parallels with Van Gennep’s (1960) notion of ‘liminality’, which he developed as part of his anthropological explorations into societal rites of passage and identity (re)construction (see Turner, 1967; Van Gennep, 1960). For Van Gennep (1960), rites of passage fall into three main categories: (1) rites of separation, (2) rites of transition and (3) rites of incorporation, which collectively act as a mechanism by which individuals undergo a process of change in relation to place, state or social position. Narrating this process further, Van Gennep (1960) argues that rites of separation (also referred to as preliminal rites) facilitate the removal of the individual from their previous social state or norm. At the same time, those concerned may need to perform certain rituals or undertake specific actions or behaviours to metaphorically depart their existing social state. In the case of an individual who is considering desistance, this may involve developing an openness towards the possibility of changing offending behaviours, or exposing themselves to events, opportunities or situations that are consistent with a migration towards desistance (Giordano et al., 2002; Kirkwood, 2023).

In the second stage, termed the liminal or transitory stage, the identity of the individual is neither ‘here nor there’, corresponding to the act of moving from one ‘territory’ to another (Van Gennep, 1960). This is a time of ambiguity, where those undergoing the rite are physically separated from their original setting or entity (i.e. their identity) but are not yet incorporated into the next. Building on the work of Van Gennep (1960), cultural anthropologist Victor Turner (1967) suggests that this ‘liminal’ stage can be described as an ‘interstructural’ state, in which those concerned are ‘betwixt and between’ socially constructed hierarchies and identities (see also Maruna and Farrall, 2004; Nugent and Schinkel, 2016); a time which holds potential for social and political change (see also, Horvath et al., 2015; Robinson et al., 2016). After the individual has passed through the transitory stage, the process concludes with the rite of incorporation or aggregation (post-liminal). This final stage of the process sees the individual being (re)incorporated into a new state, having undergone some form of transformational process. Theories of desistance (e.g. Farrall et al., 2011; Giordano et al., 2002; McNeill, 2016) often mirror conceptualisations of the post-liminal stage by highlighting how offenders begin to fashion an appealing conventional ‘replacement self’ and transform their views on deviant behaviour and criminal lifestyles (Kirkwood, 2023). In sum, liminality takes the individual outside of their normal cycle of lived experience, raising questions around self-identity and everyday social constructs via a series of ritual acts or events. In this liminal space, old ways of thinking are deconstructed and new ones emerge as the groundwork is laid for the occupation of a recalibrated and reconfigured social identity. Consequently, liminality can be viewed as a time of expectation, hope and transformation (Burnett and Maruna, 2004; Farrall et al., 2011), a feature that is arguably accentuated for young people in conflict with the law, where the process of adolescence presents similar challenges and opportunities (McGrath et al., 2021).

Many scholarly articulations and applications of liminality have resulted in predominantly negative connotations (Robinson et al., 2016), with Turner (1967) suggesting that liminality is a pervasive condition for specific groups or individuals. Indeed, Turner (1967) proposes that liminal entities possess common characteristics in that ‘they are persons or principles that: (1) fall in the interstices of social structure, (2) are on its margins, or (3) occupy its lowest rungs’ (p. 125). However, Beech (2011) has argued that in certain contexts, liminality need not be experienced in negative terms, especially when its various processes and practices entail a weaving together of three practices that enable the aggregation and (re)incorporation of the individual into the new social state or identity. Drawing parallels with the concept of the ‘redemption script’ (Maruna, 2016), these liminal practices involve an active, dialogic process of identity reconstruction, whereby both external and internal influences, and the interplay between the two, affects individual aggregation and identity change (Beech, 2011). The first of these liminal practices is experimentation, where versions of the self are ‘tried out’ through a dialogic orientation that is projected outwards, as the individual attempts ‘to claim or affirm a desired identity in order to influence how the self is regarded by others’ (Beech, 2011: 288). Second, and in contrast to experimentation, the individual may engage in the practice of recognition, where they react to an identity that is projected upon them by others. In this sense, identity reconstruction is influenced by an ‘outside-in’ dialogic orientation, involving epiphanies which offer a re-labelling of identity (Beech, 2011). The final liminal practice integrates both ‘outside-in’ and internalised dialogic orientations and involves a process of self-questioning alongside responding to external influences and perceptions in reconstructing identity (Beech, 2011). Termed reflection, this practice enables the individual to pause and ‘weigh up’ both internal and external influences to make decisions on whether to proceed with an identity change or remain within a liminal state (Robinson et al., 2016). Importantly, Beech (2011) argues that progressing to the rite of aggregation requires support from ‘appointed members of the (new) society’ (p. 299) and where such support is lacking, the liminal experience of ambiguity can become prolonged and not easily resolved. Re-invoking King (2012), support from pro-social networks is essential for desistance, but for many offenders these networks of support are absent, heightening the potential for liminality to be protracted. Clearly, the establishment of facilitative interpersonal relationships between those engaged in criminal justice systems and individuals who can support the transition into desistance appears critical to enabling less prolonged periods of liminality. Mentoring approaches are one way in which support might be provided to alleviate liminality and to promote the realisation of (pro-social) possible selves, and it is to a further consideration of this prospect that we now turn.

Mentoring and possible future selves

Mentoring has become a widely implemented and increasingly popular policy intervention to address the specific needs of individuals engaged within criminal justice settings and to support desistance programmes (Buck, 2017; Kirkwood, 2023; Tolland and Malloch, 2019). Mentoring, in this context, typically features the pairing of an appropriate adult (volunteer or otherwise) with a young person (mentee) with the intention of creating a positive and nurturing environment via which the latter will flourish (Albright et al., 2017). The reach and appeal of mentoring within desistance programmes is widespread (see Poon et al., 2021) and is supported by academic literature from a range of disciplines. For example, from a psychological perspective DuBois et al. (2011) have highlighted how mentoring with youth offenders can have a positive effect on attitudinal, psychological, social, behavioural and developmental outcomes. Similarly, Tolland and Malloch (2019) observed how mentoring provided an emotional and practical ‘safety net’ to support women who had recently left prison by supporting improved choice-making and facilitating their reintegration as ‘responsible’ citizens.

For Kirkwood (2023), mentoring may support the cognitive transformation that is required to motivate desistance by (1) enabling mentees to consider the possibility and value of desisting; (2) providing exposure to ‘hooks for change’, such as opportunities or situations, that support moves away from offending behaviour; (3) supporting the construction of a vision of the self that is both pro-social and consistent with moves towards desistance; and (4) facilitating reflection on a ‘new lifestyle’ and its incompatibility with offending. Clearly, the latter two points are closely connected with notions of positive future selves and traversing liminality as the key to desistance, especially when mentoring contributes to the mentees ‘openness to change’ and the mentor can model pro-social behaviour and provide a conduit to engagement with pro-social activities (Kirkwood, 2023).

Of course, recognition of the impact of high-quality models of mentoring among marginalised and vulnerable populations (especially young people) is nothing new (see Liao and Sánchez, 2019) and this has been emphasised further in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Van Dam et al., 2021). However, as Tolland and Malloch (2019) caution, the inclusion of mentoring as part of desistance interventions is too often focused on formal mentoring, where the approach adopted tends to accentuate the auditing and recording of events which support desistance in the short-term and provide the necessary ‘results’ to satisfy the demands of the criminal justice ‘marketplace’ (Buck, 2017). Often this concern for short-term, objective results arises at the expense of supporting the longer-term personal development of the individual concerned, which is the hallmark of sustainable desistance. One framework, which offers a potentially more sustainable approach to mentoring within desistance programmes and has proved particularly effective with young people facing potentially disempowering circumstances, is informal (or naturally occurring) mentoring. Contrary to more traditional mentoring arrangements where mentors are ‘formally’ assigned, informal mentoring allows young people to experience an element of control and autonomy over their choice of mentor, with mentors providing encouragement, support and role modelling (both emotional and practical) in non-hierarchical ways (see Meltzer et al., 2018; Parker and Larkin, 2023). Informal mentoring has been defined as the establishment of a positive relationship with a caring, non-parental adult/non-biological relation who may offer the necessary support to prompt pro-social development (Duron et al., 2020; Gowdy and Spencer, 2021; Prior and Glaser, 2006). Consequently, horizontal (rather than hierarchical) relationships between mentor and mentee are particularly evident, especially where specific vulnerabilities are apparent in the mentee (Parker and Larkin, 2023). Indeed, as Duron et al. (2020) note, informal mentoring is particularly pertinent for young people who lack the reliable presence of a caring adult and/or are vulnerable to problematic transitions into adulthood.

According to James et al. (2015), such mentoring relationships offer all the traditional benefits associated with formal mentorship (i.e. access to broader networks of personal support and accountability, and increased social capital) but are less reliant on hierarchical position. Indeed, self-nomination (i.e. the selection of a mentor by the mentee from their wider network), has been identified as a key component (see Spencer et al., 2016), where the organic formation of the mentoring relationship enables the bond between mentor and mentee to be stronger and more enduring as a result. The unique qualities required to compensate for past negative life-course events include sustained, close and meaningful relationships and approaches that provide encouragement, support and role modelling (emotional and practical) in non-hierarchical ways, all of which are characteristic of informal mentoring approaches (see Meltzer et al., 2018; Pryce, 2012).

The quality of mentoring provision (i.e. the closeness of the relationship between mentor and mentee) is especially critical where specific vulnerabilities are evident. For those in care or leaving care, for instance, authenticity, consistency of provision and longitudinal investment on the part of the mentor can serve to mitigate wider experiences of rejection and disappointment and aid the physical and mental health needs of the mentee (see Gowdy and Hogan, 2021). For Buck (2017), the mentor’s personal history is a critical factor in supporting desistance, especially in cases where the mentor and mentee share aspects of lived experience. More specifically, in such cases, shared experience can serve to circumvent the power dynamic which is commonly at the core of traditional mentoring relationships and which can act both as a catalyst for, but also as a deterrent to, growth (see Albright et al., 2017). For example, in adult–youth relational scenarios mentors are often positioned as agents of empowerment, especially in relation to notions of personal trajectory and success. However, many underestimate the power dynamic which underpins this position. Moreover, many misjudge the sense of lifestyle disparity which their presence brings; one which is often too ‘distant’ from the present circumstances of the mentee thereby ultimately portraying an ‘impossible’ future self. Instead, shared experience provides a foundation for ‘mimesis’, whereby the mentee can engage in a process of imitation and follow a narrative of an attainable future self that is provided by the mentor’s ‘template’ (Buck, 2017).

While conceptualisations vary regarding how to implement an informal mentoring approach, much of the literature reinforces the importance of mentors exhibiting a genuine desire to understand their mentees and respond with consistency, empathy and authenticity (Buck, 2017; Pryce, 2012; Spencer et al., 2018). Furthermore, evidence points to the importance of a longitudinal investment on the part of the mentor to mitigate against short-term interventions and aid emotional and cognitive development (see Parker and Larkin, 2023). However, a study by Buck (2018) revealed a more specific understanding of the essence of informal mentoring, identifying three core conditions – caring, listening and encouraging small steps – which are central to effective informal mentoring approaches and speak directly of the challenges present when navigating liminal spaces (Beech, 2011). For Buck (2018), caring reinforces the importance of building relationships based upon a deep understanding of the mentee, their motives, preferences and hopes, to foster a personal connection which builds trust and self-esteem. With trust established, caring allows mentor and mentee to engage in open dialogue, wherein the mentee’s voice, experiences and judgements become central, enabling the mentee to become ‘author [and] agent, rather than a problem to be changed’ (Buck, 2018: 198). Along similar lines, listening is essential to ensuring that the mentoring relationship is authentic and emphasises a key point of difference between formal and informal mentoring approaches. As Buck (2018) notes, listening enables the mentee to unburden themselves of problems, and initiate a process of seeing themselves differently and as capable of becoming agents for their own self-direction towards desistance. This leads cogently towards the final core condition – encouraging small steps – which accentuates the potential of informal mentoring to promote and celebrate successful steps (however small) along the pathway to desistance. For Buck (2018), encouraging small steps presents the mentee with hope, but also recognises that desistance is typically not a linear process, involving incremental progression, lapses and relapses. However, a core condition of effective informal mentoring is that it normalises both progress and regress, accepting that desistance objectives are conquerable with consistent and longitudinal mentor support (Buck, 2018).

While sport-based criminal justice programmes should not be considered as a panacea for individual desistance (see Coalter, 2015; Jump, 2020; Morgan and Parker, 2023), the inclusion of mentoring within such programmes has often been perceived by funders, policymakers and programme designers as providing a low-cost mechanism to divert young people away from deviant behaviours, whether offered within the secure estate or within community settings (Parker et al., 2014; Parker and Larkin, 2023). Echoing the wider mentoring literature, sport-based programmes have been shown to provide fertile ground upon which quality mentoring relationships can be developed (Spaaij and Jeanes, 2013). For example, Morgan and Parker (2017) argue that critical to successful mentoring within this context is the generation of positive interpersonal relationships between young people and programme staff and that when successful, these relationships have the potential to enhance both the sporting and wider personal experiences of those concerned.

The underlying philosophy behind these interactions differs significantly from traditional forms of mentoring where mentors are often someone who is relatively unfamiliar with (and disconnected from) the personal and social circumstances of the mentee (see Coalter, 2015). In this alternative model, ‘shared experience’ often provides the bedrock upon which trusting relationships can develop and where regularity, frequency and consistency (of provision) are paramount (see also Parker et al., 2018; Parker and Larkin, 2023). For example, a study by Parker et al. (2014), which reported the findings of a 12-week sport-based intervention conducted within a young offenders institution in the United Kingdom, found that life-skills mentoring (as part of a wider set of pre-release resettlement support activities) contributed to a number of positive physical, social and psychological benefits, including improved physical fitness, increased self-esteem and a more positive outlook on life in preparation for reintegration into society. Similarly, Morgan and Parker (2017) observed how relationships between staff and youth participants of a community sport-based programme in the United Kingdom enabled a sense of recognition and belonging in young people which made them feel accepted, socially valued and legitimate, to enhance feelings of self-worth and social assimilation. A more recent study by Parker and Larkin (2023) highlighted how a sport-based programme that integrated informal mentoring within its provision had several beneficial impacts on its participants. Respondents noted how mentoring had helped to support personal development, especially in relation to enhancing self-confidence and resilience, but also in developing broader transferable skills, such as communication, which increased employability and created pathways into work. Perhaps more impactful was the desire of mentees to become mentors themselves, by becoming advocates on social issues of personal interest and ‘giving back’ by acting as a mentor for others who followed them on to the programme (Parker and Larkin, 2023).

Nevertheless, the core conditions of informal mentoring often present something of a contrast to the formal mentoring approaches which are more commonly found within criminal justice contexts. In part, this is due to the pervasive evidence-based, technocratic culture of criminal justice interventions which demand tangible results, such as reductions in re-offending (Case, 2021), and the resulting impersonal, detached approach to desistance, which typically pathologizes ‘breaches’ of court orders, and personal lapses and mistakes (Buck, 2017). However, a strengths-based approach to mentoring, such as that proposed by informal mentoring, that is ‘done alongside’ (rather than ‘done to’) the individual, and which captures the essence of the person they wish to become (rather than the person they are), presents a clear alternative to address liminality and promote personal change towards a replacement or preferred future self. Of course, in one sense, and by definition, mentoring lends itself to a deficit mindset, often being framed as a mechanism via which a person of maturity and good standing might pass on or impart wisdom, knowledge, advice and guidance to one not so well-informed or fortunate. Yet there is a fine line here between notions of ‘helping’ and ‘assisting’ and an inclination to view a mentee as a ‘project’ or someone to ‘fix’, the latter bringing with it clear inferences towards individual deficit.

Drawing upon ideas derived from Community Psychology and Positive Youth Development (PYD), Liang et al. (2013) propose a move towards social transformative objectives for youth mentoring. This approach is a reaction against deficit models of intervention and works from the premise that all young people have assets and the capacity to change. Here the focus is on building upon the strengths of the young mentee with the mentor aiming to identify existing qualities. PYD mentoring also encompasses a recognition of ‘shared strengths’ (or developmental assets) so that there is mutual benefit, for example, with other young people in the mentee’s community. By improving these natural competencies, this approach aims to prepare young people to be active participants in civil society. In addition, available evidence indicates that activities that are perceived to be pro-social (such as sport and physical activity) provide a meaningful and engaging site for informal mentoring to flourish and its core conditions to be enacted (Kirkwood, 2023). Therefore, further evidence is required to demonstrate specifically how informal mentoring approaches that are contained as part of sport-based interventions can address liminality and support the construction of a preferred (alternative) future self. Against this contextual backdrop, the final section of the article sets out a series of ideas that we suggest could form a useful research agenda for building the evidence base pertaining to this relationship.

Sport, criminal justice interventions and possible future selves: Towards a research agenda

In the conclusion to their edited volume on the use of sport-based interventions within criminal justice settings, Morgan and Parker (2023) argue that the cultivation of interpersonal relationships is a key contributor to the effectiveness of programme delivery and that the importance of relationships between the recipients of sport-based programmes and those who lead and facilitate them has been widely observed as a critical mechanism to achieve positive developmental outcomes (see also Morgan et al., 2021; Morgan and Parker, 2017; Spaaij and Jeanes, 2013). They go on to argue that because such relationships often perform a vital function in encouraging sustained engagement with sport-based interventions and provide a platform, built on trust and mutual respect, from which broader developmental activity is based, further research that provides more in-depth examinations of this pivotal aspect of sport-based interventions is essential.

A possible starting point here would be to generate more detailed impressions of the work of programme staff and identify the elements of their day-to-day practice or approach that enables the types of engagement which lead to participants seeking alternative pathways to crime. From a theoretical perspective, the tenets of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1996) have been frequently proposed as possessing the intellectual capacity to inform effective sport-for-development programmes with marginalised populations (see Giulianotti et al., 2019), including those vulnerable to crime engagement (Morgan et al., 2021; Morgan and Parker, 2022). In sum, the importance of relationships is central, where the pedagogical relationship is horizontal (rather than hierarchical) in nature and constructed to emphasise dialogue which attunes to the themes and conditions that are visible in the lives of participants (Spaaij and Jeanes, 2013). For Morgan and Parker (2023), gleaning insights into how practitioners’ pedagogical approaches exhibit aspects of critical pedagogy might assist in unearthing the alchemy of interpersonal relationships.

As we have seen, a further potential avenue of theoretical direction is to borrow from the vast literature which has examined mentoring relationships. As Prior and Glaser (2006) note, for vulnerable groups, it is often the availability of a mentor that can provide critical support during times of distress, which is pivotal in developing functional and secure interpersonal relationships. Yet for those engaged in the criminal justice system, the absence of a reliable, caring mentor to provide a positive stable relationship is common (Duron et al., 2020). As noted, research on informal mentoring relationships has consistently reported their value in supporting youth populations that have become engaged in the criminal justice system (Duron et al., 2020) and those transitioning out of the care system (Gowdy and Hogan, 2021). Furthermore, research indicates how informal mentoring has proved beneficial in enabling socioeconomic mobility and as a contributing factor to positive educational and vocational outcomes in young people (Duron et al., 2020; Gowdy and Hogan, 2021). However, the examination of informal mentoring within the sport and criminal justice setting is nascent.

Central to the practice of informal mentoring is the potential to raise mentees awareness of choice, responsibility and personal commitment to individual improvement (Duron et al., 2020), which aligns cogently with the philosophy of a strengths-based approach. It is clear from the related literature that the mentoring of young people is a growing area of interest especially around marginalised and disadvantaged youth. It is also clear that similar concepts and ideas are being explored by researchers from different theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds and that findings often cohere across these schools of thought. What appears to have been absent to date, however, is the intention to bring these scholarly insights together and to explore the potential benefits of a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to mentoring per se (see Raithelhuber, 2024). It is also noticeable that much of the literature in this area derives from the Global North and is heavily influenced by Western perspectives. This inevitably serves to marginalise wider discussions of mentoring practice and fails to consider the nuanced diversity of mentoring relationships across cultures (see, for example, Hapeta et al., 2023). Hence, there is an urgent need to broaden debate in this area and to facilitate the inclusion of a wider evidence base.

A final group of relational approaches, which again cohere with a strengths-based perspective, are trauma-aware (or trauma-informed) pedagogies. These have become increasingly prominent in their application within sport, physical activity and criminal justice programmes (Meek, 2018), and draw heavily on the Adverse Childhood Experiences agenda (see Parker and Larkin, 2023). As Quarmby et al. (2021) explain, trauma-aware pedagogies are underpinned by four overarching assumptions (4 R’s) which provide the foundation for this pedagogical approach. First, is a realisation that individual behaviour stems from and is conditioned by the experiences of trauma. Second, is the necessity for facilitators to recognise the signs of trauma. The third assumption is that the educational/sport-based programme is responsive to understandings of trauma, by utilising suitably qualified staff and by providing physically and psychologically safe environments. Finally, efforts should be made to resist re-traumatization and enable healing. While space does not permit a more detailed articulation of trauma-aware pedagogies, Quarmby et al. (2021) propose five principles that may inform trauma-aware practice: (1) ensuring the safety and well-being of participants, (2) establishing routines and structures with programme delivery, (3) developing and sustaining positive relationships that foster a sense of belonging, (4) facilitating and responding to youth voice and (5) promoting strengths and self-belief. Not only do these principles correspond to previous research on interpersonal relationships within sport-based interventions (e.g. Morgan and Parker, 2017; Spaaij and Jeanes, 2013), but they may also provide direction for further theoretical exploration of this relational pedagogy within programmes that utilise sport to facilitate desistance.

Conclusion

The aim of this article has been to explore how sport-based interventions might be used within criminal justice settings to accommodate the individual aspirations and imagined ‘possible future selves’ of their participants. In turn, the article has sought to uncover how informal mentoring approaches might be utilised within these contexts to facilitate the construction of possible selves amid the various challenges and barriers in play.

Drawing on the related literature, our discussion has focused on the structural constraints that are likely to inhibit the construction of possible selves for those engaged in the criminal justice system, especially access to economic, cultural and social resources that typically facilitate pathways to change. We have identified that those who are consistently excluded from, or fail to gain access to, these resources are likely to experience disjointed and disrupted transitions towards desistance particularly where access to pro-social networks is limited. Moreover, we have identified how structural factors may impact perceived deficiencies in hope, self-efficacy and resilience among young people on the margins of criminal justice.

In light of these challenges and barriers, we have attempted to conceptualise the construction of possible selves within the context of previous theoretical offerings around the notion of liminality. Building on the work of Van Gennep (1960), Turner (1967) and Kirkwood (2023), we have highlighted how experiences of liminality may provide space for offenders to rethink their identity and their views about deviant behaviour and criminal lifestyles. In this sense, liminality has the potential to break the normal routines of lived experience, and in so doing allows questions to be raised around self-identity and everyday social constructs by way of a series of ritual acts or events. We have argued that in this liminal space, there is potential for a recalibrated and reconfigured social identity to emerge which aligns more readily with a pro-social outlook.

Our discussion also points to practical ways in which the construction of possible future selves might be facilitated. We have acknowledged the ways in which informal mentoring can be used within the context of sport-based interventions to engage young people via the establishment of safe and trusting relationships. We have argued that such relationships can act as a catalyst for the individual empowerment of young people and a point of ‘common ground’ and/or ‘shared experience’ (see also Albright et al., 2017). In contrast to the deficit-focused approaches traditionally adopted within criminal justice settings, we have put forward strengths-based, informal mentoring as an effective way to support disadvantaged young people in the reconfiguration of their identities.

Alongside all of this, we acknowledge that there are various limitations to the arguments that we are making. First, we recognise that much of what we propose is based on the assumption that young people in criminal justice settings necessarily wish to reflect upon and change their lifestyle circumstances. This is clearly not the case. Second, a shortcoming of sport-based interventions is that they often function around a romanticization of the role and impact of sport and physical activity on the lives of disadvantage youth. Indeed, some have argued that claims surrounding the transformative potential of sport have been exaggerated (see Coalter, 2015; Hartmann and Kwauk, 2011). In this sense, it is generally accepted that the provision of such activities is not enough to prevent the occurrence of social problems but that such interventions can be used both in community and correctional settings to generate positive change in young people to the extent that they may even alleviate criminal and/or anti-social behaviour (see Parker et al., 2018). By the same token, we recognise that, in and of itself, sport is not sufficient to assist young people, but that in addition, there is need for robust, strategic, long-term programmes to support youth education and development.

It could be argued, of course, that all life transitions involve rites of passage. Many are hidden and few have been explored academically. Hence, irrespective of the perceived validity of the suggestions that we have put forward, we believe that it is incumbent upon social scientists to investigate, analyse and articulate these processes more fully, and to provide accessible explanations of how they operate in everyday life. Only by doing this can we hope to help those undergoing such processes make sense of their experiences. This article simply represents the first step in our attempts to piece together the processes surrounding the construction of possible future selves for those in criminal justice settings by outlining the potential connections between sport-based interventions, liminality and informal mentoring.