INTRODUCTION
Cricket in India like any other sport it is susceptible to corruption (Blackshaw, 2013). Match-fixing and spot-fixing are two ways through which illegal betting can infiltrate an organized sport like cricket (Mahyera, 2012). Unless concrete steps are taken, such instances could well happen in the future and therefore be harmful to the dominance of the BCCI in world cricket (Gupta, 2011). Therefore, this research proposal outlines a study that explores players perspectives preventing corruption in Indian cricket. It presents a brief literature review and rationale for the study, outlines the main research question and objectives of research. It also outlines the proposed methods of data collection and analysis that will be adopted for this study.
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
The manifestation of corruption in Cricket can be attributed to a number of practices including biased umpiring, match fixing, spot fixing, drug abuse, field levelling in favour of the home team and premature revelation of the team’s composition (Frith, 2012). Gambling in India is illegal but this does not prevent those who bet on cricket (Mann, 2014) and out of the 49 billion dollars illegal gambling and betting market in the country (Kumar and Asokan, 2014), betting on sports makes up a major portion (Mann, 2014), the seeds of which can be traced back to the most infamous match-fixing incident that took place in the 1990s involving the then skipper Mohammad Azharuddin, Ajay Jadeja, Manoj Prabhakar, Nayan Mongia and Ajay Sharma as a result of which Azharuddin was banned for life along with Ajay Jadeja who was prohibited from playing cricket for 5 years (Misra and Vikram, 2011).
Due to an exponential growth of corruption and betting in Cricket, ICC set up an Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) in 2000 (Blackshaw, 2013), as an operating division of the ICC Code of Conduct assigning one regional security manager for every international series for the enforcement of anti-corruption norms (Frith, 2012). Malpractices in Indian cricket also led to the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the year 2000 which highlighted Mumbai as the hub of betting in India due to the direct involvement of Bollywood celebrities and mafia with the highest number of bookie presence within the city. The CBI also revealed that such activities took place right under the jurisdiction of the BCCI and deemed the organisation inefficient in terms of keeping vigilance and a check on the unfortunate events that took place. Cricket betting is one of the largest organized illegal activity in India (Qureshi and Verma, 2013).
A limitation worth noticing is that BCCI’s existence and authority has been questioned several times due to incidents surrounding financial irregularities and lack of vigilance, which in turn raises the unavoidable question of whether the BCCI is competent enough to reduce, if not eradicate, corruption (Misra and Vikram, 2011) and this can also be attributed to the fact that it has minimal power in taking steps against corruption which is currently limited to the suspension of a player if found or proven guilty (Qureshi and Verma, 2013). With regards to corruption, specifically cricket match-fixing, there seems to be a ‘nexus of silence’ in organizations, which originates from hypocrisy, in an attempt to avoid scandal (Gross, 2006).
Reforming the structure of cricket is essential to eradicate corrupt cheating practices in the long run (Preston, Ross and Szymanski, 2010). Players have unique insights on these issues but their voices are currently absent in the literature and therefore, the proposed study will examine the player’s perspective on eliminating corruption in Indian cricket.
RESEARCH QUESTION
The research question for the study is:
What are players’ perspectives on eradicating corruption from Indian Cricket?
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
This research proposal focuses on the following proposed objectives for the study:
- To examine why professional cricket players’ believe that Indian cricketers indulge in corrupt practices like match-fixing and spot fixing
- To examine what approaches professional cricket players’ believe should be adopted in order to tackle corruption
RESEARCH DESIGN
A subjective (constructivist) ontology for this study will facilitate an understanding regarding the reality or realities which result from different perceptions. Unlike objective ontology, there is an existence of multiple truths. These multiple realities are created, shaped and influenced by the subjective perspectives of those taking part in the study-both the respondents and the researcher. Since we are dealing with understanding subjective perspectives of cricketers with regards to corruption in Indian cricket, using a subjective (constructivist) ontological position along with an interpretivism/constructivism epistemological approach might be best suited for this study.
The data collection for the study will involve two phases. In phase 1 qualitative data will be collated using interviews with a small sample of players and then in phase 2 an online survey will be distributed to a larger sample of players. These phases are outlined below.
PHASE 1 – QUALITATIVE
- Who will you collect data from?
- How will you select your sample?
- How will you engage the sample in the research (e.g. recruit volunteers for interviews, distribute the survey?)
- How will you collect the data from participants?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of your proposed approach?
- How will you analyse the data? (e.g. thematic analysis using NVivo, Statistical analysis using Qualtrics)
PHASE 2 – QUANTITATIVE
- Who will you collect data from?
- How will you select your sample?
- How will you engage the sample in the research (e.g. recruit volunteers for interviews, distribute the survey?)
- How will you collect the data from participants?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of your proposed approach?
- How will you analyse the data? (e.g. thematic analysis using NVivo, Statistical analysis using Qualtrics)
ENSURING HIGH QUALITY DATA
- Explain how different criteria can be used when assessing the quality of qualitative (e.g. trustworthiness) and quantitative data (e.g. reliability and validity).
