critical thinking examples in sports

Europe youth together

Critical Thinking in Sport

Meaning of critical thinking

Ennis defined critical thinking as “reasonable and reflective thinking that focuses on deciding what to believe to do” (Ennis 1987, p.10). Beyer views critical thinking as an evaluative skill that allows an individual to assess information in order to make a judgment on its validity, value, or accuracy. Both Ennis and Beyer claim that critical thinking also involves a systematic process of approaching, evaluating, and thinking through a problem or challenge.

Critical thinking is that the ability to think clearly and rationally regarding what to try or what to believe. It includes the flexibility to have interaction in reflective and freelance thinking. Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself. Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important role in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions. Some people believe that critical thinking hinders creativity because it requires following the rules of logic and rationality, but creativity may require violating rules. Critical thinking is quite compatible with “out of the box” thinking, challenging consensus and pursuing less popular approaches. If anything, critical thinking is an essential part of creativity because we need critical thinking to evaluate and enhance our creative ideas.

The way we think can be divided into three different levels of cognition. The first level is made up of basic thinking skills or functional skills that we develop with our parents’ interaction from the time of our birth to the time we start school. The second level of cognition is made up of procedural skills that we develop in school such as reading and writing. These skills are dependent of the efficient development of the functional skills. The final level of cognition is the conceptual level of thinking, where we combine ideas into concepts that gives us our beliefs about ourselves and the world. This level of cognition is directly impacted by the efficiency of the functional skills as well. Inefficiencies in the basic thinking skills impacts our effectiveness in every facet of life, including sports.

The importance of critical thinking

Critical thinking is a general thinking skill in the domain. Whatever we choose to do, the ability to think clearly and rationally is important. If you work in education, research, finance, management, or the legal profession, critical thinking is obviously important. But critical thinking skills are not limited to a particular subject area. Being able to think well and systematically solve problems is an asset for any career. Critical thinking is very important for the new knowledge economy. Information and technology are the driving force behind the global knowledge economy. You have to be able to deal with changes quickly and effectively. The new economy places increasing demands on flexible intellectual skills and the ability to analyze information and integrate various sources of knowledge in problem solving. Good critical thinking promotes such thinking abilities and is very important in the rapidly changing workplace.

Critical thinking enhances the skills of language and presentation. Clear and systematic thinking can improve the way we express our ideas. Critical thinking also improves comprehension skills in learning how to analyze the logical structure of texts. The critical thinking promotes creativity. Developing a creative solution to a problem involves not only having new ideas. It must also be the case that the new ideas being generated are useful and relevant for the task at hand. Critical thinking plays a crucial role in assessing new ideas, selecting the best ones and modifying them if necessary Critical thinking is crucial to self-reflection. We need to justify and reflect on our values and decisions in order to live a meaningful life and structure our lives accordingly. Critical thinking provides the tools for the self-evaluation process. Good critical thinking is the basis of science and democracy. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and confirmation of theory. A liberal democracy’s proper functioning requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and overcome biases and prejudice.

CRITICAL THINKING IN SPORT

It is generally agreed that a very important part of the game is the mental part of any sporting activity. Good thinking skills help from just beginning to the professional level at any level of sport. At the college level, however, and especially at the professional level, it is even more important because the physical abilities between athletes are often very minor and it is the way athletes think and use good judgment that will make the biggest differences. In fact, the better your mental abilities are, the better your physical abilities. How you think can have a profound effect on maximizing your physical abilities at a very basic level.

Some of the basic thinking skills that have a direct impact on sports are form recognition, direction and orientation, classification and categorization, environmental acuity, field discrimination, analysis and synthesis, pattern recognition, abstract sequencing, motor integration, and others. If any of these skills are inefficient, it could have a big impact on the performance of an athlete. How well we recognize things, how well we process them, how well we strategize and how well we execute has everything to do with the efficiency or inefficiency of these cognitive basic or functional abilities. Critical thinking may be adapted to the physical domain in two ways. The first of these involves taking advantage of opportunities that are already present in the teaching area and the second involves making use of the various strategies available to us through critical thinlung. While there are many opportunities for students and athletes to apply the four broad areas of critical thinking to the psycho-motor domain, the challenge is learning to recognize when these opportunities become available. The teacher/coach must be able to recognize those situations in which students can apply critical thinking, assist those students/ athletes through the critical thinking process(es), and then must follow up on this process by asking the students questions that prompt critical thought.

Secondary teachers and coaches can also challenge their students/ athletes to think critically by providing opportunities for creative and independent problem solving. Opportunities exist in the sporting arena, such as allowing learners to think out a strategic plan or having them create a unique movement solution. Such strategies can be included in sport, fitness, and extra-curricular activities.

Critical thinking has a place in the psycho-motor domain. Physical education and sport environments can provide individuals with a supportive environment to learn how to think critically. The practical nature of physical activity allows the individual to apply a new strategy, attempt a new movement and evaluate the worth of the response almost immediately. Students can be challenged to produce unique solutions to movement problems, create new versions of a game, and think through issues related to fitness and health. However, both teachers / coaches and students must be able to recognize the opportunities available to apply and use critical thinking. But, as stated earlier, the challenge is to learn to recognize when these opportunities become available.

Regardless of the strategies taught or the activities involved, the teacher must be the facilitator of the critical thinking process. The teacher fosters the students ‘ ability to focus their attention on decisions that are necessary for skilled performance. Through this active role, the teacher will be able to assist the students in using critical thinking to achieve success in the areas of fitness and movement.

• Subscriptions
• Privacy Policy
• Bike Fitting
• Performance Testing
• Endurance Quick Cast
• Podcast Archives
• Testimonial

Athletic success demands critical thinking skills

As you progress as an athlete you must be able to think through both positive and negative athletic outcomes without being hard on yourself. The development of critical thinking skills can mean the difference between staying with the sport you love or abandoning it altogether.

The Foundation For Critical Thinking describes critical thinking as “ the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information…”

A pretty heady explanation isn’t it. I blanked out after reading the first 2 lines myself and shortened the definition by 6 lines. Let’s further pair this definition down as the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment . This latter definition provided by the google search dictionary is a bit easier to consume for the purposes of this article.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy proposes that there are 11 steps to thinking critically and they are Observing, Feeling, Wondering, Imagining, Inferring , Knowledge , Experimenting, Consulting , Identifying and analyzing arguments, Judging and finally Deciding.

Instead of copying the definitions of these 11 steps lets pair them down to a shorter list of steps and apply them to the potential outcomes of training, events and or races. Doing so will help you the athlete understand how to use these steps and apply them to your own thought processes.

You might be asking yourself what does critical thinking have to do with athletic performance. It’s actually pretty simple. I want my athletes to graduate from hindsight thinking and become more active in developing positive thoughts when things don’t go to plan. In other words, I want to stop the woulda’, coulda’ shoulda’ mentality that plagues so many athletes.

My desire is to give you a simple set of steps to apply them to various athletic scenarios in an effort to help you think critically without being critical of yourself.

Ask Basic Questions The fore-mentioned 11 steps are simply about asking yourself questions. So let’s pair them down and set up some examples of basic questions after a workout or race. I like to work from a who , what , when , where , how and why – line of questioning. Not necessarily in this order.

What happened in the race that caused you to not do your best, finish higher or miss out on a higher podium spot?

How do you know this information? Are you guessing or are your thoughts based on facts? Such as I didn’t get the win because I was poorly positioned or I lacked skills or a level of fitness to make the race-winning move. As you are setting up these basic questions you need to determine if you are trying to prove, disprove or just critique your efforts.

“Always assess the situation before completing a task or taking action to resolve a conflict.”   ― Saaif Alam

When shouldn’t you apply critical thinking? I don’t think that there is necessarily a perfect time to turn on or off critical thinking but I would say that just before a race or event I become much more observational rather than critical. I have always thought of this as being in race mode. However, in training, I may very well apply critical thinking pre, intra and certainly post-workout. Especially if I am trying new training modalities.

“We may not yet know the right way to go, but we should at least stop going in the wrong direction.”  ― Stefan Molyneux

What are you overlooking or better yet what do you not know? Were there extenuating circumstances that you may have overlooked in the above scenarios. Were there race tactics being used that you didn’t see unfold? If you determine that you were just outraced due to a lack of skill, racecraft or fitness what are the limiters you need to work on. Is this an educated guess, wild guess or do you actually know what you are overlooking?

“It’s important to realize that sometimes the information you need is hidden behind the information available.”  ― Anne Elizabeth Moore

Question Your Assumptions In the previous paragraph, I am asking if you are applying an educated guess or a wild guess. Educated guesses are ones built out of experience whereas wild guesses are based on a desire to understand something that we have no prior experience in but are desperate to make sense of outcomes.

Another way to question yourself is why am I doing this? If we keep doing the same things to prepare, train and develop as an athlete but never get stronger, fitter or faster then it’s time to question your assumptions and evaluate beliefs about the “right way” to do what you have been doing.

How do you gain perspective? Try reordering your thoughts, results and or outcomes. When I was studying art I was told to quit drawing what I thought I saw and only draw what was there. This helped some but what really helped was when I was told to take the object or photo I was trying to draw and turn it upside down. This new perspective allowed me to see things more clearly. We can do the same thing as athletes not by looking at the performances of others but our current and past performances to find ways to continually improve or by restructuring our basic questions of outcomes.

“Before accepting your guess just based on how you feel, let’s admit we just don’t know and discover if it’s real.”  ― Joseph Raphael Becker

Are you ready to think and act like a scientist? When your performances aren’t living up to your expectations or the same training is no longer getting you where you want to be you must look elsewhere. In our art school example above you must work with what you see not with what you think you know.

Better yet where do you get the information you need? If you have been doing the same training repeatedly and the results are failing you look to peer-reviewed sports science studies, not blogs, not vlogs and not your training partners. Taking the time to understand your strengths and weakness by using your data and then looking for topics on ways to improve upon these weaknesses will help you immensely. However, when looking at studies make sure you find a few studies that have similar outcomes so that you are not wasting your time trying to put a one-off study into practice.

“When everything impossible had been eliminated and what remains is supernatural, then someone is lying.”  ― Isaac Asimov

Is your thinking sabotaging your confidence? The human brain is AMAZING but not perfect. Our brains can process more information than we can speak out loud or while reading quietly to ourselves. Our memories are fallible and when we add our own biases we can quickly misinterpret outcomes and our introspective self can become very negative. Cognitive biases are when our brains act too quickly and make intuitive judgments and jump to conclusions before taking the time to slow our thought processes down.

“You have a brain and mind of your own. Use it, and reach your own decisions.”  ― Napoleon Hill

Who can help? If you are at your wit’s end with trying to solve your performance shortcomings and your questions and experiments are not bringing about improvements then it’s time to call in reinforcements. This is where coaches come in. Coaching isn’t just about athletic performance we also help with the mental side of sports, or at least I do.

“Don’t complain if the issue is complicated if it weren’t complicated it would not be an issue.”  ― Amit Kalantri

In the end, it’s all about you. While research is always a helpful tool when trying to apply new ways of becoming fitter, faster and stronger it’s important to think for yourself. Just because research states to train a certain way it doesn’t mean you should blindly follow the guidance.

Until Next Time, Train Smarter Not Harder, Coach Rob

PPC Articles you may find helpful

Creating SMARTER Goals for cyclists

Writing a great race report

Supporting articles

Defining Critical Thinking https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

Critical Thinking https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/

Want To Think Better? Avoid These 6 Cognitive Biases https://collegeinfogeek.com/avoid-cognitive-biases/

7 Ways to Improve Your Critical Thinking Skills https://collegeinfogeek.com/improve-critical-thinking-skills/

Think Critically Before Thinking Critically https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psyched/202002/think-critically-thinking-critically

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Critical Thinking for Sports Students

• Emily Ryall - University of Gloucestershire, UK
• Description

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

This book is SUCH a welcome addition to the sports studies literature. We are forever telling students to take a more critical approach to the literature and this text tells them precisely how to do that! An original and much needed text

Lecturer Brunel University

Critical Thinking for Sports Students is an excellent addition to the Active Learning in Sport series. This book ought to be adopted as a required text for students pursuing undergraduate studies in sport. Though this book is geared towards students, it is well worth reading by lecturers teaching on undergraduate and graduate courses and by the general reader interested in developing good thinking Sport, Ethics and Philosophy

This book takes readers step-by-step through learning how to read and think critically. It is a useful resource for undergraduate students to enable them to be more critical and evaluative in their research, and would be good revision for post-graduates.

It has been useful in design tasks for the students to undertake during the Reflective Practice module sessions. It has given them an understanding how to think and act on a deeper level of reflection

An ideal book for all sports students studying in Higher Education. It provides useful examples that relates to sports students and is a much needed text. Layout is easy to follow and is reader friendly. Good learning activities and further reading section for development

The ability to develop critical thinking is essential at MSc level and this book provides a refreshing approach on how to develop this core skill. I will be recommending it to my students.

This book provides a range of activities to engage students to develop their critical thinking. In addition, the use of health, fitness and sport provides a range of topics to engage the students.

An interesting book to aid students achieving a better understanding of their role in the sports environment

An interesting book to aid students understanding and becoming more active in the sports environment

This is a useful text book for the students who plan and carry out a research project for the first time in his or her academic career. Basic research concepts and theories are effectively introduced in a accessible manner.

Very good text for students to work with during their selection of study subject. This book was selected to be part of the oral exam and to use for e.g. argumentation.

Preview this book

For instructors, select a purchasing option, related products.

• Find My Rep

You are here

Critical Thinking for Sports Students

• Emily Ryall - University of Gloucestershire, UK
• Description

This book is SUCH a welcome addition to the sports studies literature. We are forever telling students to take a more critical approach to the literature and this text tells them precisely how to do that! An original and much needed text

Lecturer Brunel University

Critical Thinking for Sports Students is an excellent addition to the Active Learning in Sport series. This book ought to be adopted as a required text for students pursuing undergraduate studies in sport. Though this book is geared towards students, it is well worth reading by lecturers teaching on undergraduate and graduate courses and by the general reader interested in developing good thinking Sport, Ethics and Philosophy

This book takes readers step-by-step through learning how to read and think critically. It is a useful resource for undergraduate students to enable them to be more critical and evaluative in their research, and would be good revision for post-graduates.

It has been useful in design tasks for the students to undertake during the Reflective Practice module sessions. It has given them an understanding how to think and act on a deeper level of reflection

An ideal book for all sports students studying in Higher Education. It provides useful examples that relates to sports students and is a much needed text. Layout is easy to follow and is reader friendly. Good learning activities and further reading section for development

The ability to develop critical thinking is essential at MSc level and this book provides a refreshing approach on how to develop this core skill. I will be recommending it to my students.

This book provides a range of activities to engage students to develop their critical thinking. In addition, the use of health, fitness and sport provides a range of topics to engage the students.

An interesting book to aid students achieving a better understanding of their role in the sports environment

An interesting book to aid students understanding and becoming more active in the sports environment

This is a useful text book for the students who plan and carry out a research project for the first time in his or her academic career. Basic research concepts and theories are effectively introduced in a accessible manner.

Very good text for students to work with during their selection of study subject. This book was selected to be part of the oral exam and to use for e.g. argumentation.

Preview this book

For instructors.

Please select a format:

Select a Purchasing Option

• Electronic Order Options VitalSource Amazon Kindle Google Play eBooks.com Kobo

Developing Critical Thinking Skills Like an Athlete

by Lemi-Ola Erinkitola | Oct 12, 2018 | Attention , Cognitive Skills , Confidence , Critical Thinking and 3rd-6th , Critical Thinking and Math , Critical Thinking and PreK-2nd , Critical Thinking and Reading , Critical Thinking Strategies , Focus , Growth Mindset , Test Preparation , Test Strategies | 0 comments

The process of developing critical thinking skills can seem frustrating for many children. It involves developing a deep understanding of the world, practicing often, and self-correcting. Just like a first time basketball player isn’t ready to play professionally, a newcomer to critical thinking strategies is only at the beginning of a continuous journey.

There are many parallels between the athlete and the critical thinker. Both are working to develop a skillset that will allow them to perform successfully, and both are following similar steps.

Step One: Understand the rules of the game

Before you can step onto the court it’s important to understand the rules of the game. If you’re a soccer player, the rules of basketball won’t help you. Similarly, you won’t get far if you start kicking the ball in the middle of a basketball game. Each game has its own set of guidelines, and before you can excel at the sport you have to understand that framework.

The same applies to the world of critical thinking skills. A critical thinker is constantly working to understand the rules that govern the world around them. Once this framework falls into place success becomes much more simple. When something new enters your child’s world, such as a new math concept, they first need to understand the principles that guide that concept. Then, as your child learns more math concepts, each one will build upon the last. Eventually the concepts become second nature, just like hand-eye coordination in a sport.

Step Two: Practice often

While knowing the rules is important, it won’t help much if that knowledge isn’t applied. Dedicated athletes spend hours practicing and developing their skills. They create a routine and, through that routine, build upon and refine their abilities.

Helping a child learn to think critically requires similar dedication. Practicing both inside and outside the classroom will help reinforce the foundation of understanding and further develop their skills. Over time, their ability to think critically will become more natural.

Step Three: Monitor and Evaluate

When you play a sport, you are constantly adjusting and tweaking your performance. Sometimes your coach may offer insight about how to improve. Other times, you are left to self-monitor. You learn to pay attention to your performance and identify areas of potential improvement.

Cognitive challenges are no different. Often, your child will have the benefit of a teacher or parent to guide and evaluate them. This is helpful, but the tool of self-monitoring is even more effective. As your child learns to evaluate their own performance they are able to adjust and adapt without outside help.

Step Four: Acknowledge Progressive Improvement

The first time an athlete touches a basketball, they probably won’t make every basket. Similarly, the first time your child tries to solve a new problem, they may not understand how to approach it.

That’s okay.

The development of critical thinking skills, like athletic skills, is an ongoing, incremental process. Improvement will happen over time, often gradually. With practice it becomes easier over time to solve new problems or make the basket.

The game is never over

Whether your child is a future basketball star, critical thinker extraordinaire, or both, they will never be finished refining their abilities. Just as athletes continue to train, critical thinkers are constantly practicing their skills.

Getting a head start and setting an early foundation is crucial, and will serve your child well into adulthood. The earlier they can begin practicing, the more time they will have to build and refine their critical thinking skills.

Pin This To Pinterest for Later

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Skip to main content [s]
• Infonet (For Students and Staff)
•    
• Research Priority Areas
• Research Degrees
• Library Research Resources

Critical Thinking for Sports Students

The capacity to think critically is essential for success in sport courses in higher education. Critical Thinking for Sports Students provides all those involved in the study of sport with the tools to assess, construct, and present arguments and to analyse and evaluate material. The emphasis is on the application of critical thinking in the form of written arguments, discussion, and negotiation. Throughout, the text and examples are presented within the context of sport, helping students to more easily apply their learning to their subject area.

University Staff: Request a correction | Repository Editors: Update this record

• About the Repository
• Repository Policies
• Open Access Policies
• Statistics Overview
• Accessibility

University Of Gloucestershire

Find Us On Social Media:

Other University Web Sites

• Staffnet (Staff Only)
• © UoG 2008-18
• Privacy and Cookies
• Comments concerning this page to Webmaster

• BBA Public Accounting
• BBA General Business
• BBA Finance
• BBA Management
• BBA Marketing
• BBA Risk Management & Insurance
• Master of Business Administration (MBA)
• Certificate in Accounting
• Certificate in Banking & Financial Services
• Certificate in Financial Literacy
• Certificate in Financial Technology & Cybercrime
• Certificate in Global Supply Chain Management
• Graduate Certificate in Functions of Business
• BS Child & Family Studies – Child Development
• Certificate in Early Childhood Director
• Certificate in Family Services
• Certificate in Infant/Toddler Care and Education
• BA Communication Studies
• Certificate in Communication Studies
• Certificate in Dispute Resolution
• Certificate in Communication in the Workplace
• MS Computer Science
• Certificate in Artificial Intelligence in Data Science
• Certificate in Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics
• Certificate in Game Design
• AA Police Studies
• BS Corrections & Juvenile Justice Studies
• BS Criminal Justice
• BS Police Studies
• MS Criminal Justice Policy & Leadership
• Certificate in Correctional Intervention Strategies
• Certificate in Juvenile Justice
• BS in Elementary Education
• MAEd Master of Arts in Education
• MAT Master of Arts in Teaching
• EdS Specialist in Education
• AS Paramedicine
• BS Emergency Medical Care — Emergency Services Administration
• BS Emergency Medical Care — Fire Service
• BS Fire, Arson & Explosion Investigation
• BS Fire Protection Administration
• BS Fire Protection & Safety Engineering Technology
• Certificate in Industrial Fire Protection
• AA General Studies
• BA General Studies
• BS Health Services Administration
• BS Homeland Security
• MS Safety, Security & Emergency Management
• Certificate in Homeland Security
• Certificate in Security Management
• BS Global Hospitality and Tourism
• Undergraduate Certificate in Gastronomic Tourism
• Undergraduate Certificate in Sustainable Hospitality
• MS Instructional Design & Learning Technology
• Graduate Certificate in Online Learning Design
• Graduate Certificate in User Experience Design
• MS Nursing – Rural Health Family Nurse Practitioner
• MS Nursing – Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner
• DNP Post-MSN DNP
• Post-MSN Certificate – Family Nurse Practitioner
• Post-MSN Certificate – Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner
• BS Occupational Safety
• MS in Safety, Security & Emergency Management
• Graduate Certificate Construction Safety
• Graduate Certificate in Cyber & Security Management
• Graduate Certificate in Emergency Management & Disaster Resilience
• Graduate Certificate Healthcare Safety
• Graduate Certificate in Occupational Safety
• Graduate Certificate in Safety Leadership & Management
• Graduate Certificate in Supply Chain Safety & Security
• Certificate in Social Intelligence & Leadership
• Bachelor’s to OTD
• Master’s to OTD
• AAS Paralegal Studies
• BA Paralegal Science
• Post-Baccalaureate Certificate in Paralegal Science
• BA Political Science
• BS Psychology
• Certificate in Veterans Studies
• MS Psychology-Applied Behavior Analysis
• MS Industrial Organizational Psychology
• Graduate Certificate in Psychology — Applied Behavior Analysis
• MPA Public Administration
• Certificate in Community Development
• Certificate in Emergency Management & Disaster Resilience
• Certificate in Applied Policy
• Certificate in Non-Profit Management
• Master of Public Health – Health Promotion
• BSW Social Work
• MSW Social Work
• Certificate in Addictions Intervention
• Certificate in Child & Family Services
• Certificate in Leadership & Management
• Certificate in Mental Health
• Certificate in Social Advocacy & Justice
• BS Sport Management
• See All Programs
• Types of Financial Aid
• Applying for Financial Aid
• Understanding Financial Aid
• Financial Aid Policies
• Scholarships
• How to Apply
• Application Deadlines
• Admission Requirements
• Transfer Students
• Transfer from KCTCS
• Visiting & Non-Degree Seeking Students
• Corporate Educational Partnerships
• State Authorization & Professional Licensing Information
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources
• Online Military Students
• BBA Risk Management & Insurance
• BS Child & Family Studies – Child Development
• BS Corrections & Juvenile Justice Studies
• MS Criminal Justice Policy & Leadership
• BS Fire, Arson & Explosion Investigation
• BS Fire Protection & Safety Engineering Technology
• MS Safety, Security & Emergency Management
• MS Instructional Design & Learning Technology
• MS in Safety, Security & Emergency Management
• Graduate Certificate in Cyber & Security Management
• Graduate Certificate in Emergency Management & Disaster Resilience
• Graduate Certificate in Safety Leadership & Management
• Graduate Certificate in Supply Chain Safety & Security
• Certificate in Social Intelligence & Leadership
• Certificate in Emergency Management & Disaster Resilience
• Certificate in Child & Family Services
• Certificate in Leadership & Management
• Certificate in Social Advocacy & Justice

Critical Thinking and Why Sport Management Students Should Study Sport in Society

In the summer, much of a professor’s focus is on improving the quality of material being offered to students. This involves participating in professional conferences such as the 2022 North American Society of Sport Management (NASSM) conference in Atlanta. There will be more than 500 sport management professors delivering presentations, sitting on panel discussions, and sharing ideas on sport management. Topics will include everything from sport governance, marketing, and leadership to presentations on how these topics can be taught more effectively.

The Sociology of Sport

It is interesting for students to note that when higher education first researched sport from the perspective of an academic discipline, it was not actually focused on sport management. Sport’s first academic focus regarding how it was organized and governed was from the perspective of the sociology of sport. The North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS) was established long before NASSM.

For this reason, one of the first courses in our sport management program is Sport in Society. The goal of studying sport and its impact on society is to teach students how to think critically about what we are doing in this field. Students will learn to identify and understand what type of social problems and issues are associated with sport. Sport management students are asked to look beyond the statistics and see sport as a social phenomenon. As a result, as both sports fans and managers, can make informed choices about sport and its place in our lives.

The Social Phenomena of Sport

Sports are indeed social phenomena in how they relate to the social and cultural contexts in which we live. They provide stories and images used to explain and evaluate things that impact our life. Examples include the game-winning shot, the underdog overcoming odds, or the larger than life superstar athlete. They provide a window into what our culture and society is all about.

Sport trends are influenced by how sports are organized, commercialized and represented in the media. Trends are also impacted by emerging technologies and the demographic changes being seen in the United States. These are all areas that will need to be considered by sport managers to stay abreast of the latest trends.

The Future of Sport Management

Students creating new and alternative sports may be able to find new ways to view, play and be involved in sports. Regardless of your involvement or vantage point, much of how sport managers will be involved in sport is going to require visions of what sport and social life could and should be like. It’s will also require students to strategize how to turn their sport visions into reality.

Transforming sport is a challenging task. Sport managers may find that any effort to improve sport is often met with strong resistance. Many still believe in the sport myth that the way sports currently exist is the way they should be. People are often surprised that something as simple as changing sport to be safer for children will often meet resistance. Our Sport in Society class is designed to get students thinking of ways they can change sport for the better.

Interested in a bachelor’s degree in sport management?

Earn your online bachelor’s degree from a regionally accredited university and online education leader for more than 15 years. Our flexible, online format provides students the ability to complete coursework and assignments according to their schedule.

Complete the form to learn more about how EKU Online’s sport management program can help advance your career.

By Dr. Joel Cormier, coordinator of the online sport management program and an associate professor of Exercise and Sport Science at EKU. He is particularly interested in academic integrity in college sports, athlete development, and organizational effectiveness. His book, Hockey (Mid)night in Kentucky: a coach’s guide and memoire was recently published.

Note: This was adapted from Chapter 3, “Sport in Society” from the textbook The Management of Sport Organizations (Cognella Press) by Dr. Joel Cormier, Sport Management Program Coordinator, Eastern Kentucky University.

share this!

October 21, 2014

Sports talk can help students develop critical thinking skills, says Stanford scholar

by Tom Winterbottom, Stanford University

The value of sports in higher education is not typically linked to critical-thinking skills.

However, Stanford English Professor Blakey Vermeule says that talking about and understanding the deeper aspects of sports can help expand the intellects of students.

Vermeule, whose research focuses on moral psychology and theory of mind through literature, argues that because "our knowledge of and passion for sports is something that is very intense, very personal, discussion and debate about sports has an intellectual resonance and meaning that can serve as a forum to explore intellectual capacity."

A passionate sports fan herself, Vermeule has observed in the classroom and in her research how watching and playing sports impacts cognitive development.

According to Vermeule, many of her freshmen students who discuss sports already demonstrate knowledge about moral and ethical reasoning, as well as the ability to construct complex intellectual arguments.

Because Vermeule sees these as skills that students will need to develop over the course of their university career, she wants to "convey the sense that their passions are not completely marginal to other intellectual parameters."

Vermeule's research incorporates theory of mind, a branch of cognitive science that refers to the capacity to attribute mental states to oneself and to others.

Her most recent book, Why Do We Care About Literary Characters?, explored how readers feel close to fictional literary creations. Vermeule examined evolved neural mechanisms that trigger responses in readers when they read a novel.

"I focused on how literary fiction exploits the suite of cognitive tools by which people come to perceive that we and others possess an elaborate mental life as distinct from the physical – a mental life with its own forces and properties," she said.

When it comes to sports, Vermeule is particularly intrigued by the "attachment to and passion for sports, the characters and storylines involved, and the knowledge that brings and how it has evolved up to now."

"Using literature as a starting point, my interest is in our evolved moral psychology, that is, human moral psychology from an evolutionary point of view," she said.

In 'the zone'

Vermeule explores a variety of examples from athletics, both on and off the field, in the introductory seminar she teaches, Sports and Culture . "I try to give students the sense that they already have an intellectual life if they have a passion for sports," she said.

Vermeule points to the O.J. Simpson trial as one of the first mass media events that attracted fanatical and passionate debate: "What led people to feel so passionately about the case? What are the stakes at play, and how can we look at both sides of the argument from an intellectual standpoint?"

That "spill-over of a type of religious passion or psychology into the world of sports," as she calls it, brings into relief intellectual concerns – moral judgment, fairness, reasoning and race.

"I want students and myself to be able to have a sense of what that intense culture of sports does to our moral psychologies," a trend that she notes is now especially important given the 24/7 presence of sports media.

Along with exploring these moral and ethical debates, students watch videos of athletic excellence in class that lead to discussions about cognition and the unconscious.

As Vermeule explained, when a quarterback instinctively reads the defense or chooses to release the ball, he may not know or be able to explain what he is doing. Instead, athletes offload capacities into parts of the brain that are not accessible to consciousness and to speech.

"I am writing a book now exploring the unconscious mind as it is understood in science and culture after Freud, which relates to the notion of instinct or of 'being in the zone' in sports," she said.

"Top athletes, who have trained for such a long time and to such a level, often cannot articulate a response or explanation as to why they did something, an idea with clear cognitive and neuroscientific implications."

Athletics as teaching tool

Philosopher Noam Chomsky, in his book Understanding Power, wrote that the intense amount of passion for and knowledge about sports "occupies the populations and keeps them from trying to get involved with things that really matter."

Such sentiments, Vermeule points out, are traceable back to ancient Roman poet Juvenal's first satire, where he wrote that "bread and circuses" were the only cares of a populace who had given up their political freedom.

In the university and research realm, however, it was Stanford alumnus Gerald Graff, now a professor of English and education at the University of Illinois, who helped to integrate sports into the intellectual realm precisely because of their widespread appeal.

Vermeule said the subject matter typically inspires students, and the seminars can quickly enter debates of important humanistic concern.

"There is often one less step with sports; much of the time we can just get straight into it, getting the students to investigate their own viewpoints much more quickly," she said.

That can contrast with teaching a novel, short story or film, when often a certain level of explication is needed for students to engage and to start a discussion.

One example is the debate surrounding the nature of the NCAA and the status of students in athletic programs. Such a reflection inspires students to think about the impact of a "tricky, thorny and relevant issue," said Vermeule.

"It allows for critical thinking about the university and athletics environment that they are involved with, either as a fan or as a player, promoting a critical and intellectual perspective," she said.

She remembers another situation when students discussed the debate surrounding South African athlete Caster Semenya, who in 2012 was subject to gender tests to ascertain whether she should be running as a female athlete.

"I looked round the table toward the end of the class, and it was mostly male freshmen varsity athletes. They were engaged in an ethical and moral discussion about gender, and how gender can be seen as a spectrum along which individuals move, and about notions of inclusion and exclusion," she said.

The whole point of her teaching, Vermeule said, is to put any viewpoint on the table and to try to critically investigate it and see where it fractures.

In an academic environment, Vermeule sees value in harnessing what Chomsky called the "tremendous amount of expertise" that many people show when they engage in "extremely complex discussions" about sports.

"I want students to be confident speaking about their knowledge of sports as an integral part of their education, rather than saying that you should be talking about 'more important things' and switching off that part of your brain when you set foot on campus," Vermeule said.

Provided by Stanford University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

A cosmic 'speed camera' just revealed the staggering speed of neutron star jets in a world first

8 hours ago

Saturday Citations: 100-year-old milk, hot qubits and another banger from the Event Horizon Telescope project

11 hours ago

Curiosity rover searches for new clues about Mars' ancient water

14 hours ago

Study says since 1979 climate change has made heat waves last longer, spike hotter, hurt more people

15 hours ago

Scientist taps into lobsters' unusual habits to conquer the more than 120-year quest to farm them

Mar 29, 2024

Blind people can hear and feel April's total solar eclipse with new technology

Mapping the best route for a spacecraft traveling beyond the sun's sphere of influence

Researchers outline new approach in search for dark matter through future DUNE research project

Researchers reveal evolutionary path of important proteins

Study identifies protein responsible for gas vesicle clustering in bacteria

Relevant physicsforums posts, cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better.

4 hours ago

The new Shogun show

History of railroad safety - spotlight on current derailments.

Mar 27, 2024

Metal, Rock, Instrumental Rock and Fusion

Interesting anecdotes in the history of physics, who should have been the 4th laureate in the nobel prize in physics.

Mar 25, 2024

More from Art, Music, History, and Linguistics

Related Stories

Sports broadcasting gender roles echoed on Twitter

Sep 10, 2014

Study offers insight into challenges facing college athletes

Oct 1, 2014

Optometrist helps get athletes' eyes in shape

Oct 9, 2014

Athletic trainers' group advises heart tests for young athletes

Oct 18, 2014

AAN: Doctors have ethical obligation to educate, protect athletes from concussion

Jul 9, 2014

Media celebrate female NFL referee, but fumble deeper issues

Oct 8, 2014

Recommended for you

Song lyrics have become simpler and more repetitive since 1980, study finds

Mar 28, 2024

Low resting heart rate in women is associated with criminal offending, unintentional injuries

Your emotional reaction to climate change may impact the policies you support, study finds

Survey study shows workers with more flexibility and job security have better mental health

Mar 26, 2024

We have revealed a unique time capsule of Australia's first coastal people from 50,000 years ago

Prestigious journals make it hard for scientists who don't speak English to get published, study finds

Mar 23, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Critical Thinking about Sports

Harriet hall.

I found the title of The Skeptic’s Guide to Sports Science: Confronting Myths of the Health and Fitness Industry a bit misleading. I was expecting to find a list of sports myths debunked by scientific evidence, but what I found was much better. It does debunk several sports-related myths, but the majority of the book is devoted to providing a very valuable education in critical thinking. It inspires readers to look for the evidence behind any claim they hear and develop an appreciation for “the true knowledge and wonder that science can afford.”

Nicholas Tiller starts by explaining that evolution hardwired us for heuristic thinking because of the survival advantage. Heuristic thinking uses mental shortcuts and allows us to ignore certain bits of information. It is practical for making quick decisions but does not guarantee that our decisions are optimal—or even correct. He quotes Bertrand Russell on the times when instinct and reason conflict: “Instinct … is liable to error. Those in whom reason is weak are often unwilling to admit this as regards to themselves, though all admit it in regard to others.”

We seek “one quick fix,” quick rewards, and instant gratifications; we enthusiastically buy into any ergonomic aid that promises to enhance performance by mechanical, psychological, physiological, or nutritional means. Runners who want to shave seconds off their best times find it much easier to buy expensive new running shoes (that accomplish nothing) than to reevaluate running styles and training programs (which might really do something to improve their performance times). And then there’s tribalism, the instinctive pleasure we derive from belonging to a group, such as the group that owns the latest bike or magic bracelet.

False advertising? Tiller shows how regulatory efforts have failed, how the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) undermined the work of the Federal Drug Administration, and how “post-truth era” thinking and social media have made it harder than ever to distinguish fact from fiction.

Failures in education? Critical thinking skills are seldom taught in our schools. The internet has given us access to a flood of data, outstripping our ability to interpret it. As Tiller says, “information is not knowledge.”

Clever marketing? He describes how supermarkets employ clever marketing techniques that use our psychology and biases to influence our buying decisions. They manipulate us into “not thinking too much.” The same techniques are used to sell sports products.

Tiller is optimistic that people can learn to collate meaningful data, filter it for validity, and reach coherent evidence-based conclusions. As a teaching exercise, he asks his students to consider how they made a decision about a significant financial investment, what research strategies they used, and how they collected as much information as possible from a variety of sources. Contrast that with how willingly they believe whatever a coach or trainer tells them, without asking questions or doing any research of their own. He gives examples of how even well-trained scientists are biased, especially about claims outside their own areas of expertise. Sometimes there is evidence to support both sides of a heated debate, but the evidence is insufficient to reach a consensus; once a scientist has chosen sides, tribal bias kicks in. As an experiment, Tiller tried to design three products that were superficially plausible but ill-conceived and unlikely to be effective. He discovered that “no matter how far-fetched the idea or how tenuous the science underpinning it, an equivalent product was already on sale.” In fabricating a bogus sales pitch, he was struck by how easy it was—and how much fun.

Tiller tries to explain valid and invalid reasons for buying a product. Among the invalid reasons: appeal to popularity, jargon that sounds like science but isn’t, appeal to antiquity, argument from authority, appeal to nature, ambiguous or vague language, celebrity endorsements, false dichotomy, confusing correlation with causation, and the appeal to anecdote (the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data).

The book warns about the slippery slope: pseudoscience breeds pseudoscience. He lists red flags: claims that commit logical fallacies, products sold on testimonials or anecdote, alternative medicine, emotive language, multiple claims, and lack of prior plausibility. There is a whole chapter on how to evaluate research and what to look for when reading a paper. Another chapter explains the appeal of placebo products and the power of perception.

Tiller discusses the contentious world of sports nutrition, decrying fad diets, superfoods, juicing, and detox regimens. He stresses that unhealthy foods don’t exist. The media routinely distort information about nutrition. A notorious study claiming that chocolate helps people lose weight was a real (although seriously flawed) study that was actually a sting designed to test how the media would report a study with questionable results from a fake research center by an uncredentialed researcher published in a bogus journal; the news media failed the test miserably.

For many years, we thought moderate drinkers lived longer than non-drinkers, but the research was flawed and doesn’t actually back up that claim. Evidence is lacking for claims that organic foods are more healthful. Fructose is not inherently worse than sugar, and “detox” is a myth.

Dietary supplements? Usually not helpful, and they sometimes have fatal consequences. Many are mislabeled or contaminated with prescription drugs and prohormones. Food is better.

Fat-burning supplements are deceptively marketed. Recommendations for protein intake ignore important factors. Sports drinks are long on claims but short on evidence. Novel training programs and products must be tested. He also quotes Sherlock Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data: insensibly one starts to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.”

Barefoot running? Much of the research was done on people who habitually wear shoes; barefoot runners develop different techniques. High altitude training? The devil is in the details; there are caveats and confounders. Power bracelets are useless trinkets, and nasal strips have subjective effects only. Complementary and alternative medicine? Based on belief, not evidence. Non-evidence-based practices include cupping, Reiki, acupuncture, Traumeel, yoga, cryotherapy, and chiropractic.

This book covers a lot of territory that is covered elsewhere, but approaching critical thinking in the context of sports is new and useful. It should be particularly helpful to those who have been misled by sports myths and misinformation or who have unquestioningly accepted whatever a trainer, coach, or friend told them. One of the most telling anecdotes in the book is about a scientist friend (who should have known better) who is firmly convinced of the truth of a claim but admits she has not looked at the scientific literature.

I learned some fascinating bits of trivia. I knew Coca-Cola’s original formula contained cocaine, later replaced by caffeine. But there was more to the story. After a legal battle, the originally high caffeine content was decreased by court order . Today’s product does actually contain coca, but the psychoactive alkaloid is removed at a heavily guarded chemical processing facility in New Jersey. Who knew?

Tiller’s information is accurate and supported by references, and his treatise on critical thinking is brilliant. I had only two quibbles: he misspells James “The Amazing” Randi’s name as “James Rhandi,” and he likes to insert hyphens where they are not needed (critical-thinking, ad-campaign, far-exceeded, etc.).

Harriet Hall, MD, a retired Air Force physician and flight surgeon, writes and educates about pseudoscientific and so-called alternative medicine. She is a contributing editor and frequent contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer and contributes to the blog Science-Based Medicine . She is author of Women Aren’t Supposed to Fly: Memoirs of a Female Flight Surgeon and coauthor of the 2012 textbook Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Sports Act Living

New horizons in the sociology of sport

Richard giulianotti.

1 Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom

2 University of South-Eastern Norway(USN), Bø, Telemark, Norway

Ansgar Thiel

3 Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

The relevance of a sociological view on the problems of society has never been as important as it is today. To quote the editors of the journal Nature in their editorial, Time for the Social Sciences, from 2015: if you want science to deliver for society, you need to support a capacity to understand that society. In other words, the technological and scientific disciplines cannot simply transfer their findings into everyday life without knowing how society works. But this realisation does not seem to have caught on everywhere. The sociology of sport is entering a critical period that will shape its development and potential transformation over the next decade. In this paper, we review key features and trends within the sociology of sport in recent times, and set out potential future challenges and ways forward for the subdiscipline. Accordingly, our discussion spans a wide range of issues concerning the sociology of sport, including theories and approaches, methods, and substantive research topics. We also discuss the potential contributions of the sociology of sport to addressing key societal challenges. To examine these issues, the paper is organized into three main parts. First, we identify three main concentric challenges, or types of peripheral status, that sociologists of sport must confront: as social scientists, as sociologists, and as sociologists of sport, respectively. Second, we consider various strengths within the positions of sociology and the sociology of sport. Third, in some detail, we set out several ways forward for the sociology of sport with respect to positioning within academe, scaling up research, embracing the glocal and cosmopolitan aspects of sociology, enhancing plurality in theory, improving transnational coordination, promoting horizontal collaborations, and building greater public engagement. The paper is underpinned by over 60 years (combined) of work within the sociology of sport, including extensive international research and teaching.

Introduction

The sociology of sport is a relatively young sub-discipline. In the 19th and early 20th century, prominent sociologists and social psychologists, such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Georg Simmel, Thorstein Veblen, and Norman Triplett, already discussed sport as a social phenomenon, for example with regard to the dynamics of social competition [for a detailed discussion of the history of the sociology of sport, see for example ( 1 )]. 1 However, sport, but also the body as the instrument of competition, remained only a marginal note in sociological reflections on the changes that swept societies throughout the 20th century. One of the first large-scale works explicitly devoted to the sociology of sport was published in Germany in 1921 by the sociologist Heinz Risse. Even though the 1920s were characterized by a rapid growth of interest in sports as a topic of mass entertainment, Risse's work essentially remained an outsider's venture. The continued lack of acceptance of Risse's work in scientific circles is basically symbolic of the stereotypical devaluation of any kind of deeper scientific examination of the phenomenon of sport as a rather non-intellectual pursuit.

This marginalization of sport as an “unworthy” object of social-scientific research can ultimately be understood as the consequence of a Cartesian dualism that long anchored academic thinking. In 1641, Renè Descartes published his Meditationes de Prima Philosophia (English translation: Meditations on First Philosophy , 2008) ( 3 ) which contained the principles of Cartesian Dualism. Descartes argued that, on the one hand, physical substances (res extensae) were distinguished from mental substances (res cogitans), and, on the other hand, the body was considered only as an extended “thing” steered by volitional physical processes which are controlled by the mind. The assumption of an independence of the mind, even more, of the “I”, the subject, from a rather “machine-like” functioning body, characterized Western philosophical thinking for a long time, even among those who criticized Descartes' work. The realization that the “I” only exists as something physiological, and is therefore part of the body, was rather ignored, even though this approach was becoming increasingly prevalent in research in social-psychology and neurophysiology ( 3 ).

In the 1960s and 1970s, both the increasing sportification of society and the emerging scientification of sport, led to a growing international interest in research on sport as an important part of modern society. Numerous sociological studies, for example from Elias and Dunning ( 5 ), Edwards ( 6 , 7 ), Heinilä ( 8 ), Kenyon & Loy ( 9 ), Klein & Christiansen ( 10 ), Lüschen ( 11 , 12 ), McIntosh ( 13 ), and Rigauer ( 14 ), just to name a few, marked the beginning of the “take-off” of sport sociology at universities, particularly in Europe and North America, where higher education, especially in the social sciences, was experiencing significant expansion. It was no coincidence to observe during this period an accumulation of international publications on the sociology of sport from a variety of academics. Thus, in the 1960s, the discussion about the significance of sport as a sociological object of research intensified, as did the question of suitable theories and research methods for studying sport. This discussion ultimately preceded the founding of the International Committee for the Sociology of Sport (ICSS) in 1965. Clearly then, and most appropriately, the modern genesis of the sociology of sport was very much an international process, involving many academics, and carrying a strong social and collaborative impulse to advance the development of the fledgling subdiscipline.

However, even though the following two decades could be considered as a phase of establishment and consolidation of sport sociology at universities in Europe and North America, it has been a long road to gain full acceptance for sport as a subject fit for scientific study. In 1972, Eric Dunning wrote that “it is clear that the sociology of sport is not yet widely regarded by sociologists as an area posing problems of sociological importance” [( 15 ): 101]. More than 25 years later, Dunning still saw the need to speak to this status concern, giving his sociological study of sport, violence, and civilization the umbrella title Sport Matters ( 16 ).

The sociology of sport shares this need to highlight and justify the importance of its subject matter with other sport science sub-disciplines in higher education, but also with physical education (PE) in school systems. Indeed, the reputation of the PE teaching profession is comparably low, sports lessons are sometimes taught by unqualified substitute teachers, while PE classes often undergo cuts in school curricula to accommodate other subjects (notwithstanding global medical concerns over the lack of physical activity among young people).

The international sociology of sport faces the further challenge that, as its subject is not only scientifically marginalized, so its scholars from different countries sometimes have differing conceptual understandings of “sport” per se . What is meant by “sport” is by no means unambiguous ( 17 ). In the German-speaking world, for example, even the everyday use of the term “sport” is very heterogeneous. Sport can be going to the gym, a morning jog, a yoga class, or even exercise therapy in the context of rehabilitation from coronary diseases. In contrast to the broad German meaning, “sport” is defined more clearly in the English language. Hence, for example, a more consistent distinction is made between “sport” and “physical activity” or “exercise”. The latter terms refer, often interchangeably, in common parlance to a broad spectrum of activities, such as walking and cycling through to systematic training regimes. In contrast, “sport”, on the other hand, usually refers to a form of physical activity that is characterized by an unproductive and rule-governed form of competition (cf. Caspersen, Powell & Christenson, 1985) ( 18 ). In this regard, the competitive aspect seems to be almost more significant for the understanding of the term “sport” than the physical activity, as sports such as darts, snooker and, more recently, e-sports make clear.

In line with the conceptual difference between a rather broad and a rather narrow understanding of the term, the institutional problems that the sociology of sport has to deal with are also not consistent in every respect in an international comparison. For example, networking between sociologists of sport and medical doctors, who study the benefits of physical training for heart health, may be easier in German-speaking and Scandinavian countries than in English-speaking countries, since health-oriented physical training is not necessarily an obvious subject for the sociology of sport in the Anglophone world. At the same time, we recognize too that academics may purposively seek to surmount these linguistic and disciplinary hurdles through pursuing collaborative research.

In the following, we will take a closer look at the current state of the sociology of sport, without wanting to go into too much detail about international differences. In doing so, we review key features and trends within the sociology of sport in recent times, and set out potential future challenges and ways forward for the subdiscipline.

The challenged status of social science, sociology, and the sociology of sport: periphery 1,2,3

It is not only the subdiscipline of the sociology of sport, but also the parent discipline of sociology, that continues to face a variety of major challenges with respect to its status and recognition. General concerns about the decline or demise of sociology are not particularly new: perhaps most famously, more than 50 years ago, Alvin Gouldner ( 18 ) anticipated a crisis in “Western sociology”. Yet it is our contention that these crises of sociology and sport sociology have reached particularly acute points in recent times.

It was not always so. Indeed, in the early 19th century, and prior to the founding of sociology per se as an academic discipline, the social philosopher Auguste Comte had envisioned that a preeminent “queen science” would be concerned with the study of human society ( 20 ). Yet, since the discipline was established, most sociologists have found themselves working in decidedly republican rather than regal times, where the prospect of ascent to an academic throne has long since been guillotined.

Here, we examine the marginal status of sociology and the sociology of sport with respect to three levels of peripherality: periphery 1 (as a social science), periphery 2 (as sociology, the discipline), and periphery 3 (as sociology of sport, the subdiscipline). We explore each of these levels primarily with respect to the academy, while also referring to other domains, such as policy and politics, and society and the wider public sphere.

Periphery 1 : the Status of the social sciences

To begin with, in the first level of peripherality ( periphery 1 ), most social sciences have a weak status both within their universities, and in the national and international academic sectors, compared to the natural sciences. That peripherality is further weakening in several ways. On the one hand, social sciences have to compete with natural sciences for research funding. Over the last few years, there has been a tendency for social science to increasingly fall behind scientific-technological and medical projects in this area. In this context, particularly the research of newer technologies, such as AI, IoT, and quantum computing, competes with the social sciences for the distribution of funding. On the other hand, the peripherality of social sciences is manifested in its increasing replacement by the discipline of ethics when it comes to researching consequential problems of scientific-technological or medical innovations. This holds true for large-scale scientific-technological and medical research in general. Social scientific expertise is obviously not esteemed enough to become an indispensable part of corresponding projects. In contrast, there is hardly any medical research on a larger scale on societally relevant issues without the involvement of representatives from the ethics of science. The apparent omnipotence of ethical reflections is also evident in the power attributed to ethics committees with respect to the conception of research designs and thus the perspective on the phenomenon under investigation. Critics claim that the interventions of ethics committees can lead to considerable losses in quality with regard to the analytical acuity of the investigation itself [cf ( 21 ).]. Israel and Hayes even note that “social scientists are angry and frustrated. They believe their work is being constrained and distorted by regulators of ethical practice who do not necessarily understand social science research. In the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia, researchers have argued that regulators are acting on the basis of biomedically driven arrangements that make little or no sense to social scientists” [( 22 ), p. 1].

For medical research, the ethics of science has become a multi-purpose weapon for analyzing non-medical issues, both as part of the research group itself and also as an institution of meta-reflection on research. Thereby, it obviously does not matter that the competence of ethics of science rather lies in initiating (quite necessary) debates about relevant moral questions and providing guidance for concrete action (applied ethics) than in the systematic reflection of consequential societal problems of medical research. There is a fundamental difference between ethics and social science with regard to how scientific problems are approached. Zussman ( 23 ) argues, for example, that sociologists cannot answer normative questions that constitute the core of medical ethics, but they can provide a “realist” critique of medical ethics in practice, for example, by analyzing the reasons why physicians persistently deflect challenges to their authority or under what circumstances patients are able to autonomously decide on therapeutic options. In this sense, we do not argue for the abolition of ethical reflections on scientific, technological and medical research, but note that ethics is far from being able to cover all the questions that arise in connection with such research.

Some prominent natural scientists have obviously already recognized this when doubting that the technological and scientific disciplines can transfer their findings into everyday life without knowing how society works. A Nature ( 24 ) editorial titled “Time for the social sciences” emphasized the relevance of social scientific expertise for natural scientific and technological research. The editors stated that “governments that want the natural sciences to deliver more for society need to show greater commitment towards the social sciences and humanities” [( 24 ), 7,532]. Summarizing the key message of the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser's annual report for 2014 (Walport & Beddington, 2014) ( 25 ) they added that “if you want science to deliver for society, you need to support a capacity to understand that society” [( 24 ), 7,532].

From this, we might ask: How can social science manage to make itself heard? And what type of social scientific research is best positioned to be heard? The societal environment of social sciences certainly seems to have specific expectations of their services. Both medicine and scientific-technological researchers, but also the media, which report on scientific results and their practical applicability, obviously tend to prefer relatively quantitative, causal, and predictive research findings, that are rooted in large-scale datasets, and which can, for example, provide politicians and other key decision-makers with “hard data” about prospective returns on their investments. Conversely, much of social scientific research generates qualitative, interpretive, and highly contextual findings that are usually rooted in relatively small-scale empirical studies, and which are less focused on generating predictions or policy recommendations. The challenge for social scientists, then, is to find ways of responding to these circumstances, to find explanatory techniques for engaging these audiences, or to endure continuing, perhaps even intensified, peripherality vis-à-vis the natural sciences, with all the attendant institutional consequences.

Periphery 2 : the Status of sociology

A second level of peripherality—the periphery-squared or periphery 2 —involves the relatively weak standing of the discipline of sociology within the social sciences on the one hand and politics and policy on the other hand. In a similar way as compared to the social/natural science power imbalance, the lower status of sociology compared to a host of other social sciences such as economics, political science, and social psychology, is reflected in interrelated areas such as research funding and impact, student recruitment, the professional or career pathways that are afforded to sociology graduates, and the lack of influence of sociological research in the private and public sectors. A relative exception lies with demographers and other quantitative sociologists, whose “scientism”, in Gouldner's phrase, in regard to methods, findings, and recommendations, mirrors those within the natural sciences in ways that tend to be favoured by external research partners. Arguably in the UK and other nations, sociology has also been one of the disciplines most adversely affected by financial squeezes on social science, and on higher education more generally, which have occurred since the 1990s.

Sociology has been adversely affected by the long-standing hegemony of neoliberal social and economic policies, which emphasize individualism and self-responsibility, in marked contrast to the themes of society and social interdependencies that underpin much sociological scholarship. Additionally, there are few if any sociologists who can justifiably be described as public intellectuals in terms of social profile and influence. Arguably the situation has worsened since the 1980s and 1990s when Ulrick Beck, Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, and Jurgen Habermas exercised significant presence in political and wider public debates. The lack of awareness of sociologists and sociological research by policymakers may also stem from sociology's failure to generate public interest. The observation that “Sociology is only marginally recognized by its own subject: society” describes this problem very accurately. Sociology generates a lot less social and political resonance than it actually should. This became abundantly clear during the Covid-19 pandemic, when its causes and consequences were almost entirely considered from a medical-scientific perspective, more precisely by virologists and epidemiologists. In contrast, the social consequences of the pandemic were as much neglected as its social dynamics. Certainly, questions with social scientific relevance were raised by both health policymakers and journalists. For example, there were strong discussions on how to allocate intensive care beds in the event of insufficient capacity, taking into account socio-economic and educational inequalities. Another topic concerned socially just vaccination priorities, considering the assurance of medical care, the issue of maintaining the economy and work vis-à-vis pandemic lockdowns, and the provision of cultural and leisure activities. Not least, critical journalists asked how medicine can meet the needs of socio-economically disadvantaged groups in the pandemic, or to what extent high-income countries should support low-and middle-income countries in coping with Covid-19 and its consequences. All these questions have direct thematic relevance to the core area of sociology. However, despite some exceptions, sociology has obviously not succeeded in convincing politicians or medical, epidemiological, and virological scientists of its particularly well-developed theoretical and methodological competence for analyzing the most complex, interconnected, and societal problems.

Two further points might be made here on the factors that lurk behind sociology's limited purchase in policy and public domains. First, the self-referentiality of sociology may be one hurdle. The prominent sociologist Peter Berger once said that “it is fair to say that the first stage of wisdom in sociology is that things are not what they seem” (2011: 41) ( 26 ). Sociological theorizing does not have a practical value per se . To critically reflect on everyday theories and to “de-construct” popular interpretations of patterns within social phenomena is a merit in itself. However, critical reflections produce little effect if they do not reach the public. In sociology itself, however, the question of how to generate political and/or public interest, seems to be discussed rather little. Rather, discussions on science-policy are largely limited to (often self-defeating) arguments about methodological paradigms (e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative research), the appropriate degree of advocacy (e.g., critical vs. descriptive-explanatory research), or basic epistemological questions (e.g., anti-positivism vs. positivism). The continuous questioning of competing theoretical models for the description and explanation of social phenomena and empirical methods for their recording is certainly necessary to keep pushing the discipline forward. From a social scientific perspective, this makes sense because critical thinking is an essential prerequisite of systematically “scrutinizing” theoretical assumptions, and replacing them with theories that carry a higher explanatory power. Positively speaking, sociologists cultivate “a kind of “art of distrust” (not only) towards the self-evident facts of everyday life” (Eickelpasch, 1999: 10) ( 27 ), but also towards the fruits of their own creations. More problematically, for non-sociologists, these important practices may resemble a form of obscure sociological navel-gazing that has no obvious beneficial outcome.

Second, and in part following from this, sociologists may also appear to be unduly preoccupied in some contexts—especially in German-speaking countries—with often fractious and inconclusive debates on the status or meaning of “critical thinking” within their discipline. The discussion on the extent to which sociology may engage in “advocacy” goes back to Max Weber and received special attention through the controversy between the sociologists Jürgen Habermas and Niklas Luhmann. This dispute was basically about whether it is sufficient for sociology to limit itself to describing how society changes, but not how it should change. (Note: here, in line with the philosophical tradition of “critical theory”, the term “critical” refers at least in part to the advocacy of social change and to envisioning alternative ways in which society should be organized.) The criticism of an “apolitical” sociology was that an exclusively “uncritical” sociology could not initiate any necessary social changes but would ultimately have a rule-legitimizing function. Luhmann's counterargument was that (normative) criticism of existing conditions leads to hasty judgments. Thus, the attempt to prove the possibility of a “better” society fails because of the complexity of the world; accordingly, criticism falls into inconsequential humanity. We return to this question of critical thinking later on, but here, the key point is that, to outside observers, sociologists fail to communicate the significance of such debates, and thus appear overly distracted with such concerns. In this sense, sociology is confronted with the dilemma of the simultaneous need for analytical value freedom and inspiration for social change. On the one hand, there are political, policy, public, and, in some areas, philosophical expectations that the “critical” standpoints of sociologists should include normative sketches of alternative social arrangements. On the other hand, however, there is the counter-expectation that such normative statements automatically fail to encapsulate or to account for the complexity of society. This latter position further contends that, to the extent that sociology claims the competence to make normative statements, it inevitably disavows its scientific analyses. From these types of debates, we would highlight the broader point, that the “critical” is understood in diverse ways within sociology, and that such diversity is indicative of the vitality of the discipline, and also its positive capacity to investigate and to engage with social phenomena in a variety of ways.

Periphery 3 : the Status of the sociology of sport

All of these challenges are magnified when we move from the positions of social science, and of sociology, to examine the specific standing of the sociology of sport, which occupies a third level of peripherality—the periphery cubed or periphery 3 —within academe, as well as in other, non-academic domains.

In academe, there are dual challenges for the sociology of sport, in its overlapping positioning within the fields of sociology and sport studies. On one hand, within the general sociological community, the subdiscipline's struggle for recognition and credibility is evidenced by the rarity with which it variously is taught or researched within mainstream sociology departments; contributes papers to leading sociology journals, particularly in the United States; and secures significant levels of competitive research funding from major foundations. At the same time, the topic of “sport” in general sociology tends to be a pastime for scholars who otherwise deal with topics such as social inequality, the evolution of the financial system, the family, or conflict, and so on. To adapt Rowe's ( 25 ) observation of sports journalism within the news media, sociologists have long tended to view sport as the “toy department” of their discipline, in marked contrast to deeply established subject areas, some of which, such as religion, have been in long-term decline in many late modern societies. This corresponds with the fact that chairs designated for sport sociology are at many universities either nonexistent or still located in institutes of sports science. Hence, one could say that the institutional problems with which the sociology of sport must deal have changed less than we representatives of the subdiscipline might wish.

On the other hand, in sport studies, the sociology of sport faces a further set of challenges at two main levels. First, at the level of periphery 1 , sociology and the other social sciences tend to have relatively marginal statuses in sport studies overall. For example, the natural rather social sciences tend to hold greater influence and presence in many departments or schools that focus on sport, physical activity, and/or exercise (or “kinesiology”, in North America). They are also viewed—by schools, faculties, and universities—as much better placed than the social sciences for attracting students, research, and enterprise income, and for influencing policy and practice within the sport sphere. Second, at the level of periphery 2 , within the social sciences of sport, sociology also faces significant challenges. Other social sciences in sport—such as sport management and those in the business spheres—are seen as having greater practical and vocational relevance, and are able to attract more students, particularly international postgraduates, by offering more direct entry to preferred employment and careers. These developments reflect a wider criticism that the sociology of sport has been slow to respond to the large and rapid expansion of the global “sport industry” since the 1980s.

These challenges have long-term consequences for the sociology of sport within academe. They threaten the volume and quality of funded research, and subsequent publications, within the subdiscipline. Many students (as future academics)—whether on sociology, social science, or sport studies undergraduate or postgraduate degree programmes—have relatively fewer opportunities to study the sociology of sport in some depth and detail. Hence, we find that many of those whom we do attract into the sociology of sport—such as PhD students, association members, and prospective contributors to subdiscipline journals—have not had the benefit of an initial, substantial grounding in the subdiscipline or in the parent discipline of sociology.

In turn, the sociology of sport finds itself in a recruitment dilemma. On the one hand, young sport sociologists need to complete their qualified training in sociology, to know and be able to apply the most important theories and methodological approaches on sport specific phenomena. On the other hand, sport is a highly complex subject that cannot be adequately understood by only observing sporting events, as some sociologists and economists still claim today. To analyze sports in a competent scientific manner, sports sociologists also need at least a basic understanding of wider sport-related issues and processes, such as how movement and training processes work, how tactical systems evolve, or what the motives of different population groups are for doing sports. Hence, an education in sports science makes perfect sense. Yet, alone, it is not sufficient for research in the sociology of sport. If young researchers in sports sociology are recruited from sports science, kinesiology, or physical education, then they must therefore acquire sociological knowledge during their doctoral studies, just as sociologists without sports science training would benefit from familiarizing themselves with other disciplines within the sport and physical activity fields, such as exercise physiology, biomechanics, sport psychology, and sport pedagogy.

Overall then, the sociology of sport finds itself in a position where three layers of peripherality (as social science, discipline, and subdiscipline) are in play. In passing, we might note too that these insights provide an uncomfortable contextualization to any references to “stars” within the subdiscipline. As sociologists, we consider it important to set out the context in which the subdiscipline is located before turning to discuss the strengths and potential ways forward for sociologists of sport.

Strengths in the position of sociology and the sociology of sport

We may highlight some of the potential strengths and positive aspects of sociology and the subdiscipline of the sociology of sport vis-a-vis academe and in wider non-academic contexts.

First, the fundamental premise of sociology should be viewed as a core strength in securing and enhancing the discipline's academic and wider standing. In 1987, the UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, opined that, “there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families.” 2 In contradistinction to this New Right, neoliberal credo, sociology is the academic discipline that, more than any other, reminds us that there is such a thing as human society. There are very strong audiences for that social philosophy in most if not all societies. Moreover, it is also a central tenet of most social sciences.

Second, as we have indicated earlier, the diversity of critical dimensions of sociology, and the sociology of sport, represent a further positive. The task of sociology is not to substantiate what seems to be self-evident, but to reveal the contradictions inherent in it. In this sense, the rejection of critical analysis of social reality, with reference to Weber's postulate of value freedom ( 26 ), is based on a misunderstanding. Critical thinking also has a function from a Weberian perspective, for example, to the evaluation of a means to fulfill a purpose, i.e., whether the use of a means is appropriate to that purpose. To think “critically”, however, from this perspective, should not mean to base sociological analysis on premises foreign to science, for example, on politically motivated a priori distinctions of “good” and “bad”. In this sense, by critical, we we are referring to what sociologists sociologists, in the course of their analysis of academic literature and while undertaking social research, should focus on: de-constructing any errors, misunderstandings, inconsistencies, and contradictions that may be identified in the scientific, politic, medial, and public descriptions of social issues; examining the key features and patterns of social relations; comparing and contrasting, and identifying strengths and limitations, in theories, policies, and patterns of social relations; highlighting and investigating social relations of power, as characterized for example by social inequalities and divisions; and, identifying alternative possibilities for how societies may be organized, including within particular areas of social life, such as in sport. This type of critical ethos within the discipline has strong resonance across diverse social groups, who are both curious and furious about how sport and wider aspects of society are organized, and how power is unequally distributed in ways that lead to marginalizing and depriving outcomes for many.

Third, we appreciate also that sociology has consistently been an avant-garde discipline, in terms of identifying and highlighting progressive public issues that go on to gain some traction with wider publics, policy-makers, and corporations. Areas such as EDI (equality, diversity and inclusion) and ESG (environment, social and governance)—that are rooted in themes relating to social division and social justice, which have long been a major concern for sociologists—are illustrative of this avant-garde impulse. Sociologists had been highlighting forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of social abuse, discrimination, and intolerance within sport long before these were addressed as serious social issues by most sport authorities. There is then the need for sociologists to continue exploring progressive new domains of research and social commentary, where they may have future influence. One approach here would be for (sport) sociologists to consider alternative possibilities for the social organization of sport for two decades' time, and to think about what social roadmap would be required to get there.

Fourth, the plural, diverse, and in many ways diffuse disciplinary nature of sociology is a strength. Unlike some other subjects such as economics or law, which rather restrict entry into their respective academic fields, sociology has been and continues to be open to diverse disciplinary contributions and influences. This is very much a two-way street: sociology has always bled into, and been significantly shaped by, other disciplines, particularly related ones such as anthropology, education, history, human geography, political science, social policy, and social psychology. Sociology is also a core constituent of many of the transdisciplinary “studies” domains, such as the vast field of cultural studies, which to a large extent encompasses other, more specific fields such as gender studies, race and ethnicity studies, and LGBTQ+ studies; as well as in the similarly vast, if rather different domain of “business studies” or “management studies”. Particularly in management studies, there is reason enough to apply sociological knowledge when analyzing the organization of sport. Many sports organizations, for example, are not commercial enterprises but voluntary organizations. However, blindly applying economic concepts to volunteer organizations negates the fact that the two types of organizations follow completely different operational logics ( 27 ). On the other hand, intellectual exchanges and collaborations with these other disciplines and transdisciplines help to invigorate and to revitalize sociology, through the infusion of fresh research theories, methods, and paradigms. They also highlight how sociology's influence in academe may be relatively broad and diffuse, reaching well beyond the formal (and, usually, shrinking) realms of academic departments of sociology.

Fifth, following from this, we may identify a diffuse influence of sociology within wider non-academic spheres—in politics, social administration, media, business, civil society, and so on. The point here might be more clearly made if we differentiate between “capital S” Sociology, representing the institutionalized master discipline as practiced by recognized, professional sociologists, often operating within named Sociology departments; and “small s” sociology, as practiced by anyone who draws upon sociological ideas, keywords, principles or themes, even without recognizing their formal association with the discipline of sociology per se . This connects to the earlier points on the avant-garde aspects of sociology, in fields such as social inclusion. It is here, in “small s” sociology, that the discipline might exercise its best influence, such as through feeding sociological themes and approaches into diverse degree programmes, research projects, policy analysis and guidance, and public debates.

Sixth, the sociology of sport has a particular need to be open to transdisciplinary views on the phenomena it is dealing with. Due to the complexity of the subject of sport and due to the necessity of frequently also having to consider economic, psychological or even physiological aspects when analyzing the sport of society, sociologists of sport have to be generalists in a certain sense. The advantages of the generalist perspective are at least two-fold. On the one hand, it ensures that the problems of sport, which are usually very complex and demand multidisciplinary study, can be understood as a whole. On the other hand, researchers in the sociology of sport are also predestined to look beyond the confines of their own subdiscipline, which in turn makes it easier to collaborate with colleagues from other scientific disciplines.

Seventh, sociologists of sport have to find ways to secure positions within academe. These prospects continue to be squeezed by the contraction and in some cases closure of sociology departments, research units, and degree programmes for a variety of stated reasons. In response, many sociology units have innovated by connecting or combining with other disciplines—such as criminology or social policy—which appear to attract more students and/or research funding. 3 In sport studies, the most obvious partner discipline is sport management, which tends to attract larger cohorts of students, particularly at postgraduate level, while affording opportunities for collaborative research and teaching, notably in areas such as social inclusion and sport for development. Indeed, it may be that such a necessary, pragmatic approach will involve “small s” rather than “capital S” sociology continuing to operate in sport studies degree programmes or departments. For example, while named “Sociology of Sport” degree programmes may be closed due to low student recruitment, it may remain feasible to feed sociological content into courses at more everyday levels through lectures and seminars. Such innovative responses will vary by context—particularly along national or regional lines, where the discipline and subdiscipline will encounter different pressures and potential opportunities—but are likely to continue to be required at least in the medium term.

Ways forward for the sociology of sport

We have discussed in detail the problematic status and other challenges that face sociology and the sociology of sport, as well as various strengths in their positions particularly within academe. It is appropriate now for us to turn here to consider some of the ways forward for the discipline and subdiscipline in this regard. There are several ways in which sport sociologists may respond here, and we begin by assessing their positionings within academe.

Positioning within academe

First, the theme of interdisciplinarity in academic work has been advocated, celebrated, and even fetishized for several decades; it has also been heavily commodified through the allocation of funding—from small travel grants through to multi-million Euro research programmes—to those who commit to undertake such work. Moreover, universities are increasingly set up to facilitate such work, notably through interdisciplinary research centres and Institutes for Advanced Studies. Here, we echo these calls for interdisciplinary activity, but would add that such work involving sociologists needs to be adventurous and open-ended wherever possible, involving for example looking beyond close, cognate disciplines (such as anthropology, history, political science) to explore collaborations with a wider array of disciplines, including in the natural sciences. The structure of sport studies departments—in which the social and natural sciences coexist—provides comparatively favourable ground for exploring such collaborations. One potential consequence is to enable sociologists to be more actively engaged in high prestige, large scale, and heavily-funded research programmes that tend otherwise to be fully dominated by the natural sciences.

Second, to build on our points earlier, we note the need for the sociology of sport to engage with other academic disciplines and subdisciplines in open, collegiate, mutually beneficial ways. On one hand, there is the concern to enhance the full participation of sociologists of sport within interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research projects and other academic initiatives. Such collaborations across disciplines have come to dominate the research funding landscape, hence the subdiscipline needs to follow this path for strategic as well as for intellectual and wider academic reasons. On the other hand, sociologists of sport would do well to engage more with, and to gain enhanced inspiration from, the broader, parental discipline of sociology. This would enable the subdiscipline to draw more fully on emergent and diverse sociological theories and methods; to highlight the work of prominent “mainstream” sociologists (such as Wacquant) who engage with sport; and, to draw more of these scholars into projects and papers on the sociology of sport. These wider engagements would serve to underline the legitimacy, significance, and vibrancy of the subdiscipline, and to start to tackle its peripherality, vis-a-vis wider communities of scholars in sociology and social science.

Third, sociologists, whether in sport or in other fields, would do well to maximize their social, cultural, and political capital within academe. University leadership roles—such as Rectors (the head of universities), Deans (of Faculties), and Heads of School—provide important positions that, ceteris paribus , may serve to safeguard the interests of sociology and other social sciences, when alternative leaders, drawn from other disciplines, may be decidedly more skeptical or even hostile. Further beneficial leadership roles in this regard include those within national and international academic associations and networks, particularly those that encompass a wide spectrum of social sciences or both social and natural sciences; and those that offer formal connections between the academy and important external organizations, such as with global sport governing bodies or UN agencies.

Fourth, in part to enhance its positioning within academe, the sociology of sport needs to be agile, inventive, and relevant in both the research that it undertakes, and in its external activities. Sociologists benefit from commitments to investigating fresh substantive areas, particularly given that sport is constantly being shaped and reshaped in economic, social, cultural, political, environmental, and technological terms. Such a research approach is more likely to enable sociologists of sport to collaborate with other disciplines that are concerned (and, often, funded) to investigate cutting-edge issues. The development of original research is also significantly enhanced if sociologists of sport engage with and potentially draw upon innovative aspects, in theory and in substantive research, within the parent discipline of sociology as well as in other disciplines or fields, such as anthropology, cultural studies, development studies, geography, international relations, and political science. Further benefits can only accrue from continuous self-critical inquiry, asking for example, what fresh theories, methods, concepts, keywords, research topics, and pedagogical techniques might be explored by us. The alternative approach—involving an instinctive, even institutionalized reluctance to explore fresh thinking—not only makes for a stultifying and boring subdiscipline. It also makes the subdiscipline appear somewhat ossified to our colleagues in mainstream sociology and other disciplines—and thus, far less likely to be considered as a worthwhile research collaborator.

Fifth, all research fields, as international communities of practice, prosper when diverse scholars engage in collegiate collaborations, and in open and temperate debates. The sociology of sport has many such examples involving teams of scholars who operate within and/or across different institutions, for example in teaching units and research projects, or in collaborative publications and gatherings at conferences. As new generations of scholars emerge, often without lifelong commitments to “defending” fixed theories and paradigms, there also appear to be fewer vituperative exchanges or interrelations than in the past few decades. Moreover, in the post-Covid academic environment, we detect strong atmospheres of friendly sociality and restored community within at least some sociology of sport gatherings. It is vital that the sociology of sport builds on such collaborative and collegiate activity to safeguard the subdiscipline.

Scale up: towards large-scale research collaborations

The sociology of sport, and indeed the wider social scientific study of sport, continues to do research that is mostly qualitative and relatively small-scale, and which commonly features individual studies of specific groups, communities, or organizations with reference to involvements in sport or physical activity. Much of this work also reflects a “methodological nationalism”, in terms of empirical focus, research team collaboration, and/or academic reference points. Even comparative studies continue to be small scale, usually focusing on a handful of research groups or locations, while engaging relatively small research teams. This stands in marked contrast to much quantitative research, especially in the natural sciences, which has the capacity to generate much wider-reaching data, and benefits increasingly from technological advances that allow for rapid large-scale data production and processing, and for the meshing of multiple datasets. Such research is also more likely to be undertaken or written up by relatively large teams of researchers, who may each contribute their own data sets, or diverse types of expertise for producing and analysing data—hence, the large numbers of co-authors that we find on many quantitative papers. Furthermore, this large-scale approach carries appeal for many grant-making foundations and external stakeholders—whether in policy, commercial, or civil spheres—in terms of promising findings with relatively greater reach, reliability, and validity, which may in turn guide investments and other strategic actions by key decision-makers.

Here, we call for academics and students in the sociology of sport, particularly those working with qualitative methods, to consider how they may “scale up” their research activities and aspirations. By “scaling up”, we are referring to various potential actions, most obviously the extensive enlargement of research teams, and/or a substantial increase in the number or variety of social groups or locations that are the focus for research. There is, then, every reason for scaled-up research in the sociology of sport to engage research teams of 20+ scholars working in a similar number of locations. Such scaling up of research teams and research designs would enable sociologists of sport to undertake challenging programmes of research that would aim to generate findings that are richer in content and depth, more rigorous in how they have been produced, more comprehensive in their reach and scope, and more influential for future researchers and external stakeholders. This would, for example, enable sociologists of sport to respond more effectively to calls by officials within government and civil society for research findings that are sufficiently specific, detailed, and wide-reaching, and which provide the basis for guiding key decision-makers on how to construct policy and on how to invest money and other resources in different areas of sport.

We may observe too that scaling up would enable sociologists of sport to contribute more fully to enlarged, interdisciplinary research programmes. A problem that has received little attention to date, but is all the more relevant and can only be adequately addressed by larger interdisciplinary teams, concerns the mechanisms of interaction between the social and the biological. In terms of research methodology, there are as yet only few multidisciplinary explanatory models of how the diverse, elusive, and chaotic, and thus ultimately unpredictable, environmental influences interact with biological adaptations at the epigenetic level ( 31 ). However, there is certainly reason to believe that social structures and social regulations are directly and causally linked to genome structures and gene regulation ( 32 ). For example, studies indicate that nutrition in early childhood, on the one hand, conditions metabolic structures at the molecular level, which in turn have an effect on nutritional physiology in adulthood ( 33 ). On the other hand, nutrition in early childhood is in turn, simply put, dependent on the parents' attitudes toward nutrition, the extent to which they have the educational prerequisites to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy food, what food is available in the first place, and what food the parents can afford in light of their economic situation. It can also be assumed with regard to individual sports activities that being socialized into sedentary living conditions leaves traces not only on the attitudinal level of people, but also in their biological makeup. Within scaled-up and interdisciplinary research programmes, the sociology of sport, together with sports medicine and epigenetics, could well contribute to finding explanations of how the “sportive body” develops in its unique, ever-changing relationships with the world, and how biological systems react to environmental influences and in this sense “learn” in a rudimentary way ( 31 , 34 ).

The sociology of sport has the professional, social, and technological infrastructure to scale up its research. Many of the research fields within the sociology of sport have a substantial critical mass of scholars located across the world. Each of these scholars will have their own networks of research groups that they study, and fellow academics with whom they tend to collaborate. A scaled-up set of research collaborations would be facilitated by a “network of networks”, drawing together these different groupings. We also have the online technologies and experience for making research collaborations viable online. The routine use of online communication platforms (Zoom, MS Teams, Google Meet et al.) during the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated how social science research and teaching, engaging large numbers of participants, could be successfully undertaken through virtual technologies. The return to normal academic life—albeit, still, an uneven and incomplete process—has been a positive, social experience for many, marked for example by strong senses of community such as at international conferences and other gatherings. 4 Arguably, then, the post-Covid camaraderie within the academic community, which we noted earlier, provides relatively auspicious ground for the scaling up of research. Finally, a host of core themes in contemporary social science—relating, for example, to globalization, development, postcolonialism, decolonization, and EDI (equality, diversity, and inclusion)—has pressed the transnational academic community, still dominated by global North, to explore ways in which academics, students, and institutions in the global South may become full leaders and participants within world academe. The process of scaling up will require sociologists of sport to ensure that the global South is much better engaged in shaping research issues and designs, and in contributing to and leading research teams.

We may pick one research field, by way of illustration. Sport for development and peace (SDP) has mushroomed into one of the largest, genuinely global research fields in the sociology of sport and related subdisciplines over the past two decades. 5 Yet, most academic work in SDP continues to involve qualitative research that is relatively small-scale, both in empirical focus and reach, and in the composition of research teams. To scale up, the field of SDP research may establish a large transnational team of academics—why not 20–30 scholars?—drawn from the global South and North, pulling together their diverse research networks, to undertake a systematic programme of research across the world, focused on a common set of research issues and questions. This scaled-up research would be best placed to drive a step-change in SDP studies, providing research findings with new levels of reach and significance than hitherto, and offering a potential model for research programmes in other fields of the sociology of sport.

With regard to collaborations with researchers from other disciplines, one has to keep in mind that it is not a matter of course that the participants of an interdisciplinary research group are able to understand the language, methodology, and operational logic of representatives of other disciplines. Disciplines are per se autonomous and operationally closed systems that cannot simply exchange knowledge without translation work [cf ( 36 ).]. Cross-disciplinary collaboration requires an understanding of the theories, methods, and practices of dealing with knowledge gained in each other's disciplines, but also an acceptance of the scientific value of the knowledge produced in the “foreign” discipline. Hence, researchers from different disciplines involved in an interdisciplinary knowledge production process do not necessarily recognize or understand the object under analysis in the same fundamental ways. Thus, in any inter- and transdisciplinary work, attention also needs to be given to the “translation” that occurs between disciplines. If this translation work is not part of the process of knowledge production, then any forms of “interdisciplinary cooperation” will, in reality, be restricted to adding single disciplinary findings to an additive “multidisciplinary” bundle.

Embrace the glocal and cosmopolitan aspects of sociology

We appreciate that the sociology of sport, like the overarching discipline of sociology, has a largely glocalized academic status. In other words, while sociology and the sociology of sport constitute a global discipline and subdiscipline respectively, their shapes and statuses can vary significantly by national or regional context. 6 In much of Europe and North America, as we have outlined, the sociology of sport has been heavily marginalized by neoliberal policies, the marketization of higher education, and late modern ideologies and cultures of acquisitive individualism. The stronger presence of the public sector in higher education in some contexts, notably in France or Germany, can work to protect sociology's role to some degree. Significant cultural differences also arise. In the United States, quantitative sociology has greatest traction. In France, sociologists contribute prominently to social and political debates in the public sphere. In Latin America, social sciences, including in the sociology of sport, have tended to convey relatively direct and extensive forms of oppositional political critique—reflecting decades of structural crises, and academic activism against authoritarianism and social injustices—alongside adventurous and expansive forms of social and historical analysis. In other regions—such as in East Asia—the sociology of sport tends to be relatively well represented within sport-focused departments and universities, in part reflecting institutional commitments to housing a comprehensive array of disciplines.

The glocal aspects of sociology and the sociology of sport—particularly in how the discipline and subdiscipline are understood and performed with respect to theory and method—should be strongly embraced and nurtured. Such glocal processes reflect how sociologists, with diverse cultural and other backgrounds, seek to apply and develop the discipline and subdiscipline, in ways that are most meaningful and applicable within their different locations and traditions of scholarship. They protect and sustain the cosmopolitanism of sociology, and of the sociology of sport, by recognizing and valuing cultural “difference”, in this case with regard to the plurality of sociological perspectives per se . Further, these glocal and cosmopolitan aspects are in line with calls for global sociology to advance the voices of relatively marginalized approaches and perspectives, such as those from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and from non-Anglophone cultures (see our further comments, below). Ideally, they should also enhance greatly the vitality of the discipline and subdiscipline, by enabling diverse approaches and perspectives to commingle—such as through research projects, publications, and conference debates—in ways that inspire further, original work, in theory, method, and empirical inquiry.

Theory: plurality, and fresh approaches

Following from this, we contend that it is important for any discipline or subdiscipline in the social sciences to have as wide a range of theoretical and methodological techniques at its disposal as possible, so that in social research the most appropriate theories and methods may be used, to the greatest effect, in order to study, analyse, and explain social phenomena or processes that are under investigation. In addition, theoretical and methodological diversity and innovation represent important indices of the health and vitality of any social science. Fresh theoretical developments point to a vibrant academic community, whereas little conceptual innovation suggests a discipline that is staid if not entropic.

The sociology of sport has an uneven position in regard to theory. On one side, the subdiscipline has a long history of diverse theoretical approaches that have been utilized, often with significant variations by nation or region. Further theoretical range is afforded by referring back to the master discipline of sociology, and by engaging with cognate disciplines that often have significant sociological dimensions, such as anthropology, education, geography, and political science.

On the other side, the subdiscipline has arguably become too reliant on a small number of theories, some of which have been reproduced over three to four generations of scholars with few really significant redevelopments or reconfigurations of the main precepts or arguments. Among the most influential theorists here have been Bourdieu and Foucault, known worldwide in the social sciences; Elias, mainly known and used in the UK and some parts of the European continent; and, Luhmann, best known and understood in Germany and Scandinavia. Notably, with the exception of the even older Elias (1897–1993), these modern theorists were of a largely similar historical period, being born in the interwar period (1920s–1930), and developing their oeuvres and magni opi in the 1960s through to the 1980s. In other words, their main work was developed some 40–60 years ago, with the apogee in their usage within sociology and the sociology of sport perhaps having been in the late 1980s or early 1990s, some 30 years ago.

We have no doubt that sociologists of sport will continue to draw significantly on these theorists. Indeed, as the space and time allocated to sociology within sport-related degree programmes come under pressure, it becomes more likely that they will be among the few if only social theorists that students encounter to any significant extent. However, we contend that the sociology of sport needs to pursue and to sustain a wider range of theoretical approaches, for the reasons mapped out above, including with respect to the benefits of maintaining a cosmopolitan and glocal array of standpoints, and to enhance the subdiscipline's vitality and capacity to respond to fresh research challenges. Thus, looking forward a further 20–30 years, to the 2040s–2050s, sociologists of sport should aspire to engage with a wider array of theorists and theoretical frameworks, keeping in mind that the primary works of the quartet above would by that point be some 60–90 years old, and in the case of Elias (1939) ( 38 ), even over a century in vintage. As noted earlier, lack of theoretical variation and renewal would leave the sociology of sport more open to appearing staid and entropic to those in sociology or wider social science. In turn, it would weaken our appeal in terms of securing research funding, or being invited into multi-disciplinary research collaborations.

Transnational coordination

Given its challenging circumstances, sociologists of sport across the world need to do all they can to transform and enhance the transnational constitution and coordination of their global field. Three key points follow here.

First, the transnational sociology of sport continues to be dominated by the Anglophone global North, most obviously involving North America, the UK, Australasia, and Anglophone scholarship in Europe, East Asia, and elsewhere. This transnational field has far more to do in order to engage fully with actual, emergent, and potential scholarship across the vast diversity of low- and middle-income countries. Such an engagement is vital if the sociology of sport is to be a genuinely “global” field. It is also vital if the subdiscipline is to observe, through a kind of collective self-practice, its own incessant and ubiquitous demands for all institutions in sport to tackle fundamental issues of marginalization, colonization, and decolonization. This would enable the subdiscipline to rethink its ontological, epistemological, methodological, and substantive dimensions in ways that fully engage LMIC and non-Anglophone perspectives. Moreover, it is essential that we recognize the vast social divisions and inequalities across the global South; hence, for example, we must do all we can to ensure that the social scientific “voices” of the “global South” are not purely or primarily those of national or regional elites.

A particular problem of international collaboration, however, lies in what we might term the language and the ontology of publication. For many years, the Anglophone research community took little notice of research in other countries. This is, of course, because representatives from Anglophone countries have had no need to adopt another language for international discourse. However, in so many other countries—for example France, Spain, Germany, and Poland in Europe; Brazil, Argentina, and Chile in South America; China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in East Asia—research projects were and continue to be conducted, books written, and articles published, but in the local languages. The increase in the importance of world rankings for the self-image of universities and the increasingly demanded internationalization of research cooperation has led to a rethinking of academic work (including in the social sciences) in these countries. Now, English is increasingly the lingua franca of scientific communication for these countries as well. And yet, there is a large number of highly interesting research results that have not been published in English and will never find their way into the international sport sociology community if they are not translated. At the same time, academics in many of these countries argue that the Anglophone ontologies of writing or publishing in the social sciences—particularly for journal articles, but also for larger works such as PhD theses—are very different to the approaches found in their home nations. Again, there is a concern that global sociology may become too homogenized, and undermine its glocal diversity, if scholars in Anglophone countries fail to recognize significant cultural differences in how sociology and other social sciences are “done” in non-Anglophone and/or global South contexts.

Second, the principles behind the points above—centred on tackling tendencies towards homogenization and marginalization within the subdiscipline—apply across the world, including of course in the global North. Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) concerns must be directed onto the subdiscipline in full, and that means by looking beyond “acknowledgements of privilege”, to continue to press higher education institutions to redistribute resources such as studentships, posts, research grants, leadership roles, and academic status. Thus, the sociology of sport is ripe for transformation with regard to repairing the consequences of social divisions along the lines of class, gender, ethnicity, race, disability, and, as flagged above, North/South and Anglophone/Non-Anglophone divisions.

Third, transnational networks and associations need to identify ways in which the subdiscipline can become far more coherent and coordinated, to tackle tendencies towards fragmentation. The most obvious area lies in respect of the international associations for sociologists of sport, such as EASS, ISSA, NASSS, 3SLF, and also the various national or regional associations and networks within the subdiscipline, such as in different parts of Europe, East Asia, and Oceania. 7 Currently, each association tends to engage particular clusters of academics, with some overlaps. However, we find that North American academics tend not to attend conferences in Europe hosted by EASS/ISSA in the summer, while NASSS conferences (staged in November) tend to attract a relatively limited cohort of European academics, especially non-Anglophone ones. It is vital that these associations, particularly through their leadership groups, explore ways to facilitate more effective communication and coordination. The benefits here would include greater volume of interaction and exchanges between individuals and research groups across these diverse associations and networks; and, a stronger cross-fertilization of research ideas, networks, and projects. This would also enable associations potentially to co-stage events—as we saw with the EASS and ISSA joint conference in Tübingen in 2022—and it would also avoid the particularly counter-productive occasions, which have happened twice in recent years, when two international associations have staged their own conferences at the same time as each other. Further, a focus on international associations and conferences would draw sociologists of sport to reflect on how they may engage with other associations, whether these are more all-encompassing ones (such as the European College of Sport Sciences, which includes a significant social science dimension), or more disciplinary specific ones (such as those in sport management, physical education, sport history, sport philosophy, sport economics, and so on).

More horizontal and less vertical collaborations

There needs to be a better balance between vertical and horizontal types of networking and collaboration in the sociology of sport. By “vertical”, we mean hierarchical collaborations, mainly between academics at senior (e.g., professor), mid-career (e.g., associate professor), early career (e.g., assistant professors, postdoctoral research associates), and doctoral researcher levels. Conversely, “horizontal” refers to collaborations among academics at the same level, such as between early career researchers or between PhD students.

We recognize that the volume and variety of vertical collaborations have grown substantially over the last two or three decades. Doctoral researchers and their supervisors now co-author many more papers than in the past, in ways that are coming to mimic the formats found with colleagues in the natural sciences. We find that funded research projects often feature teams of researchers, usually led by an established academic, with early career and doctoral researchers also on board with the role of collecting and analysing data. We appreciate there are further structural and cultural reasons for these hierarchies. In some countries, university employment and departmental structures are set up with Chairs (professors) at the centre, supported by collaborating clusters of more junior colleagues. Younger academics may also seek to work with specific senior colleagues, developing their research skills, publication profiles, and, crucially in many contexts, professional networks in ways that enhance future employment and career-building opportunities. On occasion, however, these vertical relations can inhibit the academic development and personal freedoms of younger colleagues, such as when senior staff act almost as conservators with their early career and doctoral researchers, controlling which other academics they can talk to, or restricting their freedom of association at conferences.

In our view, this verticality in academe needs to be balanced by a much greater focus on horizontal collaborations, particularly with doctoral and early career researchers. More horizontal collaborations of this kind would help to enhance the vitality of the sociology of sport; the exploration of new theories, methodologies, and substantive areas of research; and, the array of interdisciplinary and international partnerships across the subdiscipline. These horizontal forms of networking enable young academics to gain valuable experience in genuinely collaborative, creative research projects and publishing; to build new networks and communities of colleagues internationally; and, to share their accounts, experiences, and perspectives with peers at similar stages of career development.

It is worth recalling that, from the late 1960s onwards, it was groups of young academics at similar career stages who undertook much of the foundational work within the sociology of sport, and also who led much of the adventurous development of new research paradigms across the subdiscipline. Such horizontal collaborations among young scholars would help to revitalize the sociology of sport in this way. Of course, to facilitate this process, more powerful, senior staff would at least be required to take a step back, or, better still, to positively encourage and enable such peer-based collaborations.

Public engagement

Famously, CW Mills (1959) ( 39 ) argued that a defining feature of the sociological imagination was the capacity to view “personal troubles” as “public issues”, that impact on many people, and which are shaped by diverse structural factors and cultural processes. From this, we may consider how this sociological imagination may be fostered and harnessed by sociology, and the sociology of sport, in ways that enhance their social relevance and public engagement. Crucially, if sociology is to enhance its public engagement, it has no choice but to break away from a pure observer role and to develop greater competence in the translation of its results. In this context, contact with both politics and sports practice plays an important role.

Public engagement takes many forms, including advising leading decision-makers and other officials within key organizations; working with organizations to enhance their policy and practice; and, contributing to debates in the public sphere (e.g., through mass and social media). The easiest way of doing this latter form of public engagement is through short articles in media open to sociological contributions; the online outlet, The Conversation , provides an obvious example. These outputs may accumulate many “reads” or “clicks”, and may enable PhD students and early career researchers to put down markers for their research and academic presence, but the extent to which they have direct non-academic influence or impact is very much open to debate. On the other side, perhaps the most fully impactful approach is to ensure that sociologists are able to take positions on scientific advisory bodies and other such panels, which feed directly into policymaking at national and international levels. Further impactful and direct modes of external engagement include organizational collaborations, which may involve the “co-creation” of research projects, and the translation of findings into fresh strategies, policies, and practices for the outside partner.

There is a long-term trend for national and international research foundations to direct social scientists towards these types of external collaboration or impact in order to secure research funding. Hence, sociologists would do well to build these links in the pursuit of funding. We should recall also that these external partners take many forms. Certainly, sport clubs and governing bodies, governmental bodies (local, national, and international), and corporations are included here, but so too are NGOs, campaign groups, social movements, and other agencies that are perhaps more likely to engage directly with, and to champion the causes of, marginalized social groups, and which perhaps also offer relatively close fits with the theories and perspectives that are held by some sociologists. In many universities—especially for sociologists and other academics holding privileged positions within “research-intensive”, low-teaching institutions—the pursuit of this research funding is a strategic necessity. Failure to do so serves mainly to marginalize further the discipline in terms of securing its requisite share of research funding, its relevance or influence with external organizations and publics, and its future within higher education; otherwise, university leaders will inevitably be required to ask: why invest in this discipline, and not in others that are willing to pursue funded research and external impact?

Our aim here has been to examine critically the academic and wider societal position of the sociology of sport, and to advance specific ways forward (or “new horizons”) for the subdiscipline. We have argued that social science, sociology, and the sociology of sport hold comparatively peripheral positions—which we have termed periphery 1,2,3 respectively—within academe and more broadly; indeed, much of the subdiscipline's marginality derives from its location within these wider academic milieux. In contrast, we also highlighted a range of strengths and advantages that sociology and the sociology of sport possess within academic and wider, non-academic fields. These two sections provided the critical context for our discussion of routes ahead for the sociology of sport, specifically in improving its positioning within academe, scaling up to produce large-scale research collaborations, embracing and building upon its glocal and cosmopolitan aspects, enhancing transnational coordination, advancing horizontal collaborations, and strengthening public engagement.

To conclude, we put forward three main points. First, our intention has been to advance an analysis that is critically realistic and plausibly aspirational with regard to the contemporary position and future possibilities of the sociology of sport, particularly within the academic context. In doing so, we have sought to exercise the type of critical reflexivity that is broadly advocated in much of sociology and the sociology of sport, and to refer this back onto the discipline and subdiscipline themselves. In our view, this type of concerted critical reflection is essential for the future development of any subdiscipline within sport studies, whether these might be located within the social or natural sciences. Hence, we would encourage scholars in diverse fields such as sport biomechanics, geography, history, management, medicine, nutrition, physiology, political science, and psychology also to reflect critically on their respective conditions, positions, and future possibilities, within academe and beyond. Many of the key themes that we highlight here—such as the relative positioning of the subdiscipline within academe, its transnational coordination, and public engagement—may be relevant and applicable to such critical assessments.

Second, our analysis is ultimately directed towards enhancing the sociology of sport, particularly within the academic realm. Sociology has a critical role to play in the full gamut of interdisciplinary research fields within and beyond sport. As we have argued, we do not work in the most auspicious circumstances: disciplines such as psychology and biology tend to have greater prominence, and at times to display a degree of triumphalism, within many research fields. Yet, as the Covid-19 pandemic alone has demonstrated, there is an essential need to look beyond the biological and the psychological, and to examine the sociological dimensions of any research issue. 8 At the same time, a critical task for sociologists within sport and other fields is to adapt and to reposition the discipline, in the ways that we have outlined, to secure its necessary centrality within the academy and beyond.

Third, in this context, we would also like to emphasize once again that even the most advanced empirical methodology for capturing psychological, biological, and social patterns of human coexistence is no substitute for theory-led, critical sociological reflection. Big data research provides a current example for the irreplaceability of critical sociological reflections where they are increasingly being considered as unnecessary. The number of researchers who are convinced that collecting tons of behavioural or communicational data from millions of people automatically leads to “the truth” is continuously rising. Using big data research techniques to analyse patterns of social interactions, collective behavioural patterns, or consumer trends, certainly means progress for certain types of studies in social science studies, considering the chaos of societal communication. However, this does not mean that critical thinking, and particularly a critical theory-driven sociological analysis, has become useless. On the one hand, pure big data approaches have the disadvantage that “no matter their “depth” and the sophistication of data-driven methods (…) in the end they merely fit curves to existing data” ( 41 ). To give one example ( 42 ): even if it is possible to collect billions of data about sentiments of football fans' tweets, the findings regarding collective emotionality in football still remain superficial if the tweets cannot be contextualized against the background of discursive strategies on Twitter, emotional contagion in larger groups, the typical “language” of fans in this sport (or in other words, theoretical sociological reflections on the dynamics of collective emotions in sports), as well as the large-scale, social structural processes (such as globalization, commodification, securitization, mediatization, and postmodernization) that have reshaped elite-level global football over the past few decades ( 43 ). On the other hand, to avoid an uncritical approach to the results of big data surveys, it is necessary to figure out “the sociotechnical processes involved along the “data building chain”” ( 44 ). Data does not just appear out of thin air. They build on previous research, but they are also influenced by existing actor constellations in the relevant research field, by power relations in scientific circles, and, last but not least, by scientific trends. Research, including big data research, is therefore always characterized by a pre-selection of questions, variables and study populations, which in turn depend on the social context in which they are “created”.

Sociological thinking, it can be said, is therefore not replaceable, either in science in general or in sports science in particular. On the contrary: in a world in which it is possible to manipulate publics via social networks, in which political pressure can influence the selection of research questions that are publicly considered relevant, and in which complexity is a central characteristic of every world problem, critical sociological thinking is even more important than ever.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editor and the two reviewers for their very constructive and insightful comments on the initial version of this paper.

1 Triplett ( 2 ) – likely less familiar to sociologists – wrote what is widely considered to be the first study in sport psychology.

2 Interview for Women’s Own magazine, published 1 October 1987.

3 In the UK, many sociology departments have established criminology programmes. One of us recommended and planned out a full criminology undergraduate programme in the mid-2000s for a sociology section at a university in Scotland, but this failed to gain the support of the section head. 15 years later, a criminology undergraduate programme was established by that same sociology section.

4 We have in mind here the communal atmosphere at the joint European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS) and International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA) conference at the University of Tübingen in June 2022.

5 See for example Collison et al. ( 35 ).

6 On glocalization as a theory and social process, see Robertson ( 37 ).

7 These refer to European Association for Sociology of Sport (EASS), International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA), North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS), and Société de Sociologie du Sport de Langue Française (3SLF).

8 See for example the arguments of Connell ( 40 ) on the role of sociology with respect to Covid-19.

Author contributions

The two authors made relatively equal contributions to the paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Aurora Beacon-News | Problem-solving, critical thinking on display…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

• Aurora Beacon-News Sports
• Aurora Beacon-News Opinion
• All Suburbs

Aurora Beacon-News

Aurora beacon-news | problem-solving, critical thinking on display at robotics event at aurora municipal airport.

Robots and the kids that built and operated them took center stage all day Friday at the Aurora Municipal Airport in Sugar Grove as 17 students 9 to 16 years old squared off in a competition during the first-ever Elite Robotics Camp, hosted by the U.S. Engineering League and the Wong Center for Education.

The Friday showcase was the culmination of a week-long camp program that included four days of workshops held at the Hampton Inn in Aurora.

A press release issued by the robotics camp said the 17 students involved spent time with a variety of national champions from multiple countries under Anthony Hsu of OFDL Robotics Lab Taiwan, “one of the world’s most accomplished coaches.”

Susan Mackafey, publicist for the Robotics group, said the event in Aurora came about as a result of the competitions that the Wong group hosts worldwide. William Wong, the founder of the Wong Center for Education, is the national organizer for the World Robot Olympiad, according to a press release.

“There were some students from Ukraine and Kazakhstan wondering if there would be any other kind of competitions as they wanted to hone their skills with one of the experts,” she said. “Will Wong ran with it, and has arranged the camp and the competition going on this Friday.”

Two of the camp members from Ukraine – Margo Proutorbva and Sofia Sova – were sponsored by the Wong Center for Education.

“It’s been an emotional trip for them,” Mackafey said, given the war going on in their homeland. “A lot of the kids are looking to train and do this as their careers and they love to compete. There are various levels of this competition that take place on a global scale.”

Local students were on hand as well, some of whom are being sponsored by the Wong Foundation, sources said.

Wong, of Naperville, was supervising Friday at the airport facility and said he started a robotics program with kids back in 2008.

“STEM has become a lot of the focus,” Wong said. “Even before I started, STEM was a big word. Engineering coding has always been there. It’s just how can we have kids do more of it. What’s happened is there are education companies like LEGO and other companies that have built robots that allow us to teach kids robotics in an easy fashion and we can create real world challenges off those robots so they literally are engineering, building and creating, designing and working with teams to have robots do tasks.”

Other than the collaborative learning, Wong said the biggest takeaways of the program “are problem-solving, figuring out how to make things work, a lot of trial-and-error, analysis and critical thinking.”

“There is teamwork, but the biggest is perseverance and working through the problems,” he said. “If the robot doesn’t work the first time or the second time or the 100th time, they are truly going through the engineering process – building, design and the whole cycle.”

Margo Proutorbva, 14, spoke about robotics and said through an interpreter she got interested in them two years ago.

“I’ve learned to assemble them,” she said. “The most difficult part of this has been when you assemble a robot with someone else – it’s way easier when you do it on your own. My robot can grab different objects, follow lines and turn in different ways.”

David Sharos is a freelance reporter for The Beacon-News.

More in Aurora Beacon-News

Aurora Beacon-News Sports | After winning nationals, Wisconsin-bound Patrick Hilby wants more for Aurora Central Catholic. ‘A prizefighter, man.’

Aurora Beacon-News | Task force meets to begin its work to look at impact of potential dam removal in St. Charles

Column: Oswego dad’s grief after loss of son leads to Ronald McDonald House and new book

Kane County Board votes against construction of new health department building

Trending nationally.

• Continuing Coverage: Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore
• Some of Florida’s sickest kids are losing Medicaid coverage on Easter Sunday
• Skiboky Stora, accused of attacking NYC TikToker, goes on unhinged rant in court
• White-collar crimes: Sam Bankman-Fried’s sentence is double Elizabeth Holmes’
• Conjoined twin, former TLC star Abby Hensel now married to Army veteran