Sport sociolo9gy 2000

Sport sociology 2000Dr. Kathleen Armour, Dr. Robyn Jones & Daniel Kerry
Brunel University, England
The purpose of this paper is to consider ways in which Sport Sociology can be valued as a discipline within sport sciences1, within sociology and within the world of sport which it analyses and serves. Brooker & Macdonald (1995), among others, point to the high status which society accords to the natural sciences, and note that this is also mirrored in physical education and sport sciences. Yiannakis & Greendorfer (1992) suggest that the broad field of sociology has "failed the litmus test" (p.5) of providing answers and solutions to society's social ills, and that within sport sciences, sport sociology is similarly deemed to be irrelevant to the practical needs of sport and sports practitioners. Ingham & Donnelly (1997) question the value of a sociology of sport, and challenge us to consider whether a "deliberate commitment to a sociology of sport is re-required" (p.392), while Loy & Sage (1997) suggest that sport sociology has reached a stage in its development where "a sociology of the sociology of sport now seems appropriate" (p.315). Sport sociology 2000 is, therefore, a title representing a deceptively straightforward mission. In essence, it is a plea for sport sociology to build upon its sound and expanding traditions of the 1980s and 1990s, and to grow. In order to do this, it is suggested in this paper that sport sociology must mature into an applied, inclusive, and cooperative (then collaborative) discipline in the next century. 1. Sport sociology within sport sciences: Defining the task
The central purpose of Sport Sciences is to study that conglomerate of mind, body and spirit which is the embodiment of sport and a wide range of physical activities. That embodiment is, inevitably, a social being - a member of society; and not just any society of course, as Ingham & Beamish (1997) remind us in their analysis of the 'enculturation of the social subject' (p160). A social being cannot escape society in order to participate in sport, rather, society consists of structures and agents who constitute - and reconstitute - sport, and sport sciences. Thus, the purpose of sport sociology is clear: it must study the sports/exercise person (at whatever level) as a social being in a particular social context; it must study social structures which endure and which have influence, and it has a self-appointed, moral imperative to study the processes and the outcomes of inequality (Donnelly, 1996) and ignorance in sport. It is, fundamentally, a complex, person-centred venture located within the multifarious facets and levels of sport, including elite sport and performance, coaching, health/exercise, social sport, and sport/physical education in schools.
But why restate the obvious? Well, if the above is anything like accurate, it is useful to be reminded that embarking upon sport sociology (indeed any sociology) is a daunting venture. The obvious leads to the obvious - those working in the area need all the tools available to them. Thus, there are positivist and anti-positivist adherents, qualitative and quantitative methods and, among others, critical, figurational, feminist, interpretive and historical paradigms. Love them or hate them, a mature discipline may need them all because the questions to be asked are intricate and obstinate; as Chalip (1992) points out 'In the real world, problems and needs are multifaceted and multidisciplinary' (p.262). Furthermore, the answers, like the social beings themselves, resist categorisation into neat paradigms; how much simpler if they did not! 2. On being 'applied'
In terms of its development towards maturity, Sport Sociology can best be described as a late adolescent/early adult. In the key text 'Sport and Social Theory', Rees & Miracle (1986) note that research in Sport Sociology had been criticised in terms of both its quality and quantity. They cited the plea by Loy, Kenyon & McPherson (1980) that sport sociology research ought to be more clearly grounded in social theory. Indeed, the whole purpose of Rees & Miracle's text was to show the importance of social theory to 'the development of sociology of sport' and to 'encourage readers to start their search for answers to questions about sociology of sport from some theoretical perspective' with the ultimate aim of achieving 'wider acceptance of the utility of sociology of sport among sociologists and sport practitioners alike' (p.vii). It is encouraging to see how far sport sociology has come since 1986. A glance at any of the international journals in the field provides ample evidence of sport sociology grounded in social theory. Perhaps, as a direct result of this, sport sociology may become more widely accepted within sociology - although Sage (1997b) remains sceptical. Two examples could be viewed as encouraging, however: one is the invitation to sport sociologists to present at the 1998 British Sociological Association Annual Conference in Edinburgh (April 6-9), and the second is the conference link between the International Sociology of Sport Association and the International Sociological Association (Montreal, July 26-August 1, 1998).
Arguably, where sport sociology has been less successful is in its attempts to gain greater acceptance among sports practitioners, and it is that issue which underpins this discussion. A paper by Luschen, within the Rees & Miracle (1986) text, makes a useful starting point. Luschen (1986) points out that 'the topic of the practical uses of sport sociology is not often discussed' (p.245), and he advocates a theory of 'action knowledge'. Interestingly, he envisaged that such a focus on 'applied' research would lead to enhanced academic respectability within the broader field of sociology. As he notes: 'sociology itself has yet to resolve this critical link between theory and practice' (p.245). Luschen's (1986) suggestion was that sport sociology ought to focus upon developing 'action knowledge' which he described as follows:
Action knowledge, in general, does not mean simple recommendations of a concrete and normative nature...The program of action knowledge aims for a deeper and more rational understanding based on explanatory knowledge and situative considerations. (p.248)
The primary purpose of action knowledge is to inform policy and planning and, to this end, action research is identified as a way of ensuring that policy and implementation are compatible. Luschen (1986) was, however, cautious about the scope of action knowledge - warning that it is not to be viewed as 'utopian engineering' (p.251). Nonetheless, he views it as essential knowledge for a range of professionals in sport: 'teachers, coaches, administrators, journalists and executives.....certainly need it to better understand their own position and action in modern sport' (p.253). We would wish to add sports participants/performers themselves to the list.
It may be that Luschen's thinking was ahead of its time. Perhaps there was a need to become securely rooted in social theory, before progress towards practicalities could be made. Certainly, there is some recent work which seems to reinforce Luschen's earlier thoughts. Yiannakis & Greendorfer (1992) try to develop the case for applied research by clarifying the definition of 'applied' as: 'providing solutions to questions of practical importance, assisting in changing behaviour, and contributing to the amelioration of the human condition' (p.11, their emphases). They also point to the need to disseminate research information widely and effectively within the broad sports community. Chalip (1992) similarly exhorts sport sociologists to work more closely with the sports community, which 'requires applied sport sociology to be the enterprise of a disputatious, many-valued community of scholars who work in collaboration with the persons, groups and communities they study' (p.259). More recently still, Feingold (1997) draws together some of these views in his arguments for 'service-based scholarship' to provide a new focus for academia in general, and sport sociology in particular. Drawing upon Boyer's (1990) vision for higher education, which urges scholars to 'think about the usefulness of knowledge, reflect on the social consequences of their work and, in so doing, gain an understanding of how their own study relates to the worlds beyond the campus' (p.69), Feingold points to the work of Don Sabo and others to make a plea for 'social theorists to participate in the social construction of community' (p.352). Thus, Feingold suggests that we must 'expand our impact upon society through an integration of the subdisciplines [and] a more holistic view of our commitment' (p.353). In a similar approach, Martinek & Hellison (1997) argue for 'service-bonded inquiry' in the context of physical education. They argue that sport pedagogy has reached a crossroads in its development:
There is the road to traditional forms of research. Those who travel it are researchers who produce information about practice with little connection to those who use it. Completing this path leads to clear, identifiable rewards for researchers, such as publication in journals and recognition by the professional academies. The other road has few travelers other than practitioners...With few travelers the road is rough, undefined, and often void of tangible rewards.....Do we continue to journey down the path producing knowledge for only a secret enclave of scholars, or can we also venture down the path that brings relevance to real life conditions? (p.107/8).
Martinek & Hellison (1997) describe service-bonded scholars as those who have made a personal commitment to improving physical activity for young people, and they suggest that 'a combination of perception, passion and purpose' (p.112) is likely to drive the researcher along an agenda of seeking change for the better. They also suggest that such an approach will prevent researchers from simply addressing the '"hot topic" of the times' (p.112). Similar to Luschen (1986), Martinek and Hellison highlight the need for 'action-based' research. They also raise the issue of dissemination: 'the ideas from service-bonded inquiry need to be shared with practitioners...rather than being restricted to high-quality journals read by a few colleagues' (p.116). It would appear that something like a movement in sport sociology is gathering pace.3. On being inclusive
Sage (1997a) points out that sport sociology, like sociology more generally, has tended to include a wide range of methodological and theoretical paradigms. He notes, however, that there is still little consensus between the various approaches: 'It remains a discipline with several theoretical paradigms vying for hegemony within the field' (p.121). Evidence from the recent conference of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS, Toronto, November 5-8, 1997), and the ensuing discussions on 'Sportsoc', the NASSS-led electronic discussion group, confirms Sage's point. After the conference, a journalist who had attended posted a fairly blunt personal review of the event. In essence, he criticised the organisers, presenters and delegates for ineffective presentation, incoherent academic content and intolerant debate after papers. He reserved particular venom for some of the feminist contributions. Unsurprisingly, the response from sport sociologists varied from qualified support to unqualified hostility. Some threads from the ensuing discussion are interesting in the context of 'inclusiveness'. (The full discussion is best accessed from the sportsoc listserv):