Speaking beyond borders in the sociology of sport: some points for consideration

Abstract

As outlined in a recent paper in this publication by Seippel (2018, p. 288), over the previous three decades the discipline of sociology of sport has become 'a voluminous scientific field with seminal books, journals, conferences, celebrities and jubilees.' Multiple reviews of the state of play of the field, using multiple methodologies and approaches (e.g. Seippel, 2018; Dart, 2014; Malcolm, 2012) have highlighted the dynamism and diversity of sociological research on sport. In the most recent review of foci within the field, Seippel highlights a list of 20 'topics' around which scholars have written extensively over the past three decades which illustrate this diversity. Seippel's list of topics includes subjects such as nationalism, urban development, sports organization and politics, the media, the body and gender. Such observations speak to the diversity, adaptability and longevity of the discipline. One additional topic stands out, however, which Seippel entitles 'European.' This category relates to research conducted in a list of non-British European nations in which sport and nationality (or national context) is uncritically linked, although not always for obvious reasons (Seippel, 2018, p. 298). Put differently, Seippel's study recognises a tendency for some authors in Europe to use 'national' indicators in relation to sport (e.g. 'French Handball', 'Danish Football'), without necessarily expressing why such sports are 'Danish' or 'French'. Whilst Seippel does not have the space to unpack the specifics of this 'topic' in detail, nor explain what makes it distinct from other topics, he does highlight how such 'national' indicators appear most commonly in journals hosted outside North America. This tendency can also be observed in journals outside the North American sphere in fields outside the sociology of sport. For example, it is increasingly expected that the regions in which the studies are carried out is reported in fields such as public health. Yet a browse of recent public health journals suggests that this requirement is perhaps less requisite for researchers from the North American or British sphere, who tend to place national context at the centre of their analysis less frequently. Hence, the fact that 'national' indicators are mostly emphasized in articles from authors from non-English speaking countries could stem from a distinction between a scientific 'core' and a 'periphery' that is also valid for the sociology of sport. This distinction hints not only at a specific geographical division, but also at language-related particularities of the scientific system. A similar observation has been made by Malcolm (2018) in his recent editorial essay in the International Review for the Sociology of Sport (IRSS). Here, Malcolm (2018) highlights an over-representation in the sociology of sport of work and scholarship from the 'Anglosphere'. The Anglosphere has been defined in multiple ways, including linguistically and geopolitically. For example, Bennett (2004) situates the Anglosphere around British ...

Qualitative research in sports studies: challenges, possibilities and the current state of play

“…Evans, 2020;Ronkainen & Wiltshire, 2019;Smith & McGannon, 2018), research dissemination (e.g. Evans & Thiel, 2019;Williams, 2018aWilliams, , 2020Williams & Annandale, 2020), inter-disciplinarity and the effectiveness of mixed or multi-methods approaches (e.g. Gibson, 2016;Hausken-Sutter et al, 2021;Hybholt & Thing, 2019), use of social theory within and across disciplines (e.g.…”