A Relational Turn for Recreation
Written by: Dr. Jackie Oncescu
Acknowledgements
I want to acknowledge that this work was carried out on the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqey, and Passamaquoddy peoples.
The “Treaties of Peace and Friendship” were signed in 1725 and 1726 between the British Crown and the Wabanaki; however, these treaties did not deal with the surrender of lands and resources or shift the “ownership” to the crown. Instead, they established rules for an ongoing relationship between nations.
Recognizing the land is a way to raise awareness of the Indigenous presence and land rights in all facets of life. It also allows us to acknowledge the history of colonialism and the need for change in settler colonial societies. It is crucial to understand the struggle against the systems of oppression that have dispossessed Indigenous peoples of their lands and denied their rights to self-determination and to honour that history as we continue to work toward reconciliation.
This work would not have been possible without the provincial, regional, and local sport, recreation, and leisure providers, community allied stakeholders, and equity-owed residents who shared their time, knowledge, stories, and experiences with me. I must also extend a special thanks to the System Shifters, who provided and continue to provide invaluable insights into their communities and grounded this project's research and design processes. This work would also not be possible without the fantastic team at All In Agency Innovation and Research—your team’s compassion, design expertise, and dedication were critical to this project.
Finally, I’m grateful to the Economic and Social Inclusion Corporation (ESIC) and the Sport and Recreation Branch of the Department of Tourism, Heritage and Culture (THC) for funding an incredibly important project for the well-being of equity-owed residents.
Dedication: for Kyle Harrington (1992-2023) – father, husband, volunteer, cultural teacher, community advocate, and proud member of Ugpi’Ganjig First Nation
Kyle was an original member of this project, who profoundly impacted me and the Reimagining Access to Sport, Recreation and Leisure (RASRL) project.
Kyle’s kind heart, compassion, and creativity shined through in this project's early stages and helped shape the System Shifters' inception and evolution. His concerns for his community were always front and centre, as he offered creative and compassionate ideas that stretched our team to believe in better.
I will always cherish Kyle’s compassionate and caring energy, holding it close to my heart as our team carries his legacy forward. Thank you, Kyle, for being the soulful reminder of the profound importance of kindness, compassion, and dignity for all.
I hope we can accomplish what you dreamed would be possible for our communities. Thank you for continuing to guide us.
Wela’lin.
A Relational Turn for Recreation
I was recently introduced to Michael Taussig's concept of 'pilgrimage as a method’ [1], which he describes as a way of hearing official and unofficial voices, a mode of inquiry that allows us to witness and absorb, rather than explain—and this resonated with me. This concept was described by Hillary Cottam, who has found this concept helpful in her work (Radical Help [2]) and has me reflecting on my pilgrimage—being in the community, observing and building relationships with equity-owed residents and families and recreation and allied community service providers in sports and leisure as we collectively forge new ways of being together to do the work differently.
It is important to those who read this document that you know who I am and the biases that inform my work. I’m a white, female, cisgender academic and researcher who has never experienced significant forms of oppression or poverty, which is the context in which most of my work is conducted. I grew up on a farm in rural Saskatchewan (SK), playing all the sports, and was raised in a middle-class farm family with my mom, dad, and younger brother. For me, recreation and sports created several benefits that buffered the challenges of being raised in rural SK. As a result, I deeply value the potential for recreation and sport to cultivate a sense of belonging to place and community while also recognizing the significant inequities of the systems in which these activities are designed and delivered, which are at the core of my career’s work.
Working through and in relationships with equity-owed residents, service providers, and communities has been an approach that has followed me in most, if not all, of my projects in community recreation across Canada. Witnessing the recreation sector's tireless efforts to address critical social challenges—such as social isolation, physical inactivity, community safety, poverty, truth and reconciliation, access, racism, active transportation, and immigration—is both inspiring and disheartening. Despite their significant contributions, many providers feel defeated, as their work is rarely regarded as 'essential' compared to other municipal services and investments. I've also witnessed equity-owed residents and families feeling defeated as they are treated as second-class citizens because they are not economically contributing to society in ways that "others" assume they should be, making them feel less deserving of the right to health and well-being because they haven't "earned" it.
For me, health is essential for all and created in and with the community. The recreation sector and its allied community sector partners design, deliver, and facilitate participation in physical activity, recreation, sports, outdoor activities, and arts and culture. These health-producing ecosystems promote well-being, reduce chronic disease risk, and foster resilient, safe, sustainable, and inclusive communities. They are essential in improving health outcomes and quality of life for individuals and communities across Canada.
As the recreation sector strives to build communities where we can live, work, and play, its workforce is slowly burning out—if they haven’t already. They face relentless budget cuts, the constant need to justify their value, and the exhausting pursuit of fragmented grant funding, all while coordinating key community partners and rallying a stretched-thin volunteer sector to carry out this vital work. Yet, they rarely have the time or sustainable resources to reimagine their approach. Instead, they remain tethered to political ideologies prioritizing reactive, efficiency-driven mindsets and transactional service delivery models rooted in consumption, keeping many at arm’s length from the public they aim to serve. While some in the sector have bridged this gap, offering innovative and relational solutions that address the pressing social challenges faced by equity-owed communities, many continue to struggle to implement the transformative change they know is urgently needed.
The recreation sector and its allied partners will continue to struggle for recognition as essential pillars of Canadian society if they persist within an outdated delivery system ill-suited to address today’s pressing social challenges. Canada’s social problems cannot be resolved through efficiencies, individualization, privatization, or transactional service models that condition access to services on a perception of having 'earned' them.
This story of the recreation sector is not new, but it is becoming increasingly exhausting as they support the social issues facing communities today. If we are not careful, we risk losing this essential workforce unless we shift the system to allow for more radical care to emerge.
A turn towards relational welfare in recreation. Relational welfare is not new; it was introduced by Geoff Mulgan, who wrote about a relational welfare state over a decade ago [3]. In her book Radical Help [4], Hilary Cottam explored how we must move away from transactional models of state-delivered welfare services and focus on helping each other and building strong relationships. At the core, their arguments suggest that current government systems—designed for the 20th-century industrial era and rooted in mass production, hierarchical structures, and command-and-control approaches—are ill-suited for the social challenges of the 21st century. Adding to this, the influence of neoliberalism, with its focus on privatization, individualization, and efficiency, has further limited the capacity of government regimes to address today’s complex societal needs. Mulgan and Cottam advocate for a transformative shift in welfare systems, focusing on relational rather than transactional approaches.
Relational welfare is described as a 'radical change' in which relational bonds between human beings should serve as a starting point for promoting health and well-being in the 21st century—revolutionizing the relationship between people (i.e., the public) and the welfare state (i.e., the public sector).
Building on this concept, Von Heimburg and Ness [5] proposed a definition of relational welfare that builds in social justice:
“Relational welfare is a human-centred and collaborative approach premised on human rights, social justice, and sustainable development in society. Relational welfare means that welfare is a resource that people co-create together, where personal and collective relationships and environments are placed at the centre of development. Within this, the foremost mission of the public sector is to build public value as a common good by supporting conditions that enable all people to flourish and live a life they have reason to value, and the capacity to sustain. The purpose is to strengthen the resources, relationships and communities to create positive and sustainable life courses, now and in the future.”
Von Heimburg and Ness suggest that co-creation does not inherently make processes or policy outcomes socially just. Therefore, they developed the four Rs of relational welfare centered on social justice: redistribution, recognition, representation, and relationships. While our project’s position paper on relational welfare described the four Rs, I wanted to draw upon the insights of Cottam and others to present ideas on how the recreation sector could initiate a relational turn. Below are a few topics we might consider to foster conversations around.
Instead of fixing the problem, we need to grow the good life. In Radical Help, Cottam argues for a shared vision that shapes a new purpose and fuels hope based on growing the good life rather than fixing problems [6]. A vision acts as a compass built in local places, allowing people and communities to determine what growing a good life means to them. Many problems must be fixed, but what happens if we shift our vision to growing a good life? We focus on what's possible rather than what is broken.
Visions matter, and who sets the vision is even more critical. In our Reimagining Access to Sport, Recreation and Leisure (RASRL) project, the provincial government prioritized addressing a significant issue: limited access and participation in sport, recreation, and leisure among equity-owed communities. This marked the beginning of our RASRL project. However, the vision of improving access and inclusion did not align with what a good life meant for the equity-owed residents we engaged with across New Brunswick. It wasn't sufficient to simply be included; these residents sought dignified access to spaces where they could experience a genuine sense of belonging.
This new vision of a good life—anchored in belonging and dignified access—profoundly reshaped our project's trajectory. It transformed what was developed and tested and who was involved. Central to this shift was addressing power dynamics and driving system change, which helped move community service providers away from top-down programming towards co-design. By co-designing the project with equity-deserving residents, we embraced a relational approach rooted in the principles of relational welfare. This approach fostered a shared vision of a good life between those directly benefiting from the work and the community service providers mandated to support it.
Is the recreation sector growing the good life? Or are we so entrenched in solving problems that we remain stuck in a narrative that hinders our progress? How can we create a vision that shifts the sector from problem-solving to enhancing communities' ability to cultivate a good life? Emphasizing growth and potential presents a fundamentally different starting point compared to focusing on deficits and what is broken, thereby opening the door to more transformative and sustainable outcomes.
Rather than managing needs and risks, we should focus on developing capabilities and possibilities. In her work, Cottam describes traditional welfare systems as treating individuals as dependent, arguing that such approaches stem from a model that views people as passive recipients of aid. This perspective emphasizes deficits and risk management, categorizing individuals based on their needs, problems, or risk levels rather than their strengths or potential. Instead, she suggests that efforts in relational welfare should prioritize developing capabilities with support. Grounded in Amartya Sen's capability theory, it emphasizes what individuals can achieve and become—their "capabilities." Co-creating logic, namely relational welfare, requires mobilizing resources and capabilities. A radical and relational approach nurtures the capabilities of individuals and communities. Instead of the recreation sector managing needs or risks, we foster the capabilities of individuals and communities by providing support.
I have observed how government-sponsored recreation, physical activity, and sports policies often guide the sector by focusing on managing risks, such as physical inactivity. Provincial or federal funding policies are typically designed to mitigate the economic costs associated with inactivity, which leads community recreation and allied providers to create programs to manage this risk. For example, funding provisions (i.e. pilot projects or fee assistance programs) frequently target "at-risk" populations, with specific criteria dictating how the programs must be delivered—often requiring leader-led, organized activities of a particular duration and structure. While these provisions aim to address the problem of physical inactivity, they don't always succeed.
While working with Recreation Opportunities for Children Inc. (ROC) [7], we observed significant barriers that hindered equity-owed families from accessing funding. Many families either opted not to participate in organized programs or could not do so due to the structured demands of organized recreation and sport—such as rigid schedules, travel requirements, and equipment costs. Instead of forcing families into a predetermined framework, ROC adopts a different approach: providing flexible access to funding and equipment that nurtures families’ capabilities to pursue meaningful activities. For example, one family ROC assisted had two teenagers who wanted cameras to learn photography. Traditional funding provisions did not accommodate this request, as it did not meet the funding policy's eligibility criteria for promoting physical activity. However, access to the cameras enabled the teens to develop their outdoor photography skills while hiking with their mother. These cameras encouraged the entire family to be physically active, fostered their connection with nature, and strengthened family bonds.
Rather than relying on government-driven policies that compel the recreation sector to address needs and risks (i.e. fixing deficits), a more radical approach is needed to empower residents and communities to enhance their capabilities and opportunities for choice. If relational welfare involves recognizing one another as co-contributors to the vision of a good life we aspire to create and the welfare we desire to experience, the recreation sector must adopt new mindsets, policies, resources, and practices that view communities as capable. We should consider how we can serve them to bolster their capabilities and opportunities. This goes beyond merely providing financial and material support; it emphasizes designing equitable systems that enable individuals to thrive by fostering connections and networks of support, supporting them to choose paths toward a meaningful life.
In what ways does the sector need to shift to better support developing capabilities vs managing needs and risks? How do we change so that we are not a barrier to dignity and belonging? What system changes would need to be made so that individuals and communities define and pursue their valued capabilities?
Reducing the relational distance: Relationships at the core. In a society increasingly characterized by social isolation and a pervasive sense of disconnection, it is imperative to consider how the recreation sector can adopt relational approaches and prioritize relational welfare as a fundamental element of future service delivery models.
In today's welfare state, the recreation sector faces increasing pressure to prioritize efficiency and individualization. This emphasis on streamlined delivery systems, evaluated by inputs (money in) and outputs (number of participants), has entrapped the workforce in a cycle driven by transactional processes and a pay-to-play consumption culture. Although not all recreation provisions are based on pay-to-play, there remains a strong emphasis on working efficiently and placing the responsibility on individuals to navigate systemic barriers that hinder their participation. The sector often operates at arm's length, creating barriers to meaningful engagement with equity-owed communities.
Cottam argues that relationships are the key to the new welfare state. Notably, we must design our recreation sector and its structural systems "to encounter and get to know those who are not like us if we are to flourish" (p. 207). Humans rely on relationships to survive and thrive in the community. When I dedicated time to building relationships with residents and genuinely listened to their needs and aspirations, a different narrative emerged, and new supports were created. Over the years, I've heard countless stories about how equity-owed residents wish for social support that goes beyond what is available to them—needs that often remain unmet due to the transactional nature of service delivery. Grandmothers, for instance, have expressed their longing for additional social support as they navigate raising their grandchildren, facing challenges related to addiction and mental health struggles of their adult children who can no longer care for their own. Some residents highlighted the need for peer support—someone to accompany them through the doors of a fitness program or stand with them in line at a swimming registration desk. Parents, too, have shared their desire to form a social club—a space to build relationships, exchange resources, and find solidarity as they raise children amid extreme deprivation.
These voices highlight the need for relationships and the importance of tailoring support to align with the lived realities of communities that can’t or don’t want to use our recreation provisions. Top-down approaches to recreation design can miss the subtle, community-specific needs that truly matter. Assumptions about what people desire can be made, and as a result, services and resources can go unused.
What makes relational welfare unique is its emphasis on relationships as the foundation of the welfare we aspire to experience—viewing relationships as invaluable assets that enable communities to thrive. Central to relational welfare is the ability to connect and share both existing and new resources. As Cottam reminds us, "people—their relationships, knowledge, time, skills, and sometimes possessions—are the single biggest resources a welfare state has to call on" ( [8] p. 209).
Local and provincial governments cannot provide communities with everything they need. Still, they could create the system conditions for relationships to become an essential component of welfare that we can rely on to create our well-being collectively. How can the recreation sector reimagine the role of relationships in its delivery systems? How might the sector intentionally work towards building relationships between separated groups? How could relationships be central in building capacity among individuals, practice, and the community as a response to the challenges communities face?
Relational welfare requires system change. "We all have to un-learn. Everyone here wants to consult; they don't know this is not engagement"—unknown. I'm unsure of the context of this quote, but I find it appealing. Relationships are central to relational welfare and necessitate a distinct approach to community engagement. Community consultation has its role in community work, but profound, meaningful engagement that fosters relationships to tackle today's social challenges demands systemic change that transcends traditional community consultation.
As previously outlined in the Time to Shift to Relational Welfare position paper, the transactional service delivery model in the recreation sector is not well-suited to address the complexities associated with the inequities that hinder participation in recreation, sport, and leisure. The relational distance between the public needing support and those mandated to provide it is too great. The sector would benefit from altering some of its practices to bridge this relational gap, which necessitates systemic change.
Shifting systems requires learning and unlearning; this was identified in Lisa Tink's book Fit to be Canadian: The Recreation Industrial Complex in Canada [9]. Tink's book describes the history of the recreation sector and how "for centuries racialized people, Indigenous peoples, disabled people, gay people, transgender people, and people living in poverty have been extensively researched and comprehensively pathologized (being treated as abnormal or unhealthy)" (p. 187). Public policies, programs, and services are designed to govern these populations and fix, cure, and eradicate their abnormalities. Rather than assuming equity-owed groups need to be fixed, i.e., given money or materials to participate, taught where the resources can be found, etc., so that they can gain access, we need to reflect on the fact that the system was never created for them. We need to unlearn and learn to find new ways forward.
In the rural communities where I've worked, several equity-owed families have resisted the fee assistance policies for sports programming. Many rural communities rely heavily on sports programming due to the high costs of maintaining tax-supported infrastructure, so facility-based sports programs are prioritized. The challenge, however, is that the families I’ve worked with do not fit the "Canadian sports script"; they lack reliable access to private or public transportation, flexible schedules to leave work early for competitions and tournaments, enough money to cover costs beyond just registration fees, or the social networks for fundraising support. Furthermore, fundraising can feel incredibly shameful for those already struggling financially to put food on the table and pay their bills. These barriers are additionally compounded by the rule of two, intended to create safe sports environments. This rule ensures that at least two responsible adults are present when interacting with an athlete during coaching or other sports-related activities (i.e., travel). At the same time, this rule further marginalizes families that rely on carpooling for transportation.
Instead of creating a patchwork of "access and inclusion" provisions to "fix" those who don't fit into the Canadian sports script, it would be worth getting curious about how the system is not working and for who. Research in rural Canada has shown that delivering sports programs in rural municipalities is challenging [10]. Current sports system structures prevent some rural communities from delivering sports programs contextualized in rural life. This suggests that it is time to get curious about rural regions' recreation and sports systems and ask whether they serve everyone effectively. I’d garner a guess that it is not the people that need fixing but the system itself.
Shifting system structures requires us to explore recreation and its allied sector partners, such as sports, belief systems, the flow of resources, practices, policies, relationships across sector networks, and power dynamics that maintain these systems. In our RASRL project, the team, residents, and community service providers gained significant insights. Guided by the vision of fostering a sense of belonging and dignified access, residents aimed to co-design solutions with practitioners—marking a new practice that altered power dynamics and moved away from top-down programming processes.
Relational approaches like co-design fostered a fresh space for both learning and unlearning. In our efforts, the relationships between equity-owed residents and service providers enabled an exchange of knowledge, skills, and capacities. Equity-owed residents are experts based on their lived experiences and, through the co-design process, identified the critical barriers to address and co-led the solution-making process. Our team supported residents and providers in collaboratively growing their capabilities to address these complex barriers. Through this relational approach, they created new recreation experiences that bolstered a sense of belonging and dignified access [11]. More importantly, through the relationships built between service providers and equity-deserving residents, providers gained insights into how existing system structures often fail to meet the needs of these communities. This prompted them to learn and unlearn practices for more equitable service delivery.
While our RASRL project achieved some successes, it also faced its share of failures. These moments taught us valuable lessons about the conditions necessary for change. True learning requires a willingness to “fail forward”—embracing new approaches, experimenting, and adapting as we go forward. We can’t expect to have all the answers when working in complex territory. Instead, we must embrace learning and adapting as an approach—accepting failure as part of the process—to learn, unlearn, and pave the way for transformative system change.
What might the sector need to unlearn and learn for relational welfare to flourish? What prevents the sector from embracing learning and adapting? What system change conditions must shift the most for relational approaches to emerge in the sector?
Investing in change comes with a cost. There is a cost to doing this work, and often, the first question is, "How much will this cost?" in dollars and cents. I don't know, but it will likely be a lot. However, a more significant societal cost is staying stuck in what is not working.
Throughout my time working across Canada, I've witnessed a deep yearning among community service providers for something different—a readiness to embrace change and a vision for transformation. Like them, I am driven by the same passion and want to co-create a future where the recreation sector and allied community partners take the bold lead in forging the capacity for communities to grow a good life. Yet, I'm observing that governments are more comfortable staying stuck in what is not working because it is familiar and lacks the courage and political will to get uncomfortable venturing into the unknown and trying something new.
"Change occurs when the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change.” [12] — I can't help but wonder how much more painful it needs to become in our communities for things to shift.
Investing in change will come at a cost, but not just financially:
It will cost us to let go of our belief systems about who is worthy and deserving of a good life.
It will cost us to let go of what we think communities need and should do.
It will cost us comfort as we get uncomfortable learning and unlearning.
It will cost us old ways of working while developing new practices as we share power with and across communities and redirect the flow of resources.
It will cost us time and energy as we build deep, meaningful relationships with diverse groups.
It will cost us the safety of the status quo.
Yes, it will cost governments money, but not as much as we think. Cottam suggests that the best starting point for "Can we afford this?" is to focus on the visions and capabilities and then identify what broader forms of resources are available and how we can connect them in new and productive ways. This starting point keeps us concentrated on innovative ways of implementing and redirecting existing resources.
While navigating the provincial landscape here in New Brunswick, I've witnessed amazing projects that are making a real difference. At the same time, I've noticed instances of resource duplication, with various government departments independently leveraging recreation as a tool for social change. This raises an important question: wouldn't it be more effective for the recreation sector to take the lead in this intersectoral work rather than individual departments relying on small, fragmented budgets to achieve similar goals without the expertise of the recreation sector? I want to believe that the recreation sector, when adequately funded and empowered to operate under the principles of relational welfare, could have the potential to lead intersectoral initiatives that deliver benefits across multiple sectors. The recreation sector could catalyze transformative change by leveraging its unique position within communities, fostering collaboration across sectors and co-creating strategies to shared challenges.
Instead of funding pilot projects that are never scaled across communities, it might be worth investing in and examining how we can better connect broader forms of resources across different sectors and all levels of government that are utilizing recreation for social change and use them in new and productive ways that support growing a good life through supporting the capabilities of residents and communities. I bet existing resources could flow differently through new collaborative relationships, practices, policies, and power dynamics that could shift our systems toward relational welfare.
The cost of duplication and disconnection among provincial departments undermine the potential for system change, creating inefficiencies that compromise the delivery of cohesive and impactful solutions. But Cottam also draws attention to costs and processes and notes that money is often in the wrong places. These systems invest in expensive forms of gatekeeping rather than in forms of help. She suggests that a new system needs to release these ill-placed resources to generate investments for growing solutions. Part of the shift to relational welfare will require the sector, our allied partners, and all levels of government to critically examine how the current system resources, policies and practices are ill-placed and prevent access to the essential services that are fundamental to health and wellbeing for all. Who and what are “gatekeeping” the flow of resources, new practices, and policies that stifle recreation from leading the potential for communities to grow the good life? Who is being served and how, and who is not and why?
The strategies we implement to address the social problems we face here in NB and across Canada must be co-created with the community in new and radical ways. Governments are too broke and broken and will have no choice but to shift in radical ways—perhaps it’s time because it is costing us all either way.
Now what? I'm not sure, but here I am, alongside the RASRL team and the System Shifters, hoping there are a few like-minded individuals out there who want to connect in conversation and get curious about the possibility of a relational turn for recreation in Canada.
As our project ends in March 2025, a year earlier than expected, I've been grappling with what to do next. Part of our commitment to the residents and funders involved in this project is to ensure the findings for community practice get mobilized in the community through education and training—thus our Designing 4 Belonging training. But part of me feels like I’m perpetuating the burnout practitioners are experiencing by inviting them to do more work in a system that isn’t designed for relational work to flourish. While simultaneously doing a disservice to residents, who have spent countless hours and energy working with us to serve the community better, only to be left with the same broken promises that nothing ever changes for them. This does not imply that relational work is absent or that no providers are interested in adopting such approaches. However, it is hard to overlook that many providers still remain entrenched in traditional transactional approaches, leaving little flexibility for innovation or adaptation that would allow for more relational work to emerge.
I don't have all the answers, nor should I, or any of us. But maybe we can start to carve out a new radical path forward through our sector’s diversity, wisdom and desire for change. Of course, if we aren’t too burnt out. This is uncharted territory, and the most essential starting point is not having answers but having an open mind and the courage to begin a critical conversation. It's about embracing a process that invites deep, honest conversations, allowing us to learn and unlearn together as we co-create the possibility of growing the good life through the recreation sector Canada deserves.
Please cite this report as: “Oncescu, J. (2025). Relational turn for recreation. Reimagining Access to SRL.
PDF version available for download here.
References
Taussig, M. (2013). The magic of the state. Routledge.
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionize the welfare state. Virago.
Mulgan, G. (2012). Government with the people: The outlines of a relational state. Cooke, G. and Muir, R. ‘The relational state: How recognizing the importance of human relationships could revolutionize the role of the state.’ London: IPPR.
Cottam, H. (2018). Radical help: How we can remake the relationships between us and revolutionize the welfare state. Virago.
Von Heimburg, D., & Ness, O. (2021). Relational welfare: A socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(6), 639-652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815
ibid 2
Recreation Opportunities of Children Inc https://www.roceastman.ca/
Cottam, H. (2021, May,13th). Radical Way. https://www.hilarycottam.com/the-radical-way_shifting-the-social-paradigm/
Tink, L. (2021). Fit to be Canadian? The recreation industrial complex in Canada.
Rich, K., & Misener, L. (2019). Playing on the periphery: Troubling sport policy, systemic exclusion and the role of sport in rural Canada, Sport in Society, 22(6), 1005-1024.
Oncescu, J., Frigault, J., Headley, D., Maitland, J., & Whalen, M. (forthcoming). Building bridges: Codesigning and sense of belonging. Leisure/Loisir.
Unknown source