Abstract
AbstractMountain biking, often characterised as an extreme sport (Eassom, 2003), emerged in the late 1970s in Marin County, California (Berto, 1999; Savre, Saint- Martin, & Terret, 2010). Extreme sports (e.g., surfing, canoeing, mountaineering in addition to mountain biking) have been variously described as being anti- competitive in nature (Beal, 1995; Wheaton & Beal, 2003; Wheaton, 2004a; 2007; 2013; Donnelly, 2006), having a strong association with risk and danger (Wheaton, 2004a; Rinehart 2007) and presenting a contrast to modern sport (Maguire, 1999). However, viewing a sport such as mountain biking as a homogeneous entity and a single sport would be to oversimplify the complex nature of its differing formats. Indeed, across many extreme sports a similar situation exists and it should not be assumed that these represent singular forms of activity and rather their assumed unity and homogony should be subject to further advanced and critical academic analysis. This thesis aims to explore the concept of plurality within the sport of mountain biking and present research that examines the diverse nature of the sport itself.
Adopting a Grounded Theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), this research explores three focal aspects of mountain biking: the diversity of mountain biking formats and how these are manifested within the differing segments of the mountain biking market; the identity characteristics present within each format of the sport; and finally how these identities are reflected within the psychological trait characteristics of the sport’s participants. Three specific thesis aims were developed from the above research foci: firstly, to examine the differences that exist between various formats of mountain biking and, secondly how these differences may result in the alternative identities and participant characteristics within particular forms of the sport. A final aim sought to use the knowledge gained to construct a model of identity within mountain biking. In order to answer these thesis aims, four studies were conducted culminating in the development of a theoretical Model of Mountain Biker Archetypes.
The first two studies of this thesis represent concurrent analyses of the mountain biking market (study 1) and the identities that exist within the sport and its various formats (study 2). Within study 1, a Multidimensional Scale Analysis (Kruskal & Wish, 1978) of questionnaire responses from mountain bike participants was conducted and this was allied to an evaluation of mountain bikes offered to the market by leading manufacturers. The findings suggest the mountain bike market is made up of six segments (cross country, trail riding, all mountain, enduro downhill, gravity and freestyle), which are arranged in a hierarchical pricing matrix. Within study 2, a sample of mountain bike advertisements was evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative content analysis methodologies (Berelson, 1952; Altheide, 1987) with the aim of exploring and defining the identity characteristics present within the sport and its various formats. The findings established five identity characteristics, three of which were found to vary between styles of mountain biking (sporting characteristics, risk taking and
activity aesthetics) while two were common across all formats of the sport (places of play and equipment functionality). Further analysis highlighted activity aesthetics (or the performance of tricks and stunts) to be a component of risk taking rather than an identity characteristic in its own right. In this sense the tricks that riders perform, themselves present significant danger and are therefore a component part of the risk taking identity within mountain biking. Therefore, it was found that it is the varying level of association to risk taking and competitive practices that defines mountain biking identity. From this, The Model of Mountain Biker Archetypes was developed comprising of four participant groupings: the competitors (non-high risk but highly competitive), the risk competitors (high risk and highly competitive), the recreationalists (non-high risk and non-competitive) and the aesthletes (high risk and non-competitive).
This model was then tested in studies 3 and 4. Within study 3, a sample of mountain bike participants completed the Revised Competitiveness Index (CI-R, Houston, Harris, McIntire, & Francis, 2002) with the aim of establishing if mountain bikers varied in their levels of competitiveness based on the style of the sport they participated in. It was established that participants in formats that fall under the competitor and risk competitor archetypes scored significantly more highly in the Enjoyment of Competition sub-scale of the questionnaire than respondents within the recreationalist and aesthlete archetypes. Similarly, study 4 examined whether a second trait characteristic, sensation seeking, varied across the formats of mountain biking. Respondents completed the Sensation Seeking Form-V questionnaire (SSS-V, Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978) and the analysis showed that risk competitors and aesthletes scored significantly more highly in their Total Sensation Seeking scores as well as within the Thrill and Adventure Seeking sub-scale in comparison to respondents within the recreationalist and competitor archetypes. Further analysis confirmed that formats that fall under the recreationalist and competitor archetypes (cross country, all mountain and trail riding) can be labelled as moderate risk activities, while those that make up the risk competitors and aesthlete archetypes (freestyle, downhill and enduro downhill) are high risk activities.
The overall findings of this course of research indicate a level of disconnect between the terminology developed and marketed by the mountain bike industry to define products and the reality of the markets themselves. In condensing the market from thirteen styles of mountain biking to six core market segments, this research highlights an industry-led over-specialisation of categories within the sport. This is further complicated through the establishment of four consumer archetypes which do not directly map to the market segments found within this research. In this respect, over complication of the market is counter-productive, particularly given the culturally significant nature of mountain bikes as socially constructed technologies (Rosen, 1993).
| Date of Award | 29 Nov 2016 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Neil Weston (Supervisor), Barry Smart (Supervisor) & Paul Gorczynski (Supervisor) |