KHO THƯ VIỆN 🔎

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

➤  Gửi thông báo lỗi    ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạm

Loại tài liệu:     PDF
Số trang:         51 Trang
Tài liệu:           ✅  ĐÃ ĐƯỢC PHÊ DUYỆT
 













Nội dung chi tiết: Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense-profit organizations (NPOs), are increasingly employing social media such as Twitter to communicate their mission and activities to their diverse sta

keholder groups. However, the way these CSFs utilize social media for communicating such practices remains unclear. Through a mixed-method approach of Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

content analysis of Tweets from 22 CSFs established by English professional football clubs and interviews with key individuals within these CSFs (n =

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

7), this study examines the extent to which CSFs’ core activities are being communicated through Twitter and identifies the strategies employed for d

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defenseolving marginalized groups, tweets largely concern programs related to sports participation and education. The most frequently employed communication

strategy is to inform, rather than interact or engage with stakeholders. However, CSFs with higher oiganizational capacity attempt to go beyond mere i Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

nforming toward engaging with stakeholder groups that relate to their social agenda, highlighting the importance of trained and dedicated social media

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

personnel in optimizing CSFs’ use of Witter for communication.Keywords: community sport foundations. Twitter communication. CSR. football, stakeholde

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defensekeholders (Van Puyvelde et al. 2012), including those in the commercial (Misener and Doherty 2014), likeminded nonprofit (Shaw and Allen 2006), and pu

blic (Walters and Panton 2014) sectors. However, most existing research has agreed that stakeholder communication remains one of the most challenging Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

organizational undertakings within the broad and complex third-sector landscape (Babiak and Thibault 2009; Hayhurst and Frisby 2010; Koschman et al. 2

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

012; Saxton and Guo 2014; Svensson et al. 2015). The challenge in facilitating effective stakeholder communication strategies is evident within the co

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defenset as the vehicle for delivering community-based programs (Anagnostopoulos et al. 2014; Bingham and Walters 2013). Such community programs are - by and

large - centred on four key areas: encouraging social inclusion, increasing sports participation, promoting a healthy lifestyle and favoring alternat Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

ive educational methods, which, having sport at their core, aim towards facilitating employment (EFL, 2015; Jenkins and James 2012). Examples include

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

sport and mentoring programs aimed at lowering criminal (re)offending, sports coaching sessions, disability sport programs and physical activity and s

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defenseor, with 97 of 122 US-based professional teams and 89 out of 92 professional football clubs in England having established one (Anagnostopoulos and Shi

lbury 2013; Sparvero and Kent 2014), While academic3literature on CSFs is an emerging area (c.f. Misener and Doherty 2014; 2013) given (heir number an Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

d contribution to the sport non-profit landscape (Misener and Babiak 2015). there remains a paucity OÍ research looking at these community-based organ

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

izations (Kolypcras Ct al. 2016).Consistent with many NPOs. these CSFs lace considerable c hallenges in terms of organizational capacity, that is. the

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defenseand Anagnostopoulos 2015; Bingham and Walters 2013: Jamali and Keshishian 2009), CSFs try to enrich the portfolio of soc ial activities that falls und

er the abovementioned four key themes (i.e., education, health, sports participation and social inclusion) in order to reach out to, and satisfy the v Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

arious needs of. an increasingly multifaceted stakeholder setting (Wallers and Tacon 2010). However, like most NPOs (Balduck et al. 2015; Wicker and B

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

reuer 2013), most CSFs appear to have limited resources and thus lack the capacity for an effective communication strategy to promote the social progr

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self DefenseAs a possible way to cope with such challenges (Curtis Ct al. 2010), an emerging stream of research is examining how various types of NPOs utilize pop

ular social networking platforms (such as Facebook and Iwittcr) to communicate with stakeholders in both sports and non-sporls contexts (c.f. Auger 20 Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

14; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012;Lovejoy Ct al. 2012: Mamie and Almaraz 2013; Saxton and Guo 2014; Saxton and Waters 2014; Svensson et al. 2015; Svensson a

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

nd Hambrick 2016; Thompson et al. 2014; Thorpeand Rinehart 2012; Waters and Williams 2011; Waters and Jamal 2011; Waters and4Feneley 2013). These stud

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense2014), and in some cases allows them to engage with stakeholders who can contribute towards organizational capacity-building (for example, potential f

unders) (Doherty et al. 2014; Misener and Doherty 2009). Thus, given their limited resources (Auger 2014; Bingham and Walters 2013; Svensson et al. 20 Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

15), social media is a highly appealing tool for NPOs, including CSFs. However, while social media is a low-cost communications tool (Eagleman 2013; M

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

amie and Almaraz 2013), its effective use does demand organizational resources of time and money (Nah and Saxton 2012; Waters and Feneley 2013). As su

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense benefits in terms of reach (Eagleman 2013) and relationship building (Thorpe and Rinehart 2012).Studies of the social media activities of large, US-b

ased NPOs dominate the literature on online NPO stakeholder communication (Lovejoy et al. 2012; Lovejoy and Saxton 2012; Saxton and Waters 2014), and Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

while some more recent work has looked at smaller, community-based NPOs (Campbell et al. 2014; Saxton and Guo 2014), literature on sport-related NPO s

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

takeholder communication has concentrated on national governing bodies (NGBs) (Eagleman 2013; Thompson et al. 2014) or the sport-for-development secto

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense of and efficiently communicate their programs and services with stakeholders’ (Abeza and O’Reilly 2014, p. 128), there is a need for further empirica

l research in this area.5Therefore, the principal contribution of this study is to extend existing knowledge of social media communication in the area Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

of NPOs, and, in turn, provide a point of reference for scholars of community-based practices, particularly within the CSF setting. One main goal and

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

two related objectives are forwarded to achieve this contribution. The prime goal is to examine the extent to which core themes of CSFs’ social agend

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense institutional ties these CSFs have with their 'parent’ professional teams (Anagnostopoulos and Shilbury 2013; Kolyperas et al. 2016), the study sets

out to identify whether different patterns of content distribution by the CSFs emerge during different time periods (j.e. team’s on-season versus offs Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

eason), as recent studies have suggested (Parganas et al. 2015). Furthermore, given that NPOs’ performance (including their ability to effectively com

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

municate and engage with key stakeholders) depends on their overall organizational capacity (Eisinger 2002;Lovejoy el al. 2012; Svensson et al. 2015),

1Stakeholder communication in 140 characters or less:A study of community sport foundationsAbstractCommunity sport foundations (CSFs), like other non-

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense social activities delivered by CSFs.Literature review' and theoretical underpinningsOrganizations in the nonprofit context are founded and controlled

primarily by 'demandside stakeholders’ (Ben-Ner and Van Hoomissen 1991) - a group of stakeholders that is ‘interested in the provision of some sen ic Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

es for themselves as consumers and/or for the benefit of others, as donors or sponsors’ (Abzug and Webb 1999, p. 416). For CSFs, these demand-side sta

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense

keholders comprise both the local community as well as government and6non-government agencies, local and national businesses and sport governing bodie

Gọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook