What impact does technology have on Paralympic athletes?

Research Proposal

Introduction

Background context for research project topic area: This proposal describes the possible examination of how recent technological developments have enhanced and impacted upon Paralympic athletes, due to the author’s involvement and interest in the area. It will consider various technological advances and their implications for Paralympic athletic training and success. As Meer (2012) described such events as one in which the athletic track is a particular size, and comprises of certain material, and the moment the foot hits that track, it is technologically interactive with the athlete. In such a way it is anticipated that this research will consider the interactive side of the technology available for disabled athletes.

Justification and rationale for research project on this topic: Such a rapidly developing technological area is one which invites research and close examination in order to assist in the general tracing and evolution of a new area in the world of Paralympic athletics.

Research questions to be addressed: There are two main questions arising from this topic:-
i) How has technology been adapted for Paralympic athletes?
ii) What are the pros and cons for the use of technology in Paralympic events?

Research Aims: To discover how much modern technology is utilised in modern day Paralympic athletics.

Research Objectives: To investigate how far reaching modern technological advances are in the Paralympic athletic worlds, both professional and amateur.

Potential benefits of proposed research: It is anticipated that this research will contribute towards the formation of a composite picture of how modern technology helps Paralympic athletes in their endeavours to match the skills and limitations of able-bodied athletes. The whole area is one of complex ethical issues in that it a domain which is focused on the pushing to the limits the abilities of the human body, but not presently accepted that it can, with the aid of technology, push the body further than able-bodied humans can achieve, as it then becomes an area of ‘techno-boosting’ (Van der Bleet, cited in Mitchell, 2012).
Literature Review

Introduction: This review will consider these two main areas of the research questions:-
Q. i) How has technology been adapted for Paralympic athletes?
Q. ii) What are the pros and cons for the use of technology in Paralympics?

Q. i) How has technology been adapted for Paralympic athletes? The concept that athletes are able to use technology but in ways which give rise to ethical problems is not new (Harris, 2010). The Olympic marathon in 1960 was won by Abebe Bikila, an athlete who ran the race bare footed, and did not utilise the technology of the shock absorbing running shoe. Bikila decided to run without running shoes and no rules were broken in doing so. Usain Bolt, nearly forty years later on, established a world record in a pair of running shoes design particularly for him. It was considered that although there was an unfair distribution of unique technology, no rules were broken. Oscar Pistorius, by the use of prosthetic technology, averaged a running velocity which challenged the speed of an able-bodied runner, in Rome in 2007. The view of technology as an instrument or technical means to pursue identified ends involves an ethically neutral technology, neither bad nor good in itself, but more of a means to an end. This use of technology, as opposed to the equipment designed, such as a wheelchair or prosthesis to help disabled individuals carry out a normal daily life (Pasquina et al., 2006), the specific items such as the PowerFoot are able to help the athlete store energy, and thus enable the amputee’s lower limb achieve a gait more efficient and faster than before (Brodtkorb et al., 2008). A growing number of aspiring Paralympians are beginning to experience a greater depth of dependency on technology in order to compete at the highest levels. Major decisions concerning sport and technology are complex and varied and should be based on philosophical arguments as to the exact nature of the possible implied changes to the rules; the scientific data regarding how the devices perform in the field; and the ethical issues with regards to the fairness or unfairness of the competition in which they are to be utilised. Each Paralympic competition witnesses a step further into the technological world of the development of devices and items to further the endeavours of Paralympic athletes, such as the development of mechanical knees, to lightweight wheelchairs (Pearce, 2012).
The following paragraphs comprise of a resume of a few of these items:-
Running Blades: These blades although helpful, do not offer the same energy resource for Paralympic runners as that which able-bodied runners can obtain from their legs, as the Paralympic athletes are able to power themselves by only their hip flexor muscles or their hamstrings, as opposed to able-bodied athletes who are able to resource power from the ankle, the calf and the thigh.
Running blades.

(Source: Sherweb, 2010).
The blades are made from carbon fibre, which is built up to over eighty layers, each one laid individually over a mould to which heat and pressure are applied in order to harden and fuse the layers. Carbon fibre is chosen for its flexible properties and its ability to reduce energy loss by dampening the vibration of the structure, and as running makes use of only the foot’s foremost part, the blades have no heel and so can be fitted with spikes. The kinetic energy of the amputee runner is formed from their potential energy
as they move forward and as the prosthesis starts to work under load, it converts it to elastic strain energy which, as the athlete ‘unloads’ the limb, is returned to the runner.
Knee joints: have been developed through prosthetic technological advances, such as Germany’s Heinrich Popow who uses a specially adjusted individually fashioned mechanical knee joint, which links the leg to a blade made of carbon fibre, which functions in the same way a hinge does, but with hydraulic cylinders to control the speed of the foot’s rise. This helps the athlete to bring their leg round with little resistance, and so minimising any possible loss of energy due to friction.
Arm sockets: have been developed for cyclists, such as for Paralympian cyclist Jon-Allan Butterworth who uses two prosthetic arms of different designs in order to compete and as the head coach for Great Britain’s cycling team, Chris Furber observed “He’s a lot more aerodynamic than some of our able-bodied pursuit riders” (cited in Pearce, 2012, online). The bicycles have also been specially adapted to have all the controls – gears and braking – on half of the bicycle only.
Prosthetic legs: working in combination with Össur, a company who design running blades, Jody Cundy – a Paralympic gold medallist cyclist, designed a solution which did not require a special cycling shoe to be worn at the base of the prosthetic leg, but instead uses a linkage of solid carbon to connect directly with the bicycle. As Cundy observed, now “Every bit of power that I put into this carbon fibre goes straight through to the pedal and comes out the back wheel,” (cited in Pearce, 2012, online). In both of these instances, the athlete’s potential energy is changed into kinetic energy by the movement of the athlete. As the prosthesis received the applied load, the energy becomes converted into a form of elastic strain energy. This returns to the athlete when they ‘unload’ the prosthesis, and so helps the athlete in the restoration of potential energy. The athlete requires less energy, the more efficient the design of the process.
The PowerFoot is a technologically designed lower leg robotic system, and is advertised as “the world’s first bionic lower leg system to replace the action of the foot,” (Schwartz, 2012) and combines the use of springs, motors, sensors and processors. Matt Brown, an American athlete, uses a PowerFoot and observed that he was:
surprised by the durability of the springs. I weigh 270 pounds and put a considerable amount of stress on the foot. The Soleus has upheld its strength and flexion, and if anyone could put the Soleus to the test, it would be me
(Brown, cited in Schwartz, 2012, online).
The PowerFoot.
(Source: Schwartz, 2012)

In the PowerFoot design, there is a responsive leaf spring heel which stores and releases energy at required times.

Wheelchairs: these are made out of entirely different materials than they were sixty years ago, and weighing at least three times less and enabling athletes to reach speeds of around twenty-five miles per hour. Initially Paralympian wheelchairs would weigh in at around twenty-three Kg., but due to carbon-fibre and various light-weight alloys, the engineering weight of a sports wheelchair is at just two Kg. This remarkable weight-loss of some twenty one Kg has not meant a loss in strength, as wind tunnels have been employed in the analysis of the designs and chairs have been adapted to become extremely manoeuvrable, with the fitting of an extra wheel to work as a device to prevent tipping, together with the pronounced angles the main wheels are fitted at. In order to increase the aerodynamic performance of the athletes in wheelchairs, wind tunnel tests discovered that the large proportion of drag-inhibition arises not from the wheelchair, but from the athlete. By leaning forward and with other modified behaviours – such as positions of hands, the drag was reduced by a factor of up to ten percent.

Drag generated by Paralympian wheelchair user.

(Source: Rushby-Smith & Douglas, 2012 © TotalSim)

The tubular structure of the wheelchairs have been chosen to be constructed from aerospace-graded aluminium for their durability and strength, as it is necessary for the wheelchair to be as rigid as possible in order to transfer the maximum power to the track.
Paralympic sports wheelchairs.

(Source: Sherweb, 2010).

Monoskis: are adapted ‘sit-skis’ which have a metal frame onto which one molded seat has been mounted, with a shock absorber fitted underneath to help with navigating turns and uneven terrain. This sit-ski, interfaces by a ‘ski foot’, one ordinary ski, via a plastic or metal block which is attached to the binding of the ski. For stability the athlete uses ‘outriggers’ which are ski-sticks with short skis attached. This technology enables athletes to ski backcountry, glades, race courses, terrain parks, carve elaborate turns on specially groomed runs, and to ski moguls.
Monoskis.

(Source: Sherweb, 2010)

In order to take part in ice hockey the Paralympic sport of Sled hockey or Ice sledge was created. Technology gradually refined the design from a combination of a pair of normal skates for ice hockey, within a sledge or metal frame to a more sophisticated arrangement where the athletes sit on steel or aluminium sledges 0.6 metres to 1.2 metres long. The pair of skate blades, can be altered according to the athlete’s skill level and balance. Their hips, knees, ankles and feet are all strapped securely to the sled, which has a backrest, not protruding out beyond the athlete’s armpits. They use a pair of spiked sticks to propel the sledge together with a blade-end with which they can shoot the puck.
Sled Hockey/Ice Sled.

(Source: Sherweb, 2010).

Q. ii) What are the pros and cons for the use of technology in Paralympics?
Recent developments in Sports Technology seek to close the gap between able-bodied athletes and para-athletes. Data obtained from able-bodied athletes has been compared with that from disabled athletes (Brüggemann et al., 2007), as in the area of sprinting, where amputees make use of sprinting prostheses. These dedicated prostheses comprise of carbon blades, giving a significant advantage in fast springing, to the amputee sprinter both with regards to energy storage and energy return, as compared with a normally health ankle joint. The carbon blade permits the disabled sprinter to be able to deliver a similar level of performance to an athlete who is able-bodied, but is able to do so at a reduced metabolic cost. However, the actual fitting and adapting of any prosthetic is challenging and complicated (Lechler, & Likja, 2008) due to complications and difficulties in selecting, fitting and aligning the prosthetic to the limb socket, plus such problems as the amputee’s compensatory strategies. The technology was such that when used by the highly skilled athlete Oscar Pistorius, the result enabled him to be a serious contender in the Olympic Games – against able-bodied athletes. However, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Rule 144.2 does not permit an athlete to compete in the Olympic Games making use of “any technical device incorporating springs, wheels or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device” (IAAF, 2009, Rule 144.2). The whole issue concerning whether the technology he was dependent on, acted as an agent to neutralise his disability and thereby create a more equal competition or if in fact it resulted in him gaining an unfair advantage over able-bodied sportsmen, was one which caused a considerable amount of controversy (Burkett et al., 2011), as both ethical debate and empirical data were needed in order to discover the answer. It was observed (Burkett, 2010) that in order to avoid any potential controversies concerning the use of technology, the actual role of technology within the arena of Athletics needed to be clarified. An interesting example is that of the heats for the Swimming World Championships in 2009 where a number of contestants made known their disquiet concerning a particular type of hyper-effient swimsuit (Wolbring, 2010), in which they considered the technology applied to the swimsuit distorted the actual activity. The International Sports Federation (FINA) agreed that the technology had to be banned, which raises the question of whether the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) could use this incident to form a precedent with regards to the effects that the prosthetic technology could be observed to have on athletics.
Not only do the ethics of such technology impinge on the colliding worlds of able-bodied athletes and disabled athletes, but also on economics in that such items are tremendously expensive and prohibitively high for less economically vibrant countries (Fisher, 2012, cited in Maslin, 2012, online). This growing disparity between ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ nations is nurturing within the domain of the Paralympics, a technocentric ideology which has encouraged some of the Paralympic bodies to tend towards cyborgification (Howe, 2014).
The huge variation in the bodies of the athletes often result in the need for customised devices and together with the esoteric equipment such as the stools of regulation-height for javelin throwing by athletes who need to be seated, there is a need to make these, as they could well not be available in the home country of the athlete. The financial demands for the required technology “is probably one of the reasons why there’s only 45 nations competing at the Sochi Paralympic games, compared to 164 in London,” (Brittain, cited in Nosowitz, 2014).
There is also the known technology, as opposed to new technology. For example, the British sprinter, Richard Whitehead decided to use equipment known to him as opposed to that arising from the latest technology, and he chose to run on blades which were straight-legged, rather than ones with artificial knees built-in (Maslin, 2012).

Methodology

Discussion and explanation of proposed research paradigm: The paradigm intended for this research is that of mixed methods, in that qualitative data will be sought alongside quantitative data in order to triangulate the findings via the use of semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires. The semi-structured interviews will be conducted with four Paralympian athletes through para-athletics clubs and members from these clubs will be invited to participate by completing the online questionnaires. It is anticipated that by interviewing four athletes it will be possible to obtain a fair range of data and with the addition of around twenty-five to thirty responses to the online questionnaire it should provide sufficient data to offer robust accurate findings.

Discussion and justification of proposed sampling strategy and sampling methods: It is proposed that the sampling strategy will consist of references to published academic research, together with the use of semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires, which will enable the researcher to gather and consider qualitative data. This approach is one which offers a considerable range of positive aspects, such as:-
an interpretive naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

Denzin and Lincoln (2008, p. 4).
By studying real-life situations and their experiences, it is considered to be possible to understand more deeply the effects of particular aspects of technology. This will be reflected in the semi-structured interview questions together with the questions in the online questionnaire.

Discussion and justification of data collection procedures and tools.
Semi-Structured Interviews: were considered to be the most appropriate method, as structured interviews and non-structured interviews would lead the area either too restricted in the former case and too open in the latter. It was considered that to give the participants the opportunity to contribute in aspects possibly not considered important or relevant by the researcher, would be beneficial in that it could point up areas needing further examination. As Denscombe (2006) observed, semi-structured interviews can enable both the interviewee and the researcher to work together, and to have the facility to discuss further whenever appropriate, certain areas and aspects of the focus of the research. The design of the semi-structured interview permits the interviewee, if they feel it helpful, or pertinent, to describe certain aspects in more detail; whilst at the same time, it also allows the interviewer to be able to probe more deeply into comments and observations, and so be able to analyse a particular opinion or viewpoint more thoroughly (Schensul, Schensul and le Compte, 1999). One of the main reasons for selecting the use of semi-structured interviews is that they are especially robust, in that they are able to generate data which is original and has its origins in unique experiences and personal perceptions (Gomm, 2004). Indeed semi-structured interviews are particularly strong in that they have the ability to generate original data, arising from the examination of unique experiences and perceptions (Gomm, 2004).
It is anticipated that these semi-structured interviews will be conducted with four athletes with disabilities, preferably ones who are aided substantially by technological advances, and will last a period from between thirty to forty minutes.
Each interview is to be audio-taped and transcribed later for more in-depth analysis, after obtaining the participant’s consent and agreement for the material to be used in the utmost of confidential manners.
The questions for inclusion in the semi-structured interviews will be in Appendix I for the reader’s reference.

On-line Questionnaires: The various questions used in the online questionnaires nave been designed to utilise the Likert-type Scale. This is to be piloted briefly in order to identify any possible problems and to have sufficient time to re-draft it before sending it out as part of the main online questionnaire tool. The tool of the online questionnaire was considered to be most appropriate due to its relatively low cost, and the fact that it forms a convenient research tool for participants as they are able to actively take part as, where and when they choose. Their individual responses should remain private and confidential and should not be influenced by another party. Therefore the data will not be affected by interactions with other individuals, including the researcher, who would likely be a stranger, a fact which sometimes inhibits participants’ responses. All these advantages, after consideration, were thought to outweigh drawbacks, for example, such as the fact that the participants would all require computer access and would need to be computer literate.

The online questionnaire, to be piloted, will be in Appendix II and the final online questionnaire will be in Appendix III, for the reader’s reference.

Discussion and justification of ethical considerations and measures: It will be of paramount importance to ensure that ethical considerations and measures are taken throughout the research, in that participants must be assured of confidentiality and anonymity both in the semi-structured interviews and in the online questionnaires. The resultant passages and extracts of the transcribed semi-structured interviews should also receive the verbal agreement of the participants before being used in the final write-up of the report. A covering letter will be given, summarising these points to each participant.
Discussion and justification of data analysis strategy and methods: Due to the use of semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires, it is anticipated that the findings and observations from published academic papers will be able to be triangulated and so give the data dependability, authenticity, and confirmability. The use of the Likert-type scale is an acknowledged and common tool in the gathering and sorting of field data. It is considered that the main criticisms of the use of qualitative research, that of it being too subjective and too impressionistic, will be mitigated in the use of this tool in data analysis strategy and methods.

Proposed timeline of work:
Week 1: Identification of athletic clubs to be approached; writing of letters explaining the purpose of the research; the areas which are being considered; the basic methodology of the research; the semi-structured interview requirements – room, length of time of interview; permission to ask members to complete online questionnaires, together with the various ethical aspects; discussion, consultation and proofing.

Weeks 2/3: Letters delivered to identified clubs and associations; on-line questionnaire design finalised together with questions for semi-structured interviews.

Weeks 3/4: On-line questionnaires piloted checking for possible misunderstandings, errors and semantic ambivalences, all of which might radically affect the final results. Questions for semi-structured interviews finalised.

Weeks 5 – 7: Visiting associations and clubs and meeting members. Inviting them to take part in online questionnaires; arranging for this to happen, and identifying individuals for interviewing.

Weeks 8 – 10: Interviewing
Weeks 11 – 13: Transcribing interviews and analysing them.

Weeks 14 – 16: Collating on-line questionnaire response data and analysing it together with considerations from the interviews.

Weeks 17 – 22: Writing up research.

Conclusion. 139 words
As has been observed (Burkett, et al., 2011) that it will be necessary to determine precisely the levels to which technological devices are permitted in each event, such as running events using a particular set of conditions, and a throwing event might need to use another set of conditions. Even the very definitions of the sports need to be reconsidered, such as ‘running’ with blades, might be more related to “high-velocity bounding” (Burkett et al., 2011, p 652). Although there is a danger that if the guidelines regarding the use of technology become excessively restrictive they could well stifle any future progress in the area, which would be seen as being undesirable, the IPC and other regulatory bodies need to develop policies which are considered, transparent and create equal opportunities for all athletes, no matter which countries they represent.
The whole recent area of nano-technology has raised further issues in that it is increasingly possible to implant such technological devices under the skin to improve athletic performances – with the development of stronger tendons and more flexible joints. As Andy Meer – Professor of technology of University of West Scotland – stated in an interview with Mitchell (2012):
I think that in the future we will think of everybody as already disabled and it won’t be a question of whether people that have disabilities are better or worse, it’ll be about trying to ensure that everyone with their particular limitations is able to use technology in a way that optimises their performance.
(2012, 14.02).

In conclusion therefore, it is anticipated that the two research questions of discovering how technology been adapted for Paralympic athletes, and examining the pros and cons for the use of technology in Paralympic events will both be addressed and that answers will be found through the investigation of how far reaching modern technological advances are in the Paralympic athletic worlds, both professional and amateur, and the discovery of how much modern technology is utilised in modern day Paralympic athletics.
4000 words.
References.

Brodtkorb, T., M. Henriksson, K. Johannesen-Munk, and F. Thidell., (2008) Cost-

effectiveness of c-leg compared with non-microprocessor-controlled knees: A modelling

approach. In Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 89, pp. 24–30.
Brüggemann, G.-P., A. Arampatzis, F. Emrich, and W. Potthast., (2007) Biomechanics of

double transtibial amputee sprinting using dedicated sprinting prostheses. In Sports

Technology 1, (4–5), pp. 220–7.

Burkett, B., (2010) Technology in Paralympic sport: performance enhancement or essential
for performance? In British Journal of Sports medicine, 44, pp. 215-220.
Burkett, B., McNamee, M., Potthast, W., (2011) Shifting boundaries in sports technology and
disability: equal rights or unfair advantage in the case of Oscar Pistorius? In British
Journal of Sports medicine, 26, (5), pp. 643–654.

Denscombe, M. (2006) The Good Research Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Denzin,N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (2008) Organisational Research Methods. London: Sage
Publications.

Gomm, R. (2004). Social Research Methodology. A critical introduction. London:

Palgrave Macmillan.
Harris, J., (2010) The use, role and application of advanced technology in the lives of

disabled people in the UK. In Disability & Society 25, (4) pp. 427–39.
Howe, P.D., (2014) Cyborg and Supercrip: the Paralympics Technology and the
(Dis)empowerment of Disabled Athletes. Cited in Research in Communication, Disability,
and Sport Communication and Sport, 3, pp. 8-26.
International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) (2009) Rules and Regulations for
Competitors. London: IAAF.

Lechler, K., Lilja, M., (2008) Lower Extremity Leg Amputation: an advantage in running? In

Sports Technology, 1 (4-5), pp. 229–234.
Maslin, S., (2012) Paralympians’ Equipment Raises Debate on Fairness. Accessed online on

19-02-2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/sports/equipment-used-by-disabled-athletes-fuels-debate-on-fairness.html?_r=0
Mitchell, G., (2012) Inside the Paralympics Archive. BBC iPlayer. 26-08-2012 Accessed
online on 23-02-2015 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00x3x8c
Nosowitz, D., (2014) The Winter Paralympics Are The World’s Best Showcase Of Sports
Technology. Accessed online on 22-02-2015 from
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3027334/innovation-by-design/the-winter-paralympics-are-the-worlds-best-showcase-of-sports-technolog
Pearce, N., (2012) Paralympics 2012: how technology is helping athletes excel. Accessed
online on 19-02-2015 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/paralympic-sport/9507067/Paralympics-2012-how-technology-is-helping-athletes-excel.html

Rushby-Smith, T., Douglas, L., (2012) Paralympic Technology. In Ingenia, 51. Accessed
online on 22-02-2015 from http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ingenia/articles.aspx?Index=775
Schwartz, A., (2012) The Prosthetic Foot That’s Helping Paralympic Athletes to Compete.
Accessed online on 20-02-2015 from: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680211/the-prosthetic-foot-thats-helping-paralympic-athletes-to-compete

Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J., le Compte, M.D., (1999) Essential Ethnographic Methods:
Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. California: Rowan Altamira.

Sherweb, (2010) Amazing sports tech designed for Paralympic athletes. Accessed online on
20-02-2015 from: http://www.sherweb.com/blog/amazing-sports-tech-designed-for-paralympic-athletes/

Wolbring, J., (2010) Human enhancement through the ableism lens. In International

Journal of Applied Ethics 2, (3).
Appendix I
[This will consist of questions for inclusion in the semi-structured interviews.] Appendix II
[This will consist of questions for online questionnaire – to be piloted prior to final delivery, and will have a short paragraph along the lines of the one below:
What impact does technology have on Paralympic athletes?
Online Questionnaire.

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this aspect of research which is concerned with the investigation of the impact that technology has on Paralympic athletes. In order to gain information concerning this area it would be helpful if you could supply your own personal opinions, thoughts and ideas in response to these twelve questions, all of which will be treated confidentially and will appear anonymously. The majority of the questions can be answered by a simple highlighting of an appropriate answer.
Thank you for your time.] Appendix III
[This will be the final online questionnaire which will be the questionnaire as in Appendix II, but with any necessary alterations.] PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT