INTRODUCTION
Journal of Sport Managenzelzt, 1997,11, 1-7
O 1997 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Action Research and Social Change
in Sport: An Introduction
to the Special Issue
Laurence Chalip
Griffrth University
Although sport has evidenced phenomenal growth throughout this century,
the directions of sport's growth have been widely criticized. The growth and
resulting criticisms challenge sport managers and sport management researchers
to reexamine their methods and their assumptions. Articles in this special issue explore the redesign of sport systems and the tasks of redressing inequities in sport service delivery. They raise significant issues about the role of
knowledge in the empowerment of managers and clients. The articles suggest
the value of incorporating both qualitative and quantitative methods in action
research, and challenge traditional distinctions between "applied" and "basic"
research. They demonstrate the merit of case-based research, and illustrate the
utility of collaborations between researchers and the persons they study. The
study of social change in sport promises to provide a useful context for the
elaboration of theories and models about the management of sport.
When taken at face value, the advent of a productive sport-for-all movement
(Palm, 1991) and the spectacular international growth of sport events and sport
teams (Thoma & Chalip, 1996) are good news for sport managers and sport management scholars. After all, these herald expansion of markets for sport and a consequent proliferation of opportunities for those who manage and those who study
sport.
Yet many scholars are less-than-sanguine about the direction of sport's development. Some have noted that sport organizations hide or even facilitate the
abuse of athletes (e.g., Brackenridge, 1994; Hoberman, 1992; Ryan, 1995). Others
claim that the way modem sport is structured sustains the alienation of participants and spectators (e.g., Brohm, 1978; Rigauer, 1981). Some argue that as sport
has become a marketplace commodity, it has lost much of its value as a setting for
social and psychological revitalization (e.g., Clarke & Critcher, 1985;Rojek, 1995;
Rowe, 1995). Others claim that sport's focus on competitive outcomes has robbed
it of its value as a channel for play and personal growth (e.g., Devereaux,
1976; Gibson, 1993; Orlick, 1978). Studies continue to demonstrate deficient
development of social skills among some elite athletes (e.g., Hughes &
Laurence Chalip is with the Faculty of Business and Hotel Management at Griffith
University, Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 42 17 Australia.
2
Chalip
CoaMey, 1991; Remer, Tongate, & Watson, 1978), inequities in sport service
delivery (e.g., Kidd, 1995; Lapchick, 1996), and the development of sport
practices that foster oppression of some social groups (e.g., An & Sage, 1992;
Hoberman, 1984).
Critiques like these are a matter for concern not because they are consistently true of sport, but because they are sometimes true of sport. Research shows
that the degree to which sport renders benefits or harm depends almost entirely on
the particulars of sport implementation (Chalip, Thomas, & Voyle, 1996). In other
words, whether sport provides the values that sport marketers and sport-for-all
advocates claim for it (and that consumers seek from it) depends on how managers
provide it. What is at stake is nothing less than the credibility of our industry and
its consequent claim on public budgets and consumers' leisure commitments.
The notion that action research can enhance the performance of managers is
well-established.For example, marketing research (Bums & Bush, 1995), evaluation research (Rossi & Freeman, 1989), and organizational diagnosis (Harrison,
1994) have long been accepted tools of management. The articles in this special
issue extend the aspiration of action research beyond service to market penetration, program effect, or organizational efficiency. Each article is explicitly concerned with the broader matter of changing the ways in which sport is conceived
and delivered.
More than one type of change is addressed. The papers by Green and by
Thibault and Harvey examine factors that advance or hinder remodeling of our
sport systems. The papers by Boshoff and by Frisby, Crawford, and Dorer probe
the tasks of addressing inequities in sport service delivery. It is a measure of the
complexity of sport's relations to social change that, despite their common threads,
each paper confronts a unique problem. The paper by Thibault and Harvey is concerned to enhance the ways we link organizationsthat govern sport. In many countries, sport is administered by an array of organizations; the coordination of sport
delivery has consequently become a matter of significant concern to policymakers
(cf. Chalip, Johnson, & Stachura, 1996). The paper by Green seeks to facilitate
changes in the ways that sport programs for children are designed and implemented.
She applies action research to examine and strengthen the acceptability of a program that has fundamentally redesigned the delivery of youth sport services. Thus,
although both papers examine the problems of changing sport systems, each tackles the matter at a different level. Thibault and Harvey address change at the level
of national organizations, while Green addresses change at the level of local program implementation.
Frisby, Crawford, and Dorer also examine change at the local level. They
describe work to link low-income women to sport service providers. They show
how inequities in sport service delivery can be redressed, at least in part, by amplifying the client's voice. Their work represents a subtle but significant shift in the
way that sport management is conceived. In this case, sport is not administeredfor
the client, it is designed and implemented with the client. The inclusion of clients
in the formulation and implementation of policy has a lengthy but controversial
history in public administration (cf. Beny, 1981;Emery, 1993;Riedel, 1972). Frisby,
Crawford, and Dorer show that mere inclusion of clients may be insufficient, particularly when those clients are socioeconomicallydisadvantaged.Frisby, Crawford,
and Dorer demonstrate the value of action research that helps clients to explore
their needs and the conditions from which those needs arise.
Action Research and Social Change
3
Boshoff links the levels of local and national sport by considering the problems of changing sport in the context of national social change. Sport's relations to
social and political conditions have been extensively studied (e.g., Chalip, 1996;
Gruneau, 1983; Hargreaves, 1986). However, the ways in which social change
mandates changes in sport delivery have not been so thoroughly examined. Boshoff
describes the manner in which the recent and massive changes in South African
society are changing the procedures by which national sport organizations seek to
develop sport at local levels.
At a deeper level, the articles in this special issue are about more than change.
They are about the ways in which the knowledge we produce as sport management
scholars affects the ways in which we construct the practice of sport management.
Elsewhere in the study of management, there has been substantial interest in the
ways that research and theory inform (or fail to inform) management practice (e.g.,
Hutchinson, 1995; Knon-Cetina, 1981; Pate, 1988).However, the study of knowledge utilization has so far remained underdeveloped in sport management.
It is no coincidence that the concern for social change in sport has so directly
implicated a concern for knowledge utilization. Not only can theory and data suggest new potentials for sport; any effort to create change raises new questions and
challenges old assumptions. Consequently, the study of social change in sport suggests new directions for sport management research.
The notion that knowledge can empower those who seek to promote change
has a venerable history, particularly among empowerment theorists (e.g., Freire,
1972; Rappaport, 1990). Although persuasive demonstrations are rare, there is
certainly evidence that knowledge can be a tool of change (e.g., Connor & de la
Isla, 1977),particularly in the context of participatory action research (e.g., Maclure
& Bassey, 1991). The reigning explanation for the potency of knowledge is not
that facts intrinsically confer power; rather, the explanation is that knowledge facilitates change when it affects the ways in which we understand and interpret the
social world (e.g., Fals-Borda, 1991; Weiss, 1980).
Although that insight has proven useful, it has imported a complicating set
of concerns about the appropriate methods of social research. One influential stream
of argument contends that if social knowledge obtains its impact by means of its
effect on the ways we interpret our social world, then research should be interpretive (Fay, 1975), and therefore qualitative (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, the
impact of knowledge does not depend on its qualitative or quantitative character;
rather, it depends on the ways in which knowledge is incorporated into the conceptual frameworks of those seeking to use it (Chalip, 1990). When taken together,
the articles in this issue illustrate the point well. Boshoff elaborates the empowerment model. To pursue knowledge that empowers, Frisby, Crawford, and Dorer
rely primarily on qualitative techniques, but Green relies almost excfusively on
quantitative measures. Thibault and Harvey develop their framework by integrating qualitative and quantitative research literatures. Qualitative and quantitative
work are complementary.
The link between theory and practice also challenges the old (and once sacrosanct) dichotomy between applied and basic research. Although the dichotomy
consistently fails to withstand empirical (Barber, 1952; Gieryn, 1983) and conceptual (Reagan, 1967) scrutiny, it has persisted. Yet, in social change contexts, the
dichotomy fades. Clearly, any work that seeks to nurture social change also irnplicates social theory. Change can require that we apply theoretical insight, but it also
4
Chalip
can compel us to elaborate better understandings of social phenomena. Deductive
and inductive reasoning are both required (cf. Chalip, 1990).
The need to elaborate conceptual insight implicates two further issues in
work designed to foster social change in sport. The first contemplates the bases for
generating new conceptual insights. The second queries the scientific value of
case study.
If social action depends on the theories we formulate and the ways we interpret data, whose theories are applied and who interprets the data are matters of
substantial concern (Ingham & Donnelly, 1990). If knowledge is merely conferred
from persons claiming to be expert to those classified as nonexpert, it can be more
disempowering than empowering (Gruber & Trickett, 1987). Worse still, it can
misrepresent the phenomena of interest (Gregg, Preston, Geist, & Caplan, 1979),
or be downright wrong (Okpala, 1987).
A substantial body of research suggests the value of incorporating the insights of persons who are being studied. Maquet (1964) observes that critiques by
Africans have reduced biases in anthropologicalknowledge about Africa. Maruyama
(1969) demonstrates that unique research questions and unusual theoretical insights result from inclusion of untrained researchers who have been recruited from
the group under study. Ackoff (1970) describes ways in which incorporating ghetto
residents into the research process provided access to data that would otherwise
have been lost. Community psychologists report that discussing data interpretations with the persons they study improves the ease and quality of their research
(Chavis, Stucky, & Wandersman, 1983).These benefits are consistent with experimental work showing that participants are frequently better able than observers to
construct accurate explanations because participants are more aware of their own
concerns and the experiences that generated them (Monson & Snyder, 1977).
Thus, inclusion of those being studied becomes necessary not merely because empowerment requires it, but also because the quality of research undertaken depends on it. This is reflected in the articles here by Green and by Frisby,
Crawford, and Dorer. Green worked closely with program administrators to define
the research agenda and, subsequently, to interpret research findings. Frisby and
her colleagues brought low-income women into the project from the outset, working with the women to conceptualize research frameworks and to interpret findings and their outcomes.
Each of the articles in this special issue is, in one way or another, a case
study. Case studies have had a troubled history in social science, as their scientific
merit has been contested. The point at issue has been whether it is possible to
distinguish ideographic (i.e., case-specific)knowledge from nomothetic (i.e., general) knowledge in case research. The standard solutions for obtaining nomothetic
knowledge from cases have been to seek replications within the case (Campbell,
1975) or to develop theory by applying analytic induction to multiple cases (Hesse,
1974).
Although these techniques are applicable to cases seeking social change in
sport, studies of social change also furnish an advantage that is not obtainable
elsewhere. The examination of efforts to foster change provides a unique opportunity to further the development of theory. Leighton (1946) described the advantage half a century ago:
[Alpplied social sciences can well be the meeting place of both science and
practice as in clinical research. Participation in administrative programs
Action Research and Social Change
5
through planning, execution, and follow-up observation often presents a
unique opportunity for careful compilation of data and for a degree of experimentation that is not possible elsewhere. It may be that under such circumstances discoveries regarding the nature of society and culture can be
made. . . . Moreover, social theories can be reduced to working hypotheses
leading to predictions that are testable by the observation of subsequentevents.
Through such a series of steps, science as well as the techniques of application should advance. (p. 668)
The articles in this special issue point to new and useful directions for research in sport management.They suggest new methods for promoting social change
in sport, and they provide useful springboards for the elaboration of theories and
models about the management of sport. They challenge us to think beyond what
sport is; they challenge us to think about what sport might become.
References
Ackoff, R.L. (1970). A Black ghetto's research on a university. Operations Research, 18,
761-771.
An, M., & Sage, G.H. (1992). The golf boom in South Korea: Serving hegemonic interests.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 9,372-384.
Barber, B. (1952). Science and social order. New York: Free Press.
Beny, J. (1981). Beyond citizen participation: Effective advocacy before administrative
agencies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17,463-477.
Brackenridge, C.H. (1994). Fair play or fair game? Child sexual abuse in sport organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29,287-299.
Brohm, J.M. (1978). Sport: A prison of measured time. London: Ink Links.
Bums, A.C., & Bush, R.F. (1995). Marketing research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Campbell, D.T. (1975). Degrees of freedom in the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178-193.
Chalip, L. (1990). Rethinking the applied social sciences of sport: Observations on the
emerging debate. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 172-178.
Chalip, L. (1996). Interpretative und kritische analyse der sportpolitik. In G. Luschen &A.
Rutten (Eds.), Sportpolitik: Sozialwissenschaftliche analysen (pp. 25-52). Stuttgart,
Germany: Verlag Stephanie Naglschmid.
Chalip, L., Johnson, A., & Stachura, L. (Eds.) (1996). National sportspolicies: An international handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Chalip, L., Thomas, D.R., & Voyle, J. (1996). Enhancing well-being through sport and
recreation. In D.R. Thomas & A. Veno (Eds.), Community psychology and social
change: Australian and New Zealandperspectives (2nd ed., pp. 126-156). Palmerston
North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Chavis, D.M., Stucky, P.E., & Wandersman, A. (1983). Returning basic research to the
community: Arelationship between scientist and citizen. American Psychologist, 38,
424-434.
Clarke, J., & Critcher, C. (1985). The devil makes work: Leisure in capitalist Britain.
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Connor, A.N., & de la Isla, J. (1977). Information: An effective change tool. In EM. Cox,
J.L. Erlich, J. Rothman, & J.E. Tropman (Eds.), Tacticsand techniques of community
practice (pp. 245-254). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
Devereaux, E. (1976). Backyard versus Little League baseball: The impoverishment of
children's games. In D. Landers (Ed.), Social problems in athletics (pp. 37-56).
Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Emery, M. (Ed.) (1993). Participative designforparticipative democracy (Rev. ed.) Canberra,
Australia: Australian National University.
Fals-Borda, 0. (1991). Remaking knowledge. In 0.Fals-Borda & M.A. Rahman (Eds.),
Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action-research
(pp. 146-164). New York: Apex Press.
Fay, B. (1975). Social theory andpoliticalpractice. London: George, Allen, & Unwin.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.
Gibson, J.H. (1993). Performance versus results: A critique of values in contemporarysport.
- - Albany, NY State University-of New York Press.
Gieryn, T.F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains
and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.American Sociological Review,
48,781-795.
Gregg, G., Preston, T., Geist, A., & Caplan, N. (1979). The caravan rolls on: Forty years of
social problem solving. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1 , 31-61.
Gmber, J., & Trickett, E.J. (1987). Can we empower others? The paradox of empowerment
in the governing of an alternative public school. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 15,353-37 1.
Gmneau, R.S. (1983). Class, sports, and social development. Amherst, M A : University of
Massachusetts Press.
Hargreaves, J. (1986). Sport, power; and culture. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.
Harrison, M.I. (1994). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes (2nd
ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hesse, M. (1974). The structure of scientz9c inference. London: Macmillan.
Hoberman, J.M. (1984). Sport andpolitical ideology.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Hoberman, J.M. (1992). Mortal engines: The science ofperfomnce and the dehumanization of sport. New York: Free Press.
Hughes, R., & Coakley, J. (1991). Positive deviance among athletes: The implications of
overconformity to the sport ethic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8,307-325.
Hutchinson, J.R. (1995). Amultimethod analysis of knowledge use in social policy. Science
Communication, 17,90-106.
Ingham, A.G., & Donnelly, P. (1990). Whose knowledge counts? The production of knowledge and issues of application in the sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal,
7,58-65.
Kidd, B. (1995). Inequality in sport, the corporation, and the state: An agenda for social
scientists. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19,232-248.
Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1981). Time and context in practical action: Underdetermination and
knowledge use. Knowledge: Creation, Difision, Utilization,3, 143-166.
Lapchick, R.E. (Ed.) (1996). Sport in society: Equal opportunity or business as usual?
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Leighton, A.H. (1 946). "Applied" and "pure" research. American Anthropologist, 48,667668.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maclure, R., & Bassey, M. (1991). Participatory action research in Togo: An inquiry into
maize storage systems. In W.F. Whyte (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 190209). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Maquet, J. (1964). Objectivity in anthropology. Current Anthropology, 5,47-55.
Action Research and Social Change
7
Maruyama, M. (1969). Epistemology in social science research: Exploration in inculture
researchers. Dialectica, 23,229-280.
Monson, T.C., & Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process: Toward
a reconceptualization.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13,89-111.
Okpala, D.C.I. (1987). Received concepts and theories in African urbanization studies and
urban management strategies: A critique. Urban Studies, 24, 137-150.
Orlick, T. (1978). Winning through cooperation: Competitive insanity-cooperative alternatives. Washington, DC: Acropolis Books.
Palm, J. (1991). Sport for all: Approachesfrom Utopia to reality. Schorndorf, Germany:
Verlag Karl Hofmann.
Pate, L.E. (1988). Using theories as "overlays" for improved managerial decision making.
Management Decision, 26(1), 36-40.
Rappaport, J. (1990). Research methods and the empowerment social agenda. In P. Tolan,
C. Keys, E Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Issues
of theory and methods (pp. 51-63). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Reagan, M.D. (1967). Basic and applied research: A meaningful distinction? Science, 155,
1383-1386.
Remer, R., Tongate, F.A., & Watson, J. (1978). Athletes: Counseling the overprivileged
minority. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56,626-629.
Riedel, J.A. (1972). Citizen participation: Myths and realities. Public Administration Review, 32,211-220.
Rigauer, B. (1981). Sport and work. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rojek, C. (1995). Decentering leisure: Rethinking leisure theory. London: Sage.
Rossi, P.H., & Freeman, H.E. (1989). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Rowe, D. (1995). Popular cultures: Rock music, sport, and the politics ofpleasure. London: Sage.
Ryan, J. (1995). Little girls in pretty boxes: The making and breaking of elite gymnasts and
figure skaters. New York: Doubleday.
Thoma, J.E., & Chalip, L. (1996). Sport governance in the global community. Morgantown,
WV. Fitness Information Technology.
Weiss, C.H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 82-105.