Technology in Paralympic Games Article Review

In this article, Burkett (2010) tries to identify the role that technology can help Paralympic athletes to compete in different sporting activities. The study focuses more on how technology can be made relevant to individual needs of Paralympic athletes. Moreover, it highlights the weaknesses and strengths in technologies used in the summer Paralympic games held in Athens and Beijing.  The objective of the study was to ensure that relevant technology could be provided the 2012 London Games. The study is important and necessary because different technologies have been used before to help Paralympic athletes compete in different games, but some of them have failed the athletes. Moreover, Burkett (2010) seeks to provide solutions to an existing problem and make Paralympic athletes able to compete well during the Paralympic games. The researcher does an in-depth analysis of the peer-reviewed literature on technologies available for use by Paralympic athletes to be able to compete well. Moreover, the researcher uses personal observations of technological developments at the Athens (2004) and Beijing (2008) Paralympic games. The observations and discussions on the use of technologies are carried on Paralympic athletes that took part in the 2004 and 2008 Paralympic games in Athens and Beijing respectively (Burkett, 2010). The null hypothesis stated that the technology used in Paralympic games had no impact on the performance of Paralympic athletes. However, alternative hypothesis stated that technology used in Paralympic games has a significant impact on the performance of Paralympic athletes.

The outcome of the study revealed that standard assistive devices could inhibit the abilities of Paralympic athlete to perform well in the games. Burkett (2010) explained that every Paralympic athlete has unique challenges. Therefore, they should be provided with relevant assistive technologies to meet their individual needs. Burkett (2010) also showed that various technical adjustments had been realized especially in building prosthetic and wheelchair devices. The Paralympic athletes can use these devices well to compete well with others (Burkett, 2010). He reiterated the need for technology to make Paralympic games more effective and friendly to Paralympic athletes. He also showed that the technology used still does not offer a Paralympian any significant advantage over an athlete. In his conclusion, Burkett (2010) confirmed that technology must match the individual requirements of athletes to increase their safety and performance in the games. The researcher concluded that irrelevant technology promoted unfairness in international games and the need for a solution was timely. The technology reduces the ability for the athlete to compete and end up injuring the athletes too. The technology should provide for all the needs of an athlete for it to be considered effective and necessary (Nir, 2012).

Burkett’s (2010) article is associated with various strengths and weaknesses. As strength, he critically analyzes available literature on the significance of technology in Paralympic sports. Therefore, the researcher can get a brief history of how technology has been used in Paralympic sports. Moreover, the researcher can get the proper perspective to approach the study. The available literature highlights where there have been problems in the use of technology. Moreover, they show where significant progress has been made and how the athletes benefit from the development. As a result, the literature gives the researcher cues on the technologies present and how well they have been used to help Paralympic athletes compete well. The researcher is thus given a foundation on which he can benchmark his study. The literature also makes the study to achieve more credibility because the researcher can know the technologies have been used previously and the manner in which they have been used. Secondly, the researcher utilizes personal observations on how technology was used and how it served Paralympic athletes during the 2004 and 2008 Paralympic games. Through this, the researcher can make valid conclusions on how the available technology serves Paralympic athletes.

Thirdly, the study focuses on a real-life issue that often makes Paralympics not compete well. The use of technology has not been made effective and reliable in helping Paralympic athlete compete in a fair and safe way (Burkett, 2010). Therefore, the study offers crucial insights on how this problem can be resolved. He also collects information from the relevant participants and thus the effectiveness of the overall study. Fourthly, the conclusions are made from the information collected from the 2004 and 2008 events. The conclusions are thus very reliable and helpful in ensuring that meaningful changes in technology are made to provide help to Paralympic athletes. The scientific approach used by the researcher to study the use of technology to help Paralympic athletes is effective and yields the desired outcomes. The researcher focuses on gathering enough information to support the conclusions. The conclusions are thus helpful in transforming the kind of technologies used and how they are used in the Paralympic games.

However, the weakness of the study is that it does not identify the specific technologies and the possible adjustments that can be made to fit Paralympic athlete’s needs. The researcher only suggests that every technology should be relevant to individual needs. The study would have been excellent if the researcher identified specific technologies, the inappropriateness to the athletes’ needs, and ways of modifying to enhance utility. As a result, it would be possible for the research to provide a clear roadmap on how technology can be adjusted to avoid creating inconveniences to the athletes who use them. The article just highlights the problems with the use of technology but does not show how the available technologies can be made relevant and helpful to the athletes. Due to this, the article can be viewed as ineffective and unreliable in calling for the changes in the way technology is used in Paralympic games. Therefore, the author from the way he approaches the problem concerning the use of irrelevant technology in Paralympic games. There is a need for similar studies to highlight the problem and show ways of tackling problems in this field.

Nevertheless, the study does well in highlighting the problem of use irrelevant of technology in Paralympic games (Burkett, 2010). The article indicates that technologies have been used to help Paralympic athletes without considering the unique challenges the athletes have. As a result, an athlete can be given assistive devices that end up making them suffer more and not perform well in games. The researcher does a correct analysis of data and makes the right conclusions. The conclusions are informed by the evidence collected. The researcher uses simple and clear language. The language can be understood well by readers. The problem is argued out well with sufficient evidence drawn from the literature reviews and observations made in the 2004 and 2008 games. The approach to the problem is good in that the researcher anticipates highlighting and calling for solutions to the wrong use of technology among Paralympic athletes. Therefore, the failure of the researcher to provide specific examples of technologies used wrongly and ways of correcting does not make the study lack its relevance. Perhaps, future studies can bridge this gap by addressing the weakness of Burkett’s article (Brittain, 2016).


References
Brittain, I. (2016). The Paralympic games explained: Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge
Burkett, B. (2010). Technology in Paralympic Sport: Performance Enhancement or Essential for Performance? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(1), 215-220. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.067249
Nir, S. M. (2012). Paralympians’ equipment raises debate on fairness. The New York Times. Retrieved from Oct. 7, 2017. www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/sports/equipment-used-by-disabled-athletes-fuels-debate-on-fairness.html