5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect The girling of sport for development and peace Megan Chawansky and Marisa Schlenker Overview In this chapter, we seek to stimulate new considerations of girls, girlhood and the girling of SDP (Chawansky and Hayhurst, 2015) in order to move research and writing beyond the important mapping exercises and overview essays that dominated the irst phase of work within the sport for development and peace (SDP) sector (Brady, 1998, 2005; Brady and Khan, 2002; Saavedra, 2009; Meier, 2005; Kidd and Donnelly, 2007; Chawansky, 2011; Hillyer et al., 2011; Hancock et al., 2013). While these early works were necessary to explore the possibilities for and the presence (or invisibility) of girls and gender within SDP, we offer three suggestions for the next phase of SDP research in an attempt to encourage new considerations. These three suggestions are: the adoption of girls’ studies as a theoretical lens; increased critical analysis of popular representations of girls within international development and SDP; and the utilization of larger conceptual reference points for understanding girls and their experiences. We begin by establishing the larger context of our chapter and then provide brief explanations of the three points listed above. We believe that this chapter will take SDP research beyond discussions of girl power and the Girl Effect and into the important next phase of research on, with, and about girls in SDP. Introduction The title of this chapter references insights on neoliberal girlhoods from an article entitled, “Between girl power and reviving Ophelia” wherein Gonick (2006) explores the synergies between two iconic discourses of young, Western femininity in the 1990s – that of “girl power” and “reviving Ophelia.” While “girl power” is a contested concept, especially in terms of its usefulness in girls’ and women’s sport (Cooky, 2010) it is commonly understood to offer direct challenges to the “passivity, voicelessness, vulnerability and sweet naturedness linked to some forms of raced and classed girlhoods” (Aapola et al., 2005, p. 19). Reviving Ophelia is the title of Mary Piper’s (1994) inluential book, which sought to highlight the “everyday dangers of being young and female” and called for age-appropriate responses to the sexism experienced by young 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 94 3/8/15 14:56:12 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 women. As Gonick considers how these distinct discourses operate in a neoliberal era, she recognizes that positioning them in opposition is misleading. Instead of understanding these representations as operating in contrast, she instead explores the way in which, both discourses “participate in the production of the neoliberal girl subject with the former representing the idealized form of the selfdetermining individual and the latter personifying an anxiety about those who are unsuccessful in producing themselves in this way” (2006, p. 2). We recognize a similar overlap as we seek to identify the complex ways in which celebrations, regulations, and anxieties about girlhood are enacted within the SDP movement. This occurs through both deliberate articulations of the possibilities of personal empowerment through sport for girls around the world, within projects such as Moving the Goalposts–Kilii, Go Sisters in Zambia and the GOAL project in India (and elsewhere). It also occurs through the more recent uptake of the Girl Effect mission, which positions girls as catalysts for local, community, and global change. We argue that both discourses serve to support the premise that sport can empower girls both to better themselves (girl power) and to better the world within which they live (Girl Effect). Furthermore, we suggest that their presence within the conines of the broadly deined SDP sector movement suggest a distinct girling of the SDP context that relects a larger girl-centered development agenda (Murphy, 2012–13). In other words, the advertised image of the empowered, healthy, athletic girl of the Global South has become “the physical representation of the[se] ‘opportunities’ ” that SDP initiatives can provide (Heywood, 2007, p. 101). The emphasis on girls in SDP is no longer a token gesture of inclusion or an effort to meet the third Millennium Development Goal, but instead relects the establishment of girls as the “can do” beneiciaries of SDP programming (Harris, 2004). Girls are (re-)presented “as those most conident, resilient, and empowered of all the demographic groups affected by risk” and therefore are perfect advertisements for the promise and premise of SDP (Harris, 2004, p. 16). They are now expected to save themselves, their communities, and the world, while simultaneously justifying the next phase of SDP interventions. Our suggestion that girls are the present and – more importantly – the future of the SDP sector has not yet been formally argued in the SDP literature, though Hayhurst (2013a, 2013b) does consider related themes. Essentially, we seek to build on work already done on girls and girlhood to argue that girls will be essential actors in SDP as it moves beyond the MDGs. Outside of SDP, Harris (2004) and others working within the realm of girls’ studies (or girlhood studies) support this notion when they suggest that “new ideologies about individual responsibility and choices also dovetail with some broad feminist notions about opportunities for young women, making them the most likely candidates for performing a new kind of self-made subjectivity” (p. 6). While Harris’s (2004) work refers to changes speciically to young women in the Global North, we would agree with Hayhurst (2013a, 2013b) who would suggest that this sentiment is visible in many girl-centered SDP projects in the Global South in part because of their relationships with Global North partners and funders. We count 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 95 3/8/15 14:56:12 96 M. Chawansky and M. Schlenker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 this explanation as one of the key contributions that girls’ studies makes to our chapter, and we explore this theoretical perspective in more depth in the section below. Before moving to this point, however, it is imperative to understand how discussions of girls in SDP align with discussions of girls in international development more broadly. The girling of development (referenced irst in the SDP literature in Hayhurst (2011)) refers to a distinct and recent call in the development ield to invest in adolescent girls, typically those aged between 10 and 18, though this age range may vary across contexts (Perisic et al., 2012; Grosser and von der Gaag, 2013). According to Sewall-Menon et al., (2012), as a whole, girls in “developing” countries often suffer “human rights abuses” from a very young age and are typically known to be underserved within more conventional development efforts which seek to address broad issues such as poverty or conlict (p. 2). The speciic arguments given to justify a focus on girls are persuasive and frequently accessed by those supporting girl-centered initiatives. SewellMenon et al. suggest that isolating girls as target beneiciaries is essential because: girls require investment that is distinct and separate from that provided to other adolescent groups. To effectively reach [these] girls so that they can receive critical services such as safe gathering spaces, friendship, life skills, inancial literacy, inancial education, savings accounts, and reproductive health knowledge, they must be targeted as a distinct segment. (2012, p. 2) Whilst this articulation captures the sentiment behind much of the girl-centered programming visible in the SDP and development sectors, it is not only the messaging that warrants attention but also who is behind the messaging. Cornwall and Edwards (2014) note that “there is an interchangeability in the[se] representations” used to communicate ideas about the need for empowering girls and women from “what once might have seemed like a disparate array of corporate and development actors . . . [such as] Walmart, Oxfam, DfID [UK Department for International Development], the Nike Foundation, Plan International and the IMF [International Monetary Fund]” (p. 8). Further signs of the girling of development include speciic initiatives such as: The Girl Up campaign, the Coalition for Adolescent Girls’ “Poverty ends with Her” tagline, Plan International’s “Because I am a Girl” campaign, Action Aid’s appeal entitled, “She CAN” and the IMF ’s [and others’] frequent assertion that investing in girls and women is smart economics (Chant and Sweetman, 2012; Cornwall and Edwards 2014).1 The aspiration to economically empower girls can explain a more recent focus on inancial literacy and entrepreneurial skills within several SDP projects such as the GOAL project, which embeds inancial literacy in its life skills curriculum (Murphy, 2012–2013). The Girl Effect campaign aligns with the aforementioned initiatives and has garnered the most attention thus far within the SDP literature on girls (Hayhurst 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 96 3/8/15 14:56:12 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 2011, 2013a, 2013b). Hayhurst’s (2011) recent work on global corporate social engagement pertaining to sport and gender campaigns does important work in introducing the Girl Effect to the SDP academic ield, especially with much girlcentered programming implicitly or explicitly adopting the Girl Effect story. The primary message of the Girl Effect, a campaign supported by the Nike and the NoVo Foundations, is that investing resources in adolescent girls in “povertyplagued, developing regions of the world” will not only allow girls to help themselves, but will beneit their communities and families as well (Elliot, 2010). The investment guarantees a multiplier effect, unlike the more individualized and notably singular girl power discourse. The campaign and website – launched in May 2008 – deine the Girl Effect as “the unique potential of 600 million adolescent girls to end poverty for themselves and the world” and, as is the case with other social media initiatives, you can donate, tweet, “like” the site, and invite others to learn, act, and share the “girl story.” Elliot (2010) compared the Girl Effect campaign to Nike’s early 1990s “If you let me play” advertisements (see Lucas, 2000) with the primary difference being that the earlier campaign exclusively advocated for the empowerment of US girls through sport whereas the Girl Effect focuses on girls in the Global South. It should be noted here that the Girl Effect is not related exclusively to girls’ sport participation, SDP, or claims of empowerment through sport, but it is about reaching girls through various types of programming with the aim to improve not only their lives but also the lives of their families, friends, and communities. Its connections to the Nike Foundation – the arm of Nike associated with social responsibility and community impact – make it relevant to this discussion, as is the articulation of how the Nike Foundation chose to focus on this particular target group. In an address to the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Maria Eitel, the Founding President and CEO of the Nike Foundation, explained how the Foundation decided to focus exclusively on adolescent girls: Women are such an essential piece of the development equation. But I was puzzled because everytime I would go out and look at [international development] projects, I would say, “Okay. This is a woman. It is very interesting. I am meeting with her and hearing all about this. So where are the girls? Let me understand the conditions of girls. Let me understand how it is that the woman ended up in this condition.” And, the girls were [sort of] never around, and that was because they are the free labour in the home, they are the insurance policy of the family. If something happens in the family, she is the irst one to drop out of school. There are all these unique vulnerabilities that girls face. And adolescence for a boy is a time of a general opening up of opportunity and for a girl, it is generally a closing down of opportunity because it generally means childbirth, marriage, and other things that remove her from the economy, essentially . . . I became really moved to think about the economic opportunity of unleashing that potential. (Eitel, 2008) 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 97 3/8/15 14:56:12 98 M. Chawansky and M. Schlenker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The explanation presented here by Eitel is noteworthy for a number of reasons, but foremost because of its emphasis on the economic imperative of supporting girls, which helps to explain the Nike Foundation’s interest in inancing this work (Murphy, 2012–2013). This angle is represented in the promotional videos on the Girl Effect site as well as within SDP projects which make links to economic empowerment. It is important to note the other ways in which the Girl Effect movement has snowballed and extended its impact. For example, the Girl Effect website currently hosts the “Girl Declaration” which aims to “put girls at the heart of the post-2015 development agenda” and identiies the following as key priority areas for the improvement of girls’ lives: education, health, safety, economic security, and citizenship. Each area has speciic actions, such as “reform laws so girls can open a bank account and have equal rights to secure land tenure” [economic security] and “eliminate child marriage globally by 2030” [security] (Girl Effect Declaration). While the aspirations of the Girl Effect and other related initiatives are laudable, critics have been quick to point out that the main arguments of the Girl Effect position girls to be the solutions to problems for which they are not (ultimately) responsible. Put differently, girls, per Heywood (2007), “become the ideal subjects of Empire, part of the new global economy that relies on individuals with lexibility who are trained to blame their inevitable failures on themselves rather than the system their lives are structured within” (p. 104). As Chant and Sweetman (2012) observe, the premise underlying the Girl Effect also ignores and diminishes the girls and “women who are already contributing vast amounts to both production and unpaid reproduction” throughout the Global South (p. 523). In the next section, we demonstrate the importance of adopting a critical lens through which to examine the place of girls in SDP by delineating what a girls’ studies perspective can offer to the intellectual project. Though some scholarship in SDP (Hayhurst 2011, 2013a, 2013b) has utilized insights from girls’ studies, we seek to outline some of its major tenets for work that has yet to consider it. We do this through a careful reading of some of the representations within the Girl Effect movement. Applying girls’ studies Girls’ studies is an area of academic enquiry that examines the experiences of girls as a separate and distinct group from women, youth or adolescents, and girls’ studies (sometimes referenced as girlhood studies) is often considered to be a subset of the academic ield of women’s studies. Broadly, this perspective adds “gender” to critical cultural studies which focused largely on male youth, and it adds youth/age to feminist studies of gender. Since understandings of what it means to “be a girl” vary across time and place, scholars operating in this domain, “analyse girlhood as something that is constructed socially, rather than merely as a stage of life ixed by biological processes and programmed psychological development” (Aapola et al., 2005, p. 1). With this perspective, scholars 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 98 3/8/15 14:56:12 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 see “girlhood as a site of both competing narratives and an experiential process grounded in historical, material and discursive contexts” (ibid.). One of the main challenges for scholars working in this area is identifying how the discourses about girlhood and social structures shape the lives of girls, while also recognizing that girls themselves are actively involved in re-imagining, tranforming, and challenging those very same discourses and structures. A further complication is related to the international development sector, which tends to reify and rely on a ixed narrative of the under-served girl of the Global South to explain and justify interventions. This is especially true at the present moment, in which girls and the premise of the Girl Effect receive unprecedented attention in development circles (Grosser and van der Gaag, 2013; Switzer, 2013; Moeller, 2014; Wendoh, 2013) and arguments persist that we should keep gender empowerment as an important “stand alone goal” in the post-MDG agenda (UN Women, 2015). Imparting insights from girls’ studies allows us to better understand the Girl Effect and its inluence at the present moment. The notion of what Harris (2004) calls the “future girl,” is visible in the discourses and videos featured on the Girl Effect website, as it takes us from the story of girl as victim to girl as savior (Grosser and van der Gaag, 2013). Or as Harris (2004) might suggest, the future girl is contrasted with the “at risk” girl. A future girl is the kind of young woman who is celebrated for her determination and conidence, who is “self-making, resilient, and lexible” and who will take charge of her life, seize her chances, and achieve her goals (Harris, 2004, p. 6). In contrast, Fyfe (2014) suggests that risky girls are scrutinized “for their imagined potential to harm or be harmed [rather] than anything they have already done” (our italics, p. 47). In the Girl Effect story – as told on various social media platforms – the risky girl is both victim and pre-punished for her “bad” choices, as evidenced by the text accompanying the signature video of the Girl Effect movement: When a girl turns 12 and lives in poverty, her future is out of her control. In the eyes of many, she is a woman now. . . . She faces the reality of being married by the age of 14, pregnant by the time she is 15, and if she survives childbirth, she might have to sell her body to support her family which puts her at risk for spreading and contracting HIV. Not the life you imagined for a 12 year old, right? But . . . the good news is, there’s a solution. Let’s rewind to her at 12, happy and healthy. She visits a doctor regularly. She stays in a school where she’s safe. She uses her education to earn a living. Now she’s calling the shots, and it looks something like this: She can avoid HIV, she can marry and have children when she’s ready, and her children are healthy like she is. Now, imagine this continuing for generation after generation. You get the picture, right? 50 million 12-year old girls in poverty equal 50 million solutions. This is the power of the girl effect, an effect that starts with a 12-year-old girl and impacts the world. The clock is ticking. (The girl effect: the clock is ticking, 2010) 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 99 3/8/15 14:56:13 100 M. Chawansky and M. Schlenker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 The concerns with this representation of girlhood in the Global South rest with the way in which it embeds an implcit choice into the narrative (Hayhurst 2013a, 2013b). In this way, the at-risk girl who does not morph into the Girl Effect savior exists as the “failed citizen” (Fyfe, 2014, p. 51) who did not work hard enough at “improving [her] competencies and attitude” (Harris, 2004, p. 26). Presented in another light, the Girl Effect narrative seems to present girls with the choice of being a [passive] “object” or an empowered “subject,” a dualism that Pomerantz (2009) inds problematic. She proposes that we move from dichotomies of girls as subject/object, good/bad, can-do/at risk, and victim/ savior and instead focus on the “generative” possibilities of girlhood wherein a girl is both/and rather than either/or (Pomerantz, 2009). This, according to Pomerantz (2009), is the key contribution made by girls’ studies scholars; instead of seeing girls as “being” one way or the other, it requires us to try to understand “how and why girls appear to be certain ways at certain times” and make “much-needed space for social, cultural, and historical contextualization” (p. 154). This point is further emphasized below when we suggest that incorporating larger conceptual frameworks will allow for new understandings of girls in SDP to emerge. Before that, however, we turn to the next section which further argues that critical considerations of the popular representations of international development – such as those presented through the Girl Effect videos – can encourage new understandings of the place of girls in development. Popular representations of girls in international development This section suggests that more critical relections on representations, methods, methodology, and evidence can enable us to understand girls, girlhood, and the girling of SDP in new ways. While we have integrated perspectives from girls’ studies, we have done so through careful attention to the key discourses and representations currently framing girls and girlhood within the development and SDP sectors. In this way, we align with Lewis et al. (2014) who suggest that our assessment of “what works” in development tends to be conirmed “via standardised methodologies such as randomized controlled trials” at the expense of considering how knowledge of and about development comes to us via popular representations such as novels, ilms, television, public campaigns, and websites (p. 5). They argue that “the reach of sources of information such as novels [as] compared to academic texts and policy papers” is signiicant, and therefore warrants critical analysis from scholars in the ield of development studies (Lewis et al., 2014, p. 6). While the section quoted primarily considers the discourses of the Girl Effect, there is scope for further relection on how, as an example, the cartoon representations of girlhood that accompany the messages further help to reify dominant understandings of girls in the Global South. In this section, however, we turn attention to what novels can illuminate about girls and girlhood in development and further suggest that these insights are transferable to SDP contexts. We detail a scene from NoViolet Bulawayo’s (2013) novel, We need new names, which chronicles the lives and adventures of 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 100 3/8/15 14:56:13 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 a group of children living in a shanty called Paradise in Zimbabwe. In this example, the children encounter several NGO workers who have come to deliver toys and food to the residents of Paradise. The main character, Darling, commentates on an NGO worker’s encounter with Chipo, a girl child of Paradise, and one who is visibly young and pregnant: The man starts taking pictures with his big camera. They just like taking pictures, these NGO people, like maybe we are their real friends and relatives and they will look at the pictures later and point us out by name to other friends and relatives once they get back to their homes. . . . When he sees Chipo, with her stomach, he stands there so surprised I think he is going to drop the camera. Then he remembers what he came here to do and starts taking away again, this time taking lots of pictures of Chipo. . . . When he doesn’t stop she turns around and stands at the edge of the group, frowning. (pp. 52–53) In this short excerpt, one can see a multitude of power struggles at play, especially regarding age, gender, race, nation, and status. Chipo is simultaneously an object of the gaze and the camera and is a subject providing some resistance to this objectiication. She plays a part in this NGO worker’s narrative of the situation in Paradise, but perhaps invariably challenges the story that he seeks to tell. With a cursory glance, her pregnancy can be seen as afirming the “at risk” girlhood about which the Girl Effect warns. However, we can only speculate on what Chipo feels and understands about her pregnancy; she is notably silent within the pages, but what she does share about her life and pregnancy indicates a more complex situation that encourages readers to move beyond a simple “at risk” designation. Schenck (2001) suggests that, in development contexts, certain formats of knowledge (e.g., “novels, poetry and autobiographies”) are better equipped to demonstrate and bring to light “the ambivalences of participants” and the “in-betweenness [and] the indeterminacy” of speciic issues or subject positions (p. 236). Chipo demonstrates the above assertion of Pomerantz (2009), which implores scholars to move beyond dualisms and see girls and girlhood as a continually generative process. We would also suggest that the prevailing sentiment of this section aligns with Nicholls et al., (2011), who encourage SDP researchers to critically relect on the politics of knowledge, evidence, and representation. Integrating conceptual reference points In addition to our suggestion that future research carefully considers the knowledge presented in a variety of popular representations, we encourage scholars writing on girls and girlhood in SDP to consider broader, expansive conceptual reference points to better articulate and explain the reasons why girls are increasingly seen as target beneiciaries. In this way, we might explicitly highlight the structural factors that shape the lives of girls. As an example, Chawansky and 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 101 3/8/15 14:56:13 102 M. Chawansky and M. Schlenker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mitra’s (2014) research with a girl-centered SDP project in Delhi, India involves girls who are responding to the forces of urbanization, industrialization, globalization, internal migration, environmental degradation and the gendered dimensions of spatialities and mobilities. Most research on girls in SDP tends to elide these reference points in discussions of what is happening “on the ground” and individual stories. While this is important, by omitting these larger conceptual frames of reference in the research, scholars invariably re-center research on individual girls at the expense of an explanation of the larger social forces that help to explain why girls are under-served or in need of empowerment in the irst place. These larger forces invariably shape the girls’ worldviews, relationships, their future aspirations, their access to sport and physical culture and, moreover, how a particular SDP project conceptualizes and delivers its programming. While most existing girl-centered research (in SDP) implicitly acknowledges these larger concepts and frames, rarely is this speciic language used or included in essays or manuscripts. These omissions potentially limit the reach and impact of research on girls’ lives and might fail to access knowledge that can offer new insights on the experiences of girls in SDP. To conclude, we would suggest that there are a host of other conceptual frameworks and a number of important questions that can be taken up by scholars who consider the experiences of girls in SDP. For instance, how do SDP sites encourage participation from “hard-to-reach” or “high risk” girl beneiciaries? How do girls of different religions, ethnicities, castes, or sexualities experience sport within one particular SDP project? How do projects recruit and retain girls who are married, girls who are mothers, former/current sex workers, girls who have been traficked or girls who are heads of households? Are there speciic strategies used to encourage participation from those included in this group, or are they overlooked for more “future girl” beneiciaries? What about girls who drop out or fail to thrive in SDP programmes? What can we learn from their experiences and what might prevent their stories from being told? We look forward to research that empirically considers these questions, adopts expansive conceptual reference points, takes popular representations of girls in development seriously and imparts insights from girls’ studies. This will take SDP research on girls and girlhood beyond easy explanations and case studies and into more complex understandings of girls in SDP. Note 1 The Coalition for Adolescent Girls includes: 4Girls Glocal Leadership, Advocates for Youth, African Solutions to African Problems, AGE Africa, American Jewish World Service, BRAC, CARE, Centre for Development and Population Activities, ChildFund International, ChildVoice International, Emerge Global, EngenderHealth, Equality Now, Every Mother Counts, FHI 360, Futures Without Violence, GADeF, Girl Scouts, Girls Learn International, Inc., Global Fund for Children, GreeneWorks, GYCA, Harpswell Foundation, Heshima Kenya, International Center for Research on Women, International Rescue Committee, International Women’s Health Coalition, International Youth Foundation, IntraHealth International, IPPF/WHR, Lwala Community 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 102 3/8/15 14:56:13 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Alliance, Marie Stopes International, Making Cents International, Mercy Corps, National 4-H Council, Partners of the Americas, Pathinder International, Plan International USA, Population Council, Population Services International, Public Health Institute, Save the Children, UN Women, UNESCO, Winrock International, Women’s Refugee Commission, Women’s World Banking, the World Bank, World Pulse. (From http://coalitionforadolescentgirls.org/community/members/). References Aapola, S., Gonick, M., and Harris, A. (2005). Young femininity. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Brady, M. (1998). “Laying the foundation for girls’ healthy futures. Can sports play a role?” Studies in Family Planning, 29(1), pp. 79–82. Brady, M. (2005). “Creating safe spaces and building social assets for young women in the developing world: A new role for sports,” Women’s Studies Quarterly, 33, pp. 35–49. Brady, M. and Khan, B. (2002). Letting girls play: Mathare youth sports association’s girls’ football program. New York: Population Council. Bulawayo, N. (2013). We need new names. London: Chatto & Windus. Chawansky, M. (2011). “New social movements, old gender games? Locating girls in the sport for development and peace movement,” Research in Social Movements, Conlicts and Change, 32, pp. 123–136. Chawansky, M. and Mitra, P. (2014). “Changing girls through sport? Exploring notions of change in one girl-centered SDP initiative,” Poster presentation at the 6th International Working Group on Women in Sport (Helsinki, Finland). Chawansky, M. and Hayhurst, L. M. C. (2015) “Introduction: Girls, international development and the politics of sport [Online].” Sport in Society, London: Taylor & Francis. Available from www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17430437.2014.997587# (accessed: 24 April 2015). Chant, S. and Sweetman, C. (2012). “Fixing women or ixing the world? ‘Smart Economics,’ eficiency approaches and gender equality in development,” Gender & Development, 20, 3, pp. 517–529. Cooky, C. (2010). “Do girls rule? Understanding popular culture images of ‘Girl Power!’ and sport,” in Prettyman, S. and Lampman, B. (eds) Learning culture through sports: Exploring the role of sports in society, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleield, pp. 210–226. Cornwall, A. and Edwards, J. (eds) (2014). Feminisms, empowerment and development: Changing women’s lives. London: Zed Books. Eitel, M. (2008). Speaker [podcast] in Nike efforts to empower young girls, Social Innovation Conversations, Stanford Graduate School of Business Center for Social Innovation, Available from http://csi.gsb.stanford.edu/nike-efforts-to-empower-young-girls (accessed 24 April 2015). Elliot, S. (2010) “Nike harnesses ‘Girl Effect’ again,” New York Times, 10 November [Online] Available at www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/giving/11VIDEO.html (accessed: 28 July 2011). Fyfe, A. (2014). “News and the social construction of risky girls,” Girlhood Studies, 7, 1, pp. 46–64. The girl effect: The clock is ticking (2010) Youtube video, added by girleffect [Online]. Available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8xgF0JtVg (accessed: 20 April 2015). 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 103 3/8/15 14:56:13 104 M. Chawansky and M. Schlenker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Girl Effect (n.d.). FAQS. Available at www.girleffect.org/learn/faq. (accessed: 1 January 2012). Girl Effect Declaration (n.d.) The Girl Declaration. Available at www.girleffect.org/ media?id=3221 (accessed: 24 April 2015). Gonick, M. (2006). “Between girl power and reviving Ophelia: Constituting the neoliberal girl subject,” National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 18, 2, pp. 1–23. Grosser, K. and van der Gaag, N. (2013). “Can girls save the world?” in Wallace, T. and Porter, F. with Ralph-Bowman, M. (eds) Aid, NGOs and the Realities of Women’s Lives, Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Publishing, pp. 73–87. Hancock M., Lyras, A. and Ha, J. P. (2013). “Sport for development programmes for girls and women: A global assessment.” Journal of Sport for Development, 1, 1: pp. 15–24. Harris, A. (2004). Future girl: Young women in the twenty-irst century. New York: Routledge. Hayhurst, L. M. C. (2013a). “The Girl Effect and martial arts: Exploring social entrepreneurship and sport, gender and development in Uganda,” Gender, Place and Culture, 21, 3, pp. 297–315. Hayhurst, L. M. C. (2013b). “Girls as the ‘new’ agents of social change? Exploring the ‘Girl Effect’ through sport, gender and development programs in Uganda,” Sociological Research Online, 18, 2 [Online]. Available at: www.socresonline.org.uk/18/2/8. html (accessed 18 October 2014). Hayhurst, L. M. C. (2011). “Corporatising sport, gender and development: Postcolonial IR feminisms, transnational private governance and global corporate social engagement,” Third World Quarterly, 32, 3, pp. 531–549. Heywood, L. (2007). “Producing girls: Empire, sport, and the neoliberal body,” in Hargreaves, J. and Vertinsky, P. (eds) Physical culture, power, and the body. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 101–120. Hillyer, S. et al. (2011). Sport and Peace: Mapping the ield, Available at http://idrottsforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sport-Peace-Mapping-the-Field-2.pdf (accessed: 19 October 2014). Kidd, B. and Donnelly, P. (eds) (2007). The beneits of sport in international development: Five literature reviews. Geneva, Switzerland: International Working Group for Sport, Development and Peace. Lewis, D., Rodgers, D., and Woolcock, M. (2014). Popular representations of development: Insights from novels, ilms, television and social media, Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Lucas, S. (2000). “Nike’s commercial solution.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35, 2, 149–164. Meier, M. (2005). Working Paper on gender equity, sport and development, Biel/Bienne: Swiss Academy for Development. Moeller, K. (2014). “Searching for adolescent girls in Brazil: Corporate development and the transnational politics of poverty in the Girl Effect.” Feminist Studies, 40, 3, pp. 575–601. Murphy, M. (2012/13). “The girl: Mergers of feminism and inance in neoliberal times,” Scholar and Feminist Online, 11.1–11.2, [Online] Available at: http://sfonline.barnard. edu/gender-justice-and-neoliberal-transformations/the-girl-mergers-of-feminism-andinance-in-neoliberal-times/ (accessed: 20 April 2015). Nicholls, S., Giles, A., and Sethna, C. (2011). “Perpetuating the ‘Lack of Evidence’ discourse in sport for development: Privileged voices, unheard stories and subjugated knowledge,” International Review of the Sociology of Sport 46, 3: pp. 249–64. 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 104 3/8/15 14:56:13 Beyond girl power and the Girl Effect 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Perisic, M., Komarecki, M., and Minujin, A. (eds) (2012). Adolescent girls: Cornerstone of society: Building evidence and policies for inclusive societies. New York: New School University. Piper, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: Random House. Pomerantz, S. (2009). “Between a rock and a hard place: Un/Deining the ‘girl’,” Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Culture, 1, 2, pp. 147–158. Saavedra, M. (2009). “Dilemmas and opportunities in gender and sport-in-development” in Levermore, R. and Beacom, A. (eds) Sport and international development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 124–155. Schenck, C. (2001). “Developing subjects” in Perry, S. and Schenck, C. (eds) Eye to eye: Women practicing development across cultures. London: Zed Books, pp. 235–255. Sewall-Menon, J., Bruce J., Austrian K., Brown R., Catino J., Colom A., del Valle A., Demele H., Erulkar A., Hallman K., Roca E., and Zibani N. (2012). The cost of reaching the most disadvantaged girls: Programmatic evidence from Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda. New York: Population Council. Switzer, H. (2013). “(Post)feminist development fables: The girl effect and the production of sexual subjects,” Feminist Theory, 14, 3, pp. 345–360. UN Women. (2015). UN Women position paper on the post-2015 development agenda [Online]. Available at www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/post-2015/un-womenposition (accessed 20 April 2015). Wendoh, S. (2013). “Too young to be women, too old to be girls: the (un)changing aid landscape and the reality of girls at risk,” in Wallace, T. and Porter, F. with RalphBowman, M. (eds) Aid, NGOs and the realities of women’s lives, Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action Publishing, pp. 155–164. 536_05_Beyond Sport.indd 105 3/8/15 14:56:13