The good, the bad, and the ugly: A qualitative secondary analysis into the impact of doping and anti-doping on clean elite athletes in five European countries
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] A. Petróczi,et al. The role of personal commitment to integrity in clean sport and anti-doping , 2022, Performance Enhancement & Health.
[2] A. Petróczi,et al. The Meaning of “Clean” in Anti-doping Education and Decision Making: Moving Toward Integrity and Conceptual Clarity , 2022, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living.
[3] B. Strauss,et al. The role of comprehensive education in anti-doping policy legitimacy and support among clean athletes , 2022, Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
[4] W. Schobersberger,et al. The status quo before the International Standard for Education: Elite adolescent athletes’ perceptions of anti-doping education , 2021, Performance Enhancement & Health.
[5] Francesca Cavallerio. Creative Nonfiction in Sport and Exercise Research , 2021 .
[6] A. Petróczi,et al. Racing Clean in a Tainted World: A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences and Views of Clean British Elite Distance Runners on Doping and Anti-Doping , 2021, Frontiers in Psychology.
[7] Y. Pitsiladis,et al. Analysis of Anti-Doping Rule Violations That Have Impacted Medal Results at the Summer Olympic Games 1968–2012 , 2021, Sports Medicine.
[8] A. Petróczi,et al. Co-creating a social science research agenda for clean sport: An international Delphi study. , 2021, The International journal on drug policy.
[9] Gleaves. A Moral Examination of the Therapeutic Use Exemption in Anti-Doping , 2021 .
[10] A. Petróczi,et al. 'Clean athlete status' cannot be certified: Calling for caution, evidence and transparency in 'alternative' anti-doping systems. , 2020, The International journal on drug policy.
[11] B. Houlihan,et al. Balancing mission creep, means, effectiveness and legitimacy at the World Anti-Doping Agency , 2020 .
[12] A. Petróczi,et al. Understanding and building clean(er) sport together: Community-based participatory research with elite athletes and anti-doping organisations from five European countries , 2020, Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
[13] B. Steijn,et al. Red Tape, Organizational Performance, and Employee Outcomes: Meta‐analysis, Meta‐regression, and Research Agenda , 2020 .
[14] Virginia Braun,et al. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? , 2020, Qualitative Research in Psychology.
[15] J. R. Woolf,et al. An examination of anti-doping education initiatives from an educational perspective: Insights and recommendations for improved educational design , 2020 .
[16] A. Petróczi,et al. "Doing What Is Right and Doing It Right": A Mapping Review of Athletes' Perception of Anti-Doping Legitimacy. , 2020, The International journal on drug policy.
[17] C. Ring,et al. An evaluation of UK athletics’ clean sport programme in preventing doping in junior elite athletes , 2020 .
[18] W. Schobersberger,et al. An evaluation of prevention initiatives by 53 national anti-doping organizations: Achievements and limitations , 2019, Journal of sport and health science.
[19] SAGE Research Methods Foundations , 2020 .
[20] R. Leenes,et al. Looking at the Anti-Doping Regime Through a Human Rights Lens , 2020 .
[21] S. Backhouse,et al. “The process isn’t a case of report it and stop”: Athletes’ lived experience of whistleblowing on doping in sport , 2019 .
[22] Nader Ahmadi,et al. Limitations and duties: elite athletes’ perceptions of compliance with anti-doping rules , 2019, Sport in Society.
[23] Nader Ahmadi,et al. From fighting the bad to protecting the good: Legitimation strategies in WADA’s athlete guides , 2019, Performance Enhancement & Health.
[24] Jeffrey G. Caron,et al. Thinking through and designing qualitative research studies: a focused mapping review of 30 years of qualitative research in sport psychology , 2019, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
[25] Fabian Hattke,et al. Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape , 2019, Public Administration Review.
[26] L. Duncan,et al. A Qualitative Exploration of Athletes' Past Experiences With Doping Prevention Education , 2019 .
[27] S. Backhouse,et al. Anti-doping Policy, Therapeutic Use Exemption and Medication Use in Athletes with Asthma: A Narrative Review and Critical Appraisal of Current Regulations , 2019, Sports Medicine.
[28] Sigmund Loland,et al. The ‘spirit of sport’, WADAs code review, and the search for an overlapping consensus , 2019, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
[29] John Gleaves,et al. Athletes’ perspectives on WADA and the code: a review and analysis , 2019, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
[30] M. Englar-Carlson,et al. Moral Communities in Anti-Doping Policy: A Response to Bowers and Paternoster , 2019 .
[31] Nicole Ruggiano,et al. Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? , 2019, Qualitative social work : QSW : research and practice.
[32] Stacie Gray,et al. Achieving compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code: learning from the implementation of another international agreement , 2018, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
[33] B. Houlihan,et al. Legitimacy driven change at the World Anti-Doping Agency , 2019, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
[34] B. Houlihan,et al. The effectiveness of the World Anti-Doping Agency: developing a framework for analysis , 2018, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.
[35] B. Strauss,et al. Perception of the Current Anti-doping Regime – A Quantitative Study Among German Top-Level Cyclists and Track and Field Athletes , 2018, Front. Psychol..
[36] P. Dimeo,et al. Perceptions of legitimacy, attitudes and buy-in among athlete groups: a cross-national qualitative investigation providing practical solutions , 2018 .
[37] X. Estivill,et al. Geolocalisation of athletes for out-of-competition drug testing: ethical considerations. Position statement by the WADA Ethics Panel , 2018, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
[38] Brett Smith. Generalizability in qualitative research: misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences , 2018 .
[39] C. Griffiths,et al. Tackling doping in sport: a call to take action on the dopogenic environment , 2017, British Journal of Sports Medicine.
[40] K. McGannon,et al. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology , 2017 .
[41] Marie Overbye. Deterrence by risk of detection? An inquiry into how elite athletes perceive the deterrent effect of the doping testing regime in their sport , 2017 .
[42] Simon Robinson,et al. Integrity and the corruption debate in sport: where is the integrity? , 2017 .
[43] A. Petróczi,et al. Can We Better Integrate the Role of Anti-Doping in Sports and Society? A Psychological Approach to Contemporary Value-Based Prevention. , 2017, Medicine and sport science.
[44] Nader Ahmadi,et al. Contexts and conditions for a level playing field: Elite athletes’ perspectives on anti-doping in practice , 2016 .
[45] M. Englar-Carlson,et al. What about the clean athletes? The need for positive psychology in anti-doping research , 2016 .
[46] Nader Ahmadi,et al. Anti-doping and legitimacy: an international survey of elite athletes’ perceptions , 2016 .
[47] D. Carless,et al. “The ripples are big”: Storying the impact of doping in sport beyond the sanctioned athlete , 2016 .
[48] Marie Overbye. Doping control in sport: An investigation of how elite athletes perceive and trust the functioning of the doping testing system in their sport , 2016 .
[49] T. Tyler. Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority : Motivating Compliance , Cooperation and Engagement , 2016 .
[50] A. Elbe,et al. Athletes' perceptions of anti-doping sanctions: the ban from sport versus social, financial and self-imposed sanctions , 2015 .
[51] Ulrik Wagner,et al. Experiences, attitudes and trust: an inquiry into elite athletes’ perception of the whereabouts reporting system , 2014 .
[52] D. Collins,et al. Why athletes say no to doping: A qualitative exploration of the reasons underpinning athletes’ decision not to dope , 2014 .
[53] I. van Hilvoorde,et al. Doping control, providing whereabouts and the importance of privacy for elite athletes. , 2014, The International journal on drug policy.
[54] T. Tyler,et al. Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation and Engagement , 2014 .
[55] A. Petróczi. The doping mindset—Part I: Implications of the Functional Use Theory on mental representations of doping , 2013 .
[56] M. McNamee,et al. Anti-doping, purported rights to privacy and WADA's whereabouts requirements: A legal analysis , 2013 .
[57] T. Tyler,et al. Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions , 2012 .
[58] Brett Smith,et al. Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action , 2009 .
[59] J. Heaton. Secondary analysis of qualitative data: an overview , 2008 .
[60] V. Braun,et al. Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .
[61] J. Heaton. Reworking Qualitative Data , 2004 .
[62] Barry Bozeman,et al. Bureaucracy and Red Tape , 1999 .
[63] V Szabo,et al. Secondary analysis of qualitative data. , 1997, ANS. Advances in nursing science.
[64] M. Crozier. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon , 1964 .
[65] Robert K. Merton,et al. Bureaucratic Structure and Personality , 1940 .