Realistic critical analysis of the level of achievement
When discussing achievement of the event; Slam Dunk Events believe it is necessary to refer back to the four primary objectives; and critically assess the achievement of Superbasket through the progress of these objectives.
Objective 1: Raise at least £25 for each charity through conducting the Superbasket event.
This objective (noun) is the most objective (adjective) of the four, as it can measured in a black and white fashion of success or failure. After the event was conducted and all the creditors were reimbursed and overheads paid, the event had raised a grand total of £59.65 to share out between both charities (roughly: £29.82 each). Therefore the event had been successful in this objective. The event had overachieved as it exceeded its financial target by 19%.
Objective 2: Increase awareness throughout the Sheffield Basketball scene about the work of both charities; by informative materials being presented throughout the course of the event lead-up and execution.
After studying the results from the post-event evaluation study, the awareness of the charities can be measured.
In question 3, participants were asked whether they had prior knowledge about the two charities.
The findings illuminate that 40% of the attendees didn’t know about either charity; whilst 60% did know about them however only knew ‘a little’ about them and the work they do.
However after the event awareness had increased:
After the event 40% of the attendees felt that they knew ‘a lot’ about the charities; a dramatic increase from the 0% prior to the event. Another 20% felt that still knew ‘a little’ about the charities and desired to learn more; whilst 40% still felt they did not know, or learn about the charities whilst at the event.
The results from this are inconclusive; whilst awareness amongst those whom already knew about the charities may have increased; still 40% of attendees felt they didn’t learn anything about the charities.
It is the belief of the author; that technically the objective was achieved but in a shallow fashion and awareness could have been raised much more dramatically.
Objective 3: Promote the popularity of Basketball amongst the contemporary Sheffield student demographic.
Unfortunately during the planning process of Superbasket, it was announced that pre-existing student Basketball following would not be local to Sheffield on the date of the event. This was due to both Sheffield Hallam’s and Sheffield University’s basketball teams (of both genders) participating in a BUCS tournament in London on March 15th, the same date as Superbasket. This took away the opportunity to collaborate with the current Sheffield-student populous which play basketball to develop and build on the following.
After finding out that all four teas would be absent for the duration of the event, the physical marketing became more student targeted. Posters advertising the event were predominantly placed within University buildings.
This objective level of success is inconclusive. Directly after the event, interviews took place between the organizers and some of the participants at the event. A group of Sheffield Hallam students said that the event and the charitable causes had encouraged them to play Basketball again. This suggests that the event had a positive impact of the popularity of Basketball within the Sheffield student demographic. (Transcript found within the appendix). However one set of students does not constitute sufficient evidence to make such conclusions.
Objective 4: To engage the charities in new and innovative fundraising events; atypical to the status quo of their usual techniques.
Studying websites of both charities, specifically their fundraising pages; the charities curate several events including book signings, bake sales and art galleries (Cavendish Cancer Care, 2014; The Children's Hospital Charity, 2014). Both are quite distant from Slam Dunk Event’s event. Whilst CCC hosts a multitude sports-themed fundraising activities (Cavendish Cancer Care, 2014), most of which fall short of a competitive element. TCHC plan to hold a charity golf competition in the near future with a slight level of competitive nature; however entry to the event this exclusive as the cost of admission is the bold figure of £220 (The Children's Hospital Charity, 2014).
It is therefore the opinion of the author that the Slam Dunk Events were successful in creating a new, unique and innovative event to fundraise for the charities. This is ratified by the charities current event remit. Superbasket stands alone as the only competitive, accessible and urban sports-led event that either charity execute.
Critique of evaluation study.
Using meta-analysis, the author can critique the construction of the evaluation study. Let it firstly be known that the evaluation study was in no way generated by the author and instead was the work of a colleague.
The respondent rate is incredibly low; with only five respondents for the whole survey. This prompts the notion that the post evaluation survey is of limited use; and cannot be used comprehend any judgements of the evaluation of the event with any jurisdiction.
The author also believes that the questionnaire is of poor quality and made completely wrong. The questions are phrased in an informal and unprofessional manner. Some of the questions could be considered leading; and most of which do not generate enough data. There is also a spelling mistake; which continues the unprofessional theme throughout.
All of which culminate in a poor questionnaire; which is highly inefficient. Whilst research argues that questionnaires are indeed effective when collecting data based around sporting events (Jørgensen, et. al., 2013, p. 655); however this research complies with the brusque and sarcastic article: “How to complete bad research in 10 steps”, the questionnaire seemingly has no set motives and had specific driven ambition to attain any precise information, is arduous and long which more than likely dissuaded people to complete the questionnaire (resulting in the high attrition rate) and the research only uses the questionnaire method; which predominantly only generates quantitative data. When it is well established by research industry figureheads that having a plethora of both types of data (qualitative and quantitative) complements and greatly strengthens the research and of the validity of it (Veal, 2011; Libresco, 1988, p. 4).
Interviewer: Hi Guys, I’m reporting for Slam Dunk TV – and I’m currently with team E.M.B. who have just competed in the first ever Superbasket event, how do you guys feel?
JJ: Yeah… Great, exhausted but great.
Interviewer: So how does it feel shooting hoops for charity?
AP: Yeah… like always been into… basketball, but never get much chance to do it, being a student and all. So it was nice to do something I enjoy for charity.
JJ: Totally agree man, like never get the time to do it on a frequent basis anymore – but love playing ball; the fact its for charity; and its open to all abilities is a real cool perk. I’m outta practise!
Interviewer: Cool. Thanks guys; and hope to see you at Superbasket II!
Cavendish Cancer Care. (2014). Supporting Cavendish Cancer Care. Retrieved April 20, 2014, from Cavendish Cancer Care: http://www.cavcare.org.uk/get-involved
Jørgensen, M. E., Sørensen, M. R., Ekholm, O., & Rasmussen, K. (2013, October). Importance of questionnaire context for a physical activity question. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 23(5), 651-656.
Libresco, J. D. (1988, January 4). Do bad research, in 10 quick and easy steps. Marketing News, pp. 4-5.
The Children's Hospital Charity. (2014). Hallowes Golf Day 2014. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from The Children's Hospital Charity: http://tchc.org.uk/hallowes-golf-day
The Children's Hospital Charity. (2014). Latest news. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from The Children's Hospital Charity: http://tchc.org.uk/news
Veal, A. J. (2011). Research methods for leisure and tourism: a practical guide (4th ed.). New York: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
