When teachers Google physical literacy: A cartography of controversies analysis

Abstract

How physical literacy (PL) is presented on ‘the web’ (i.e. Google) has implications for how health and/ physical education (H/PE) teachers and coaches engage with and understand the concept, and ultimately how it is made to act in practice. This research sheds light on the type of PL content they are likely to encounter in their search via the web. Utilising Venturini's ‘cartography of controversies’ method, the top 100 Google search results for PL were analysed to observe and describe how PL is presented on the web, by whom and in the name of what. Findings show that PL has been ‘framed’ on the web by a heterogeneous network of actors who present different viewpoints, ideologies and suggested practices for PL within and across the contextual ‘spheres’ of education, sport and health. Further, the findings highlight how Google's algorithms prioritise and privilege particular PL viewpoints and ideologies. Consequently, variations in understanding and practices will be evident between H/PE teachers and coaches who only engage with the first page of Google results (top one to 10 URLs) and those who read more broadly. Rather than relying on Google's algorithms or policymakers’ interpretations of PL that commonly serve the interests of the sport and health ‘spheres’ we suggest that H/PE teachers and coaches need to act as ‘knowledge brokers’ and thus be reflexive and aware of the multiple versions of PL that are presented on the web. This is especially important if they use the web as a form of professional development.

Moving from physical literacy to co-existing physical literacies: What is the problem?

“…At the core of the cartography of controversies is Latour's instruction to 'just' observe and describe (Venturini, 2010) a controversy via five progressive steps or 'lenses': (a) from statements to literature, (b) from literature to actors, (c) from actors to networks, (d) from networks to cosmoses (ideologies) and (e) from cosmoses to cosmopolitics (politics of cosmoses). In two previous papers (Young et al, 2021a(Young et al, , 2021b, we present the first four of these lenses to analyse the actors, viewpoints, relations and ideologies that have contributed to the presentation of PL within scholarly literature (peer-reviewed) and on the web (i.e. Google).…”

“…Data sources. As part of a larger body of work (including Young et al, 2021aYoung et al, , 2021b) a sample of scholarly articles was collected from Scopus (October 2020) using the search term 'physical literacy'. The criteria for inclusion were: (a) PL was included in the title, (b) published in English, (c) peer-reviewed journal articles available in full-text format and (d) the context was H/PE, sport or public health.…”

“…Having traced the PL controversy (Young et al, 2021a, 2021b), and recognising that striving for consensus is neither possible nor fruitful, given the diverse array of versions of PL, this research responds to and extends Bailey’s (2020) call for a move from a unified PL towards multiple physical literacies. Drawing on Stengers’ (2010) notion of cosmopolitics and Venturini’s (2010, 2012) cartography of controversies method, this paper maps how PL has been framed (Callon, 1998) over time as a result of dynamic political factors (e.g.…”

“…Quennerstedt et al, 2020). A range of overlapping yet contested ideologies or 'cosmoses' related to PL have been identified, and these cosmoses are present within and across the contexts of education, sport and public health (Young et al, 2021a(Young et al, , 2021b. The cosmoses, constituted by diverse actors 2 and perspectives, have led to ongoing controversy, uncertainty and negotiation regarding what PL is and is not (e.g.…”

“…Cairney et al, 2019b), but not the associated 'ontological politics' (Mol, 1999). That is, the political factors that frame the different PL cosmoses found in scholarly and non-scholarly literature (Young et al, 2021a(Young et al, , 2021b. In other words, we are interested in how the different ideologies of PL have come to be, and the ways in which they co-exist.…”