Economic consequences when sport research is premised on the “explanatory power” of popular theories: The case of the ‘Free Ride Hypothesis’ for developing countries and African females Presenter: Prof. Simeon Davies Dept of Sport Management, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa:
[email protected] SASReCon 2012 November 30 – December 1 2012
University of Pretoria)
Preamble and the National Sport Plan • This presentation seeks to highlight some guiding research principles for the NSP • Firstly that we should be wary of inductive research designs • Secondly to integrate more critical economic assessments in our research • And thirdly to avoid succumbing to arguments premised on cultural relativism that result in the continued marginalization and exploitation of vulnerable people.
Introduction • This presentation focuses on a comprehensive research project by two sport research departments from the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa and the University of Abertay, Scotland. • The study investigated the effects of head loading and back loading on African Xhosa females.
Head load carriage • For a variety of reasons (historical, economic and practical) relatively heavy loads are carried on the head in much of the developing world. In particular, women across Africa regularly employ some form of head load carriage, most often to transport essential items such as water and firewood.
• In Africa carrying heavy loads are invariably performed by the most vulnerable members of society namely women, girls and children.
Health concerns… • There are concerns that excessive head loading may have negative health implications for African females (First International African Conference on Gender, Transport and Development 2006).
Economic concerns • Thus the most vulnerable people in developing societies, namely women and girls (as head loading is a predominant female task) are habitually exposed to a mode of load carrying that may have negative implications for their health, meaning time away from work, possibly burdening the health systems..and also reinforcing a menial expectation of women, thus denying them opportunities for educational and skill development and capacitation.
“Free ride hypothesis” • The study was initiated because of skepticism surrounding the bold assertions made by Maloiy and associates regarding the mechanical efficiency of African females carrying loads on their heads. Briefly stated, research published by *Maloiy et al in the journal Nature (1986) contended that African females could carry up to 20% of their body mass on their heads without incurring any additional energy expenditure. • This became known as the “Free ride hypothesis” •
*Maloiy et al (1986). Energetic costs of carrying loads: have African women discovered an economic way? Nature, 319, 668–669..
Aligned research • Following the profound assertions made by Maloiy in 1986 there appears to be an absence of research that sought to systematically test the generalisability of the free ride hypothesis. • Rather the subsequent literature to a large extent tried to explain the phenomenon usually referred to as the “Free ride hypothesis” and therefore appears to have adopted a predominantly inductive research approach, aimed at verifying the claims of Maloiy et al. 1986
Contradictory findings.. • The data generated from these earlier studies is contradictory and confounded by very small sample sizes. On the one hand Maloiy et al (1986), Charteris et al (1989a,b), and Nag and Sen (1978) have all presented data, based on small samples of 4-6 participants, suggesting that head-loading is an extremely efficient method of load carriage whilst on the other hand Datta and Ramanathan (1971) and Das and Saha (1966) have argued, based on samples of 6 and 7 participants, that it is less efficient than back-loading.
Karl Popper • Thus, the research that was conducted following the presumption of the “Free ride hypothesis”, appear to have fallen victim to what Popper referred to as the “explanatory power” of popular theories. Popper highlights that the customary acceptance of a theory is not unusual for persons, particularly those prone to inductive research paradigms, where verification of the theory is the Objective…. •
Popper K (1963). Science: Conjectures and Refutations.
Recent research: Lloyd et al. (2010 & 2011) • The present study was geared towards a research design that would test a number of hypotheses related to head and back loading with sufficiently large group samples of participants to allow for reasonable statistical analysis, and a more acceptable degree of generisability to larger populations. • Importantly the present integrated research project did not set out to verify the free ride hypothesis; rather the research was aimed at testing and possibly refuting the “Free ride hypothesis”.
Study aim(s) • The integrated research project investigated whether head loading had an effect on: • Anthropometry, skeletal architecture and bone density, • Metabolic expenditure, • Electrical activity in muscles, • Biomechanics, • Perceptions of effort, pain and discomfort.
Loads • Loads of 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% and 70% of body mass or until pain and discomfort caused cessation of the session.
Refutation • The research project sought to test the “Free ride hypothesis” in African women. The mean data presented and its attendant interpretations provide no support for such a phenomenon, suggesting that, on the whole, both head-loading and back-loading are associated with a similar increase in energy expenditure. • It may be argued that the studies that followed Maloiy et al 1986, were characterized by an inductive research approach, and as a consequence appear to have perpetuated the ‘free-ride hypothesis’.
Concluding comments.. • The presentation asserts that back-loading has certain important advantages over head-loading. • Most importantly it is possible to carry greater loads on the back than on the head. • Head-loading is characterized by significant neck pain and long term habituation does not seem to provide protection against this.
• It is suggested that there is a need for further research into viable alternatives to head-loading for rural dwelling African women, because the present expected method of carrying loads is painful, limits the total load that can be carried, and appears to be less metabolically efficient than back loading.
Conclusions • Also, it is questionable that an inefficient mode of transporting goods such as head loading is beneficial to significant economic development, and that the social and cultural expectation that women are expected to habitually carry out such tasks may exclude them from education and skills programmes that would capacitate them to make more meaningful contributions to the economy.
Head load Articles published in 2010-11 •
• • •
• •
Lloyd, R., Hind, K., Carroll, S., Truscott, J., Parr, B., Davies, S. and Cooke, C. (2010). “A preliminary investigation of load-carrying on the head and bone mineral density in premenopausal, black African women” Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism. Vol 28 (March 2010): 185 – 190. Lloyd, R., Hind, K., Carroll, S., Truscott, J., Parr, B., Davies, S. and Cooke, C (2010). Subjective perceptions of load carriage on the head and back in Xhosa women. Applied Ergonomics, 41 (2010): 522-529. Lloyd, R., Hind, K., Carroll, S., Truscott, J., Parr, B., Davies, S. and Cooke, C (2010). "No 'Free Ride' for African women". South African Journal of Science, Vol 106, No (3/4): 1-5. Lloyd, R., Hind, K., Carroll, S., Truscott, J., Parr, B., Davies, S. and Cooke, C (2010). A comparison of the physiological consequences of head-loading and back-loading for African and European women. European Journal of Applied Physiology. Jul 2010. Vol. 109, Iss. 4; p. 607 – 616. Lloyd, R., Hind, K., Parr, B., Davies, S., Cooke, C (2010). The Extra Load Index as a method for comparing the relative economy of load carriage systems. Ergonomics, Volume 53 Issue 12: p. 1500 – 1504. Lloyd R, Parr B, Davies SEH, Cooke C (2011). A kinetic comparison of backloading and head-loading in Xhosa women. Ergonomics, 54(4): 380 – 391. Contact:
[email protected]
