View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

2008). PSF5 believed the “the two organisations saw each other perhaps as threats or
hindrances to their development” (personal communication, April 24, 2008).
PSF6 believed this was because the NSO felt threatened by their emergence “I think
historically it has been quite a tense relationship. I think [the NSO] feel threatened by what
we’ve been doing, and it’s interesting because we don’t feel threatened by them at all”
(personal communication, May 26, 2008). It appeared that at the current time that
interviews were conducted the relationship had advanced. That negative relationship was
developing into a much more positive one. PSF3 said “I think it’s positive right now”
(personal communication, April 16, 2008).
PSF2 detailed the developing relationship due to the areas of collaboration:
It’s building. When I first came on board there was no [junior development
programme] up in place, so the only interaction they would have had would have
been with the [national team] and the [PSF]. But now there’s a lot more happening
now (personal communication, April 14, 2008)
PSF1 explained there would be more collaboration with the NSO teams utilising
their facility “that will happen more with the [national men’s] and the women’s team and
junior [national team] coming in here and using this venue, where we’ll have easy access to
sit down and chat” (personal communication, April 14, 2008).
While some participants elaborated on the relationship improving from its previous
state “in one word I’d say improving” (PSF6, personal communication, May 26, 2008).
PSF4 commented on its improvement due to the appointment of NSO1, “That [relationship]
has since improved with the appointment of [NSO1]... So that he’s trying to make some
changes at [the NSO]. So, in turn we’ve had about a little bit more communication”
(personal communication, April 24, 2008).
PSF5 also talked about communication:
76