Use double quotes to find documents that include the exact phrase: "aerodynamic AND testing"


Dorothy Paul has several decades of experience as an athlete, mentor and facilitator within sport in Canada. But organized sport wasn’t always a part of her life. 

“Growing up, I was the oldest girl of 7 kids, so there wasn’t a lot of extra money for me to participate in sport,” she says. Paul would play outside with her siblings, climbing trees and racing, jumping from tree to tree. 

Things changed after Paul and her siblings watched the Montreal Olympics in 1976. The Olympics inspired new versions of their old games: “We created an obstacle course around the house using saw horses, jumping over the septic tank, all kinds of things. And we would race to see who could do it the fastest. And I guess it accidentally trained me well for middle school cross-country!” Paul says. 

Middle school cross-country led to high school track, soccer, field hockey and rugby, which then led to an over 30-year career in the Victoria Women’s Premier Soccer League. Now, Paul is a master facilitator for the Aboriginal Sport Circle’s Aboriginal coaching modules and has served as an Indigenous Long-Term Participant Development Pathway mentor through Sport for Life. She has held several positions with the North American Indigenous Games, including serving as the Chef de Mission in 2002. 

After retiring from soccer, she started a women’s box lacrosse team, the Victoria Wolves, which she still plays with. But when the world shut down with COVID-19 and Paul had a little extra time to reflect, she started thinking about how the sport system needed to change, and searching for models of what that could look like.  

“For 30 years, I’ve been hearing people say, ‘We need to un-silo, we need to un-silo, so what are we not doing? What’s preventing us from un-siloing?’ Maybe we need to take a different look at systems change and possibly that will spark conversations with people and then they’ll start to do things just a little bit different,” Paul says. 

In doing so, she came across the 2 Loops Theory of Change. 

Exploring 2 Loops Theory of Change 

2 Loops Theory of Change was developed through the Berkana Institute (established in 1992) and specifically an article published by Margaret Wheatley and Deborah Frieze entitled “Using emergence to take social innovation to scale.” The theory seeks to describe and model organizations as living beings with life cycles, rather than as mechanistic entities that are unchanging.  

Fig 1: 2 Loops Theory of Change Diagram, adapted from the Berkana Institute

The theory depicts the processes involved in the transition from one system (the dominant system) to another system (the emerging system). Within and between each system, people take on a variety of roles, including as: 

The theory accounts for the fact that you are both an individual and a member of a system. It also accounts for the fact that change isn’t linear, life’s external forces impact how a system operates, hence why a system can never really remain unchanged. 

This is what originally drew Dorothy Paul to the theory, and what made her start thinking about the potential for using it as a model to inspire reflection and change within the Canadian sport sector.  

“It’s fluid,” Paul says of the 2 loops model, “It’s not concrete. Other systems theories I saw came at it from like a mechanical point of view, where it’s like, ‘Oh, this piece isn’t working? Let’s take it out and replace it with something else and oh, why didn’t that work?’ [Those models] have forgotten that all the pieces of a system rely on all of these other things to exist as well. I like the idea of systems change from a human point of view and a fluid point of view.” 

In their original article, Wheatley and Frieze (2006) write: “Despite current ads and slogans, the world doesn’t change one person at a time. It changes as networks of relationships form among people who discover they share a common cause and vision of what’s possible. This is good news for those of us intent on changing the world and creating a positive future. Rather than worry about critical mass, our work is to foster critical connections.”  

Almost everyone is familiar with the idea of growth within a system or sector. What we don’t often talk about is the decline of an organization, system, or sector. Decline is not necessarily failure, it may just mean that the context in which the system exists has changed, and now a different system would be better suited. 

Frieze uses the example of the oil industry. We are all likely familiar with oil’s rise to be the dominant system. As people learned more about pollution, climate change, and fossil fuels, individuals began questioning the system and looking for alternatives. In the 2 loops theory, these people are called pioneers. These pioneers truly gain strength when they begin to connect with each other, forming networks and brainstorming new systems. This occurs at the same time as those resisting any change from the dominant system are saying things like: “we’ve always done it this way,” or “we’re too big to fail.” 

System change isn’t flipping a switch. And dominant systems are not inherently bad. They often have important elements to carry forward or learn from. This is why the roles of “stabilizers” and “hospice workers” are important. They are the people within the dominant system that recognize that change is coming, and work to help the older system transition into the new. In the oil industry example, they are not only the people thinking about how infrastructure can switch from oil and gas to renewable energy, but also the people that consider what will happen to people currently employed by the oil industry and helping to figure out how to transfer their skills elsewhere.  

These roles are important because there’s always a gap between dominant and emergent systems, this is why in the diagram itself, the loops don’t touch. The emergent system isn’t ready to catch and carry everyone from the dominant system right away. The old system needs to be gently wound down in a respectful manner, with its resources redistributed and lessons learned carried forward. Bridge builders are the people that help everyone transition from the dominant to the emergent system. At which point, the lifecycle of the system starts again. 

A conversation with Dorothy Paul 

Paul has presented to different audiences in the Canadian sport sector, using 2 Loops Theory to suggest a pathway for change and instill reflection within individuals and organizations. SIRC chatted with Paul to dive deeper into some of her thoughts on our changing sport landscape.  

SIRC: What do you think are the most pressing issues that we’re facing as a sport sector right now?  

DP: Our current sports system is based on volunteerism. With COVID, volunteerism has almost disappeared. So either our system is going to have to really adapt or we’re going to have to really look at ways of restructuring things, how we do things at the community level, at the provincial and territorial sport organization level because we’re not going to have people to train athletes to move through the system and we’re not going to be able to pull our coaches, our administrators from the system of volunteers as we have been. I don’t know what the answer is for that, but I think we need to consider: how did other countries make that transition? And what did they do to make that transition? Because I think in Canada we aren’t going to rely on volunteerism much longer. 

Even though this is kind of an older change theory, I think it still has value because it takes into account all the outside influences. In the last little while because all of the things that have been happening in the media, like Safe Sport, diversity and equity, those things have really been pushing the current system and have been at the forefront for the past 4 or 5 years. Which is why I think we’re somewhere here [points to the middle of the 2 loops, during which a dominant system is transitioning through hospice and decomposing, and another system is emerging on its way to communities of practice].  

For example, the system has created courses for people to take to ensure that we understand as coaches and as workers in this system that we’re educated on these things that are coming forward and pushing our system in an emerging direction. But for the volunteers that are coming through, they’re thinking: “I just want to coach right now, but now I have to do Safe Sport workshops and coaching workshops, and a criminal record check! Do I really want to spend 3 weeks to become a coach for a 4-month season?” We have to recognize that when you get down to the community level, sometimes volunteers don’t want to spend that much time, they just want to go and coach. So with the Rule of Two, Safe Sport and all of the other courses that have cropped up in the last 5 years, people are hesitant or walking away from wanting to participate in the sport system. I’m also seeing a lot of movement within sport administrators, a high turnover in organizations. Which makes me think that we could still be here [points to left side of model with pioneers leaving the dominant system]. 

SIRC: How can we use the 2 Loops system to think about that problem? 

DP: I think we need to pay attention to how we’re treating people in the system. The people who are part of the resistance, or the stabilizers, or the hospice, that takes a lot of time and energy. We need to be really understanding: “What does this employee in front of me bring to the table and what are their real strengths? Does the position we put them in actually suit how their brain works?” When people are in a position where it’s a great fit for them, they’re going to do all kinds of work.   

What I’ve seen in the system today, really, is if you’re not working 100 hours a week, you’re not producing, so therefore you’re not valuable to us. That’s not sustainable. I think COVID got a lot of people thinking, “do I really want to consistently do 100 hours a week for a system that views me as expendable?” 

So, it’s really looking at how we can keep the good people that are in our system and support them so that they want to stay for a longer period of time. I’m even thinking even just in mainstream sport [as opposed to Indigenous], it’s harder and harder for people to be an employee for life. People come in, they’re employed in one area for 3 to 5 years and then they move on to something else. What do we need to do as employers within the system to ensure that our employees feel supported and valued?  

The current system as it is feels safe, the “this is what we know, therefore we’re going to keep doing it.” So now it’s a question of how do we share new information in such a way, like with all the Safe Sport programming, where we can translate it into our place of employment, our administration, our organization? That’s where we need those stabilizers, bridge builders and hospice workers.  

SIRC: What’s the response been like from when you’ve done presentations on 2 Loops within the sport sector? Does it resonate with people? 

DP: One of my presentations, I physically made the loops with rope and asked people to stand on where they thought they fit in the system. Nobody wanted to stand on a dominant system because of the type of conversation we had around that. But there’s a reason we need those dominant people.  

I like the terms dominant and emerging instead of new and old systems because “new” implies that the old is bad, but it’s not. As the system is changing, we need to figure out which are the parts of the dominant system we are going to keep because not everything is terrible in the current system, and there’s a lot of good things in there. And that’s what the hospicing and decomposing is about. 

More than half of people went to bridge building, which really says something about how people are registering change in the system. 

SIRC: What else is important to keep in mind when using this model to think through change in the sport system? 

I think for me what keeps coming up is thinking through that decomposition piece. There’s a lot of good things in this current system. We need to take a hard look at what actually needs to change. For me, it’s the human element. That’s my biggest piece, how are we treating our people within this system? And how can we keep them? It bothers me that I’ve come across a fair number of people who have just left the system altogether and gone elsewhere. That person had a huge set of skills and had a huge history of the sports sector. How come we couldn’t keep them? How come we couldn’t shift them into a different role?  

So when we think of the dominant system, we can’t just think of the people that are in it as the resistance. We need to find a way to address that resistance and share where that new system is actually moving, what it believes in, and how they are a valuable part of that emerging system, that they do have a role to play. 

Questions for sport orgs and individuals to consider: 

Ottawa – The Sport Information Resource Centre (SIRC) is thrilled to announce we are celebrating our 50th anniversary! Founded in 1973, as a library for sports-related information, SIRC has evolved into a leading knowledge broker for the Canadian sport community.

Over the past 5 decades, SIRC has focused on synthesizing evidence-based information into practical, easy-to-understand tools for sport organizations, serving athletes, coaches, officials, and administrators. With a commitment to research to practice, SIRC facilitates conversations between sport, government, and researchers to enhance the Canadian sport landscape.

SIRC has played a critical role in advancing safe sport and safety in sport, ensuring that Canadian athletes can compete at the highest level while feeling safe and supported. As a one-stop-shop and go-to reference for sports organizations, SIRC has become a trusted resource for anyone seeking sport-related information.

“As we celebrate SIRC’s 50th anniversary, we reflect on the journey from a simple library to a leading knowledge and communication hub for Canadian sport community. The team’s ability to embrace innovation and focus on what is relevant for sport continues to drive us at SIRC,” said Debra Gassewitz, President and CEO of SIRC. “We are proud to be the go-to reference for sports organizations and look forward to continuing to serve the Canadian sport community for the many years ahead.”

In addition to its wealth of knowledge, SIRC hosts the leading sport job board in Canada, connecting qualified candidates with exciting opportunities across the country.

We invite you to join us in congratulating SIRC on this remarkable milestone.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIN for some retro fun facts throughout the year and look for a 50th themed SIRCuit publication in the fall. 

To learn more about the Sport Information Resource Centre and the valuable services they provide, please visit their website at

About SIRC

Incorporated in 1973, SIRC, the Sport Information Resource Centre, is Canada’s leader and most trusted partner in advancing sport through knowledge and evidence. SIRC is committed to engaging with organizations and individuals involved in the development of sport, recreation and physical education in Canada and around the world, to enhance the capacity of our shared community to foster growth and the pursuit of excellence.


The landscape of Canadian sport is populated by thousands of membership based nonprofit organizations. In the sporting context, membership organizations are ones in which members pay fees motivated by their interest to participate in their chosen sport (for example, a Masters athlete paying dues to a local track club). As result of that financial investment, they gain access to the benefits of coaching, organized practices and officiated competitions. These are the benefits that paying members tend to focus on.

However, paying fees in a membership organization also gives the paying members the right to vote at the annual general meeting and elect the organization’s board of directors. Many members may regard the annual meeting and the ritual of electing a board as a somewhat uninteresting annual event. For many members in many organizations, electing board members is the extent of their engagement with the board of their organization, unless they become dissatisfied with something and believe the board should pay attention to the problem.

The board of a club is usually preoccupied with the many administrative and organizational aspects of running the club’s programs. When there are no managing staff, the board takes on the management role and, generally, as a consequence its role as the governing board gets less attention.

Effective governance

To govern effectively, one must:

This is true of all organizations, membership organizations included. But it takes disciplined and informed work to navigate the unique context of membership organizations.

Members are shareholders, not just beneficiaries

Every governing board has the same accountability: to set direction, protect the organization and be accountable for achieving its core purpose over the long-term. To do this effectively, a board needs to intentionally and regularly connect with members. Members should be thought of as “shareholders” of the club. It is the board’s responsibility to translate the values of members into policies that direct and protect the club.

Seeking this input is seldom easy. Asking club members to think about the future is not an easy conversation when day-to-day operations are front of mind for both the board and members. Most conversations that boards have with members focus on problems and circumstances that arise in the member’s role as beneficiary, as the consumer of programs and services, rather than as a shareholder.

These conversations are important, as they are valuable in managing the club, but they are not so useful to the process of governing. And so, the board’s time is often spent reacting to today’s problems, planning short-term, and sometimes intervening with coaches, officials, or competition organizers where it seems hands-on control is warranted.

BrainstormingIf a board wants members to think about the future, it needs to ask questions that tap into a shareholder mindset. For example:

Governance in an organization of organizations

The Canadian sport system is also characterized by its many federations, which are essentially organizations of organizations. Federations cover municipal sport councils, Provincial and Territorial Sport Organizations (PTSOs) and National Sport Organizations (NSOs).

Effective governing begins with the board understanding the source of its authority to govern. Like any membership organization, a sport federation’s members grant the board authority to govern the organization on their behalf. In return, the board is legally accountable to members for the long-term direction and control of the organization. Although NSOs have different processes and conditions for electing board members, it is the members who hold the power to hire and fire boards.

Governing a federation effectively requires the board to distinguish between PTSOs as shareholders (those to whom the board is accountable) and as beneficiaries (those who participate in the NSO’s programs, events and services).

Which role?

Consider the different perspectives of the PTSO member as shareholder and the PTSO member a beneficiary:

The PTSO as shareholder… The PTSO as beneficiary
Has the mentality of a long-term investor who looks for sustainable long-term organizational success Has a transactional mentality who engages in program or service in exchange for immediate return or benefit
Asks: What does long-term sustainable success look like? What results or benefits should the NSO produce and for whom? Asks: What programs and services are currently available for my PTSO, its athletes, coaches, referees, clubs?
Acts in concert with all shareholders to decide the results or benefits that the NSO should produce Decides what results its PTSO, athletes, coaches, referees need
Looks at the long-term and big picture Looks at present and short term
Primary concern is for the common good of the sport throughout the country Primary concern is for my PTSO, my athletes, my coaches, my referees, my tournaments
Expects NSO to invest human and financial resources to produce a sustainable future Expects immediate returns or benefits for its investment of fees, time, commitment
Have the authority to make decisions collectively for NSO as a whole Has authority to make decisions for my PTSO, my athletes, my coaches, my referees
Connects and engages with the board as a whole Connects with the CEO, staff and coaches

The board needs to engage with member PTSOs so that it develops a deep understanding of their perspectives, their priorities and their values. And then the board, on behalf of all members, needs to translate that input into a clearly defined direction.

It’s not that the concerns of PTSO-as-beneficiaries aren’t important, but dealing with “customer” issues is the job of staff, not the job of the board. Because customer issues are more immediate and concrete than the ambiguous owner issues of what is best for the whole of the NSO, the board needs to be aware of how easily it can be distracted by immediate customer needs.

Avoiding conflicts of loyalty

One problem that membership organizations have is when the board is elected from among members. Those members invariably have loyalties to specific participants, clubs, or PTSOs and experience conflicts of loyalty when deliberating as a member of the board.

The enactment of the Canadian Nonprofit Corporations Act (2014) precipitated the revision of most NSO board structures. Previously most boards were comprised of a representative from each PTSO, as well as an elected president and other officers. The move away from this structure and the increasing number of boards seeking independent directors has mitigated a situation that was ripe for conflict of loyalty.

Some guidelines that an NSO board may want to introduce to recognize the duality of PTSO roles:

Every board of a membership organization needs to be vigilant to ensure that it doesn’t allow or enable conflict of loyalties in its governing processes. Failure to act in the best interest of the whole of the NSO shows lack of fidelity to the task of governing on behalf of the entire membership and is an abdication of the legal and fiduciary duty to govern the organization on the behalf of all.

From the sports field to the boardroom, groups are everywhere! Think back to a time when you were joining a new group. Did you feel uncertain or nervous? Did you know what was expected of you in your new role? These feelings are quite common and completely normal for athletes as they transition into new teams. However, as coaches and mentors we can take certain steps to make incoming athletes feel more confident and comfortable, setting the stage for their time on the team.

In this blog we discuss the importance of athlete onboarding and provide effective strategies for bringing athletes into your team environment.

Defining onboarding

Athlete onboarding, also called socialization or integration, is the process whereby new athletes learn and adjust to the expectations of a group (Benson et coll., 2015; Saks et coll., 2007). One aspect of this process involves the incoming athlete developing an understanding of the group’s goals, what part they play in achieving these objectives, and developing the skills needed to fulfill their role (Benson et coll., 2015; Saks et coll., 2007).

Another important part of the onboarding process is learning the group’s norms and values (Benson et coll., 2015; Saks et coll., 2007). As coaches, we can use techniques throughout the onboarding process to help new athletes adjust to the specific responsibilities and expectations of the team (Bauer et coll., 2007).

Why onboarding is important

Groups, including sports teams, each have their own unique context made up of (Martin et coll., 2014):

Incoming athletes must therefore navigate these existing contexts and figure out how they fit into the team.

New athletes face potential uncertainty related to both their responsibilities on the team and how to develop relationships with coaches and other team members (Benson et coll., 2015). The purpose of onboarding is to reduce these uncertainties (Bauer et coll., 2007). When teams use effective onboarding strategies, athletes better understand their roles, experience fewer competing demands from different roles and experience greater confidence in their ability to fulfill their role responsibilities, as well as greater social acceptance within their team (Bauer et coll., 2007; Saks et coll., 2007).

These outcomes subsequently lead to better performance, greater role satisfaction, commitment, increased intentions to remain on the team, and less athlete turnover (Bauer et coll., 2007; Saks et coll., 2007). Since using effective onboarding strategies has many positive outcomes, including improved performance, coaches and mentors can benefit their team by incorporating onboarding techniques when integrating new team members.

Strategies to effectively onboard on your team

The following are some different kinds of strategies to engage in onboarding activities:

  1. Collective strategies

Collective tactics mean providing all the incoming athletes with the same set of experiences (Saks et coll., 2007). One athlete that Benson and colleagues interviewed mentioned: “I really bonded with the other rookies… because we were all there for the same reason,” demonstrating that shared experiences are important for successful onboarding (Benson et coll., 2016, p. 468). You could, for example, have all incoming athletes watch a presentation together on the team’s norms and values.

  1. Formal strategies

Formal strategies are defined as fostering a structured environment where expectations are clearly outlined and role ambiguities are reduced during a specific onboarding period (Benson et coll., 2016; Saks et coll., 2007). For example, as a coach, you could organize formal meetings with incoming athletes to clearly outline expectations and ensure both you and the athlete are on the same page about the athlete’s role on the team (Benson et coll., 2016). Benson et coll. (2016) specified that roles are dynamic in sport as they depend on athlete progress or regress. Therefore, having a degree of role flexibility, in addition to meeting multiple times over the course of a season, is beneficial.

  1. Sequential strategies 

Sequential strategies are a defined series of steps that each incoming athlete goes through as they prepare to take on their role in the group (Saks et coll., 2007). For example, incoming athletes can start by meeting each other, then meeting the rest of the team, and so on. This gives a clear picture of what the incoming athlete should expect throughout the onboarding process, which minimizes uncertainty (Saks et coll., 2007). As a coach, you could provide the athlete with a visual overview of what steps will be taken throughout the onboarding period through a handout or schedule.   

  1. Serial strategies

Older male athlete mentors younger male athlete in football techniqueSerial strategies involve incoming athletes being mentored by veteran members who act as role-models and help the incoming athletes adjust to the new team (Saks et coll., 2007). Athletes really appreciate support from veteran team members and find that having a veteran member to rely on made the transition to a new team easier (Benson et coll., 2016). For example, as a coach, you could assign each new athlete to a veteran team member to help show the new athlete the ropes. On your team, you could have position-specific buddies and incorporate partner training drills specific to the position so that the veteran can help the incoming athlete feel more confident.

  1. Investiture strategies

Investiture strategies are fulfilled when the incoming athlete’s unique personality and experiences are valued within the team (Saks et coll., 2007). One of the biggest concerns athletes have prior to joining a new team is whether their new teammates will accept them (Benson et coll., 2016). As a coach, it is therefore important to foster an inclusive environment where team members are valued and accepted for who they are, while still outlining that there are certain expectations, such as punctuality, that must be met (Benson et coll., 2016). As a coach, you could organize a team meeting where the objective is to recognize the strengths and skills that each team member brings that also complement and support agreed upon team standards. This allows for team members to be valued for who they are, but also provides clarity regarding team expectations.

Concluding thoughts

Joining a new sports team can cause feelings of nervousness and anxiety, but as coaches and mentors, we can engage in purposeful activities to make incoming athletes feel accepted and confident as they transition into their new role on the team. These steps may look different from team to team, but the overall goal should be to reduce feelings of apprehension and uncertainty for our incoming athletes by utilizing institutionalized onboarding tactics more broadly. As coaches, we want our athletes to succeed, and that success begins with effective onboarding strategies.

Coaches’ understandings of disability are crucial, not only to athlete development, but also to athletes’ experiences of inclusion and community. When athletes perceive coaches to be unaccommodating or uninformed, they may feel excluded. Leadership programs like the Steadward Centre’s Athletes2Coaches show how supporting athletes with disabilities in undertaking coaching development helps to fill a gap in inclusivity in the sport sector.

To govern effectively, a board must become more knowledgeable about its members and stakeholders and understand their values and priorities. Only after focusing on this primary relationship can the board lead. A steward-leadership approach can help sport organization boards to provide vision and direction for the organization while enabling staff to apply their expertise, exercise creativity and grow as persons.

The importance of investing in women and gender-diverse leaders, and prioritizing gender equity has never been more evident for organizations. In the 2022 Rally Report, 80% of girls surveyed said they would stay in sport if there were more sport leaders and role models. However, 52% of women sport leaders said they feel there are too few opportunities.

“Organizations need to be dealing not just with the ‘now’ but to start to think about future-proofing themselves. Asking, what are you doing now? Not for next week, but to prepare for the next 3-5 years?” says Michael Naraine, an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Brock University. To him, future-proofing is dependent on good governance. Organizations need a board that is diverse in skills and committed to developing digital strategy and then evaluating the efficacy of the strategy.

Canada’s most trusted partner in advancing sport knowledge will continue to provide resources to help prevent maltreatment in sport

Dec. 23, 2022

Ottawa – The Sport Information Resource Centre (SIRC) is pleased to announce that it has signed an agreement to join Abuse-Free Sport, the new independent program to prevent and address maltreatment in sport.

SIRC now has access to the services of the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner (OSIC), which serves as the central hub of Abuse-Free Sport, following a transition period, which ended on December 19, 2022.

“SIRC endeavors to support our sporting partners responsibly and enable them to make informed decisions about their communities. SIRC pledges to do our part to support a growing national movement that is changing the culture of sport from coast-to-coast-to-coast,” said SIRC CEO and President, Debra Gassewitz. “As the first step of that commitment, SIRC is pleased to sign on to Abuse-Free Sport and to soon have the OSIC available to administer any safe sport complaints. It’s an important step forward for everyone involved in sport in Canada.”

SIRC has adopted the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport (UCCMS). This is a requirement before any sport organization can become part of the Abuse-Free Sport program, and SIRC has made the required policy changes, which were supported unanimously by SIRC’s Board of Directors.

Prior to December 19, 2022, participants who experienced or witnessed abuse still had access to SIRC’s current independent third-party: Business Sherpa Group (613-656-3499.)

Find out more about the Abuse-Free Sport program on the SIRC website.

About SIRC

Incorporated in 1973, SIRC, the Sport Information Resource Centre, is Canada’s leader and most trusted partner in advancing sport through knowledge and evidence. SIRC is committed to engaging with organizations and individuals involved in the development of sport, recreation and physical education in Canada and around the world, to enhance the capacity of our shared community to foster growth and the pursuit of excellence.

– 30 –


Ben Rycroft
Manager, Communications
1 (613) 231-7472

As the year comes to a close, the Sport Information Resource Centre (SIRC) is reflecting on some of its key projects, publications and events over the course of 2022. Here are some of the key highlights:

Top blogs of 2022

Top SIRCuit articles of 2022

Top content by topic

Top videos of 2022

1. Connecting mind and movement: How to create sport environments that support mental health

2. Engaging Black Community Coaches

3. Data – Why you need it & How to collect it

If you would like to engage SIRC’s services for a research project, please contact our head of Research and Innovation, Veronica Allan, at

If you have an idea you would like to pitch to SIRC, please contact our Content Specialist, Caela Fenton, at