European Journal for Sport and Society 2012, 9 (1+2), 81-104
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of
Golf in Norway
Jan Ove Tangen1 and Roy M. Istad1
Telemark University College, Norway
1
Abstract: This article discusses the spread and growth of Norwegian golf from 1985 to
2005. Finding that the number of golf players is following a shape that resembles a logistic growth curve, we look at the governing processes behind this development. We use
the metaphor of ‘spreading the rumour’ to symbolise this development, seeing golf as an
innovation that has been diffused in Norwegian society mostly via word of mouth.
However, in order to explain the growth and diffusion, this metaphor needed sociological support. Concepts like social distinction, cultural imperialism, globalisation, and
innovation diffusion were discussed in relation to the empirical data. The empirical data
shows the closest fit to the mechanisms that Rogers (2003) claims determine the diffusion
of innovations in a society.
First, the decision process behind adopting golf consists of five stages: knowledge,
persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. The decision to start playing golf
seems to correspond to these stages. Second, there are certain attributes of golf that determine golf’s rate of adoption. We present and discuss findings that specify which attributes appeal to prospective golf players. Third, the tendency of adopting innovations
is assumed to be normally distributed in a society. Findings indicate that three of five
adopter categories have already been recruited in Norwegian golf. Fourth, the spread of
the innovations takes place within certain diffusion networks. In Norway these networks
are both homophilous and heterophilous.
In addition, some factors in the Norwegian society, like social class, political and
economic institutions, values and norms, worked as constraints against the “spread of the
rumour” (i.e. the game of golf). In this paper we also point at some important implications
for sport management and sport policy, golf organisations, golf clubs and golf investors.
Keywords: golf, innovation, diffusion, rumour, Norway
Introduction
In 1985, about 5,600 memberships belonged to Norwegian golf clubs. In 2005 there
were more than 120,000. This growth was reflected in an increase of available golf
courses from nine in 1985 to 155 in 2005. In 2011 the number of memberships was
the same, but the number of golf courses had reached 173. From its early start in the
1920 golf was mostly played by people from the upper class. Today golf is believed
to have spread into almost every social group and is played in most parts of the
country, and in both rural and urban areas (Bergsgard, 1993; Kleppen, 1998). Is this
82
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
really the case? If so, which sociological factors have contributed to this growth and
diffusion? In this paper we will suggest some answers to these questions.
Could the growth and diffusion of golf be explained as a result of social distinctions as Bourdieu (1978) suggested? Or is it a result of processes like cultural
imperialism (Guttmann, 1994), globalisation (Jarvie & Maguire, 1994) or innovation
diffusion (Bale, 1989); examples of major types of explanations that are suggested in
the literature to explain the growth and diffusion of sport in general. They are relevant to explaining the spread of golf in Norway. The following discussion, however,
suggests that these explanations are not quite sufficient, partly because these theories
often operate on too general a level; partly because few studies have analysed the
spread of golf; and partly because the theoretical assumptions do not seem to fit the
Norwegian case. Therefore we will also discuss the growth of Norwegian golf in relation to Rogers’ (2003) sociological theory of diffusion; a theory that has explained
spread of ideas, practices, technologies and innovations in a variety of populations
and cultures.
Since there are few studies on the spread and diffusion of golf, especially in
Norway, our investigation is rather exploratory and tentative, both empirically and
theoretically. Our research is therefore more phenomena- than theory-driven (Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 2005). That means that we started with collecting empirical
data we thought were relevant to explain the growth and diffusion of golf, and then
tried to connect the empirical data to sociological theory (theory construction), rather
the other way round (theory testing). In this sense we have a sociological theory that
guided the data collection and which we later tested against the data (De Vaus, 1996).
The structure of the paper reflects this approach. We discuss tentatively these theoretical explanations consecutively in relation to our empirical data.
A case study like this will be of interest for the sociological study of how sports
development spread in different parts of the world. It may also have important implications for both sport management and sport policy because of its insights into processes that may encourage more people to participate in sport. Our findings may also
be of particular interest to golf organisations, golf clubs and golf investors, making
them better understand the processes behind the decision to take up golf.
Methodological Considerations
Our rather broad research question and the tentative nature of our investigation, justify a collection of data from a variety of sources.
To describe and model the growth of memberships, we gathered information
from the European Golf Association (EGA)1. For each year the country members
report to EGA the number of registered memberships.
1
http://www.ega-golf.ch/050000/050300.asp
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
83
In order to have empirical data to explain the growth, different sets of data were
collected. We carried out semi-structured interviews with eight key informants: golf
administrators, golf managers, golf journalists, PGA-professionals and golf course
owners. Historical documents such as yearbooks and anniversary books from four
of the oldest golf clubs in Norway in addition to similar documents from the eight
golf courses that were selected for field work and survey (see below), were content
analysed with regards to questions like who first took the initiative to play golf at a
particular place, where the idea or inspiration came from, who was involved in the
planning and financing of the course, and what arguments were used to convince potential players and local authorities of the benefits of golf. We carried out field work
on eight golf courses where we and our assistance played the courses, observed the
players and their interactions, the facilities and atmosphere and talked with a number
of golf players while we played a round of golf with them on issues related to how
they started, who influenced them, and what made golf so attractive. These were casual conversations; more like the talk golf players that do not know each other often
take part in when they are together more than four hours in a golf round. Based on
findings in the field work, the interviews and the content analysis of the written texts,
a questionnaire was constructed and a survey was administered. The questionnaire
was handed out on the same courses to every fifth player that entered the pro-shop in
order to register for a round of golf. This sampling method gave us a fairly representative sample of golf players (N=158). The questionnaire consisted of 19 questions
with 106 variables ranging from socio-cultural background, earlier experience with
other sports, who had influenced their decisions to start with golf, their most frequent
golf partners, and the impression they had of golf before they began playing it.
The different sets of data were analysed separately and thereafter “pieced together” (as methodological triangulation) in order to answer the question in the introduction: which factors contributed to the growth in the Norwegian golf from 1985
to 2005 and then 2011? The present article reports some of the main findings. Our
empirical data will be presented in connection with the discussion of possible explanatory factors.
The Growth in Norwegian Golf
In the following we will take a closer look at the growth of golf in Norway and
discuss how it may be modelled mathematically. This will give indications how to
explain the growth and subsequent diffusion of golf.
In Figure 1, we have plotted the reported golf memberships2 for each year from
1985 to 2005. We will later comment upon missing growth from 2005 to 2011.
As one might expect in such a phenomenon (accumulation of new memberships), this data distribution seems to resemble an S-curve; a curve that can be ex2
See the statistics on http://www.ega-golf.ch/050000/050300.asp, statistics for Norway.
84
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
pressed mathematically as a logistic function (Gottlieb, 2002). This function has
applications in fields such as biology, demography, economics and sociology. The
spread of a certain disease, the growth of a human population, the demands for certain goods, and the spread of a rumour in a society are social phenomena that follow
such a growth or diffusion curve. So, to what degree, how well, does the growth of
golf in Norway follow such a diffusion curve? What kind of theory or theories, might
explain the growth process? These are the questions we hope to answer in this article.
125'000
100'000
75'000
50'000
25'000
0
1985
87
89
91
93
1995
97
99
01
03
2005
Figure 1: Registered golf memberships in Norway, 1985 – 2005
In our interview study, we invited people with years of experience in the field of golf
as administrators, golf journalists, professionals and golf course owners, to comment
on the growth and popularity of golf in Norway. Doing so, phrases like ‘the population was infected by the golf virus’, ‘it spread like wildfire’, ‘the snowball effect’ and
‘the spread of a rumour’ were used. Since rumour is the only social process amongst
these, we find it appropriate to start with looking at the diffusion of golf as the spread
of a rumour or what marketing theory terms “word of mouth” (Buttle, 1998). In
line with this kind of reasoning, we will look at the diffusion theory of Everett Rogers (2003). Diffusion theory, or more precisely the diffusion of innovations theory,
concerns the spread of innovation, ideas, activities, social movements, technology
through a culture or among cultures. Golf could be seen as a social activity that in a
particular country at a particular time in history is seen as an innovation: “an idea,
practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other units of adoption
”(Rogers, 2003, 12). Concepts like ‘rumours’ and ‘logistic growth’ are important
concepts within this theory.
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
85
The Logistic Growth Model
Consider the situation where a rumour (some information) is spread within a society.
The rumour is spread via ‘word of mouth’, by an increasing number of people who
have heard the rumour. As the number of people who have heard the rumour grows,
the rumour spreads faster. Theoretically, without any limitations, the rumour continued to spread and generate an exponentially growing number of people familiar with
the rumour. There are, however, constraints to this growth. The main constraint is the
number of people to hear the rumour. Also distance and channels of communications
matter, as do, for example a person’s interest in this rumour and to his or her inclination to share it with other people. There may also be social structures such as politics
and institutions, norms and values that may accelerate or slow the spread of the rumour. In other words, a rumour spreads in a constrained environment. Obviously, the
continued growth of the group in question requires that there are more people to tell
the rumour to than there are people in the group spreading it. After a while there must
be fewer people in this constrained environment left outside the group than within
the group, and the growth of the group slows down. Eventually the size of the group
will reach and upper limit, or capacity (i.e. the number of potential recipients of the
rumour).
This is one example of a situation where a logistic growth model can be used to
describe how the number of individuals in a group changes over time within a constrained environment. Based on data registered over the 20-year period from 1985
to 2005 (see Table 1), we will look upon the process of recruiting golf players in
Norway as a version of the ‘spreading of a rumour’, or more precisely the spread of
golf as an innovation. The logistic growth model may then be used both to describe
how the number of golf memberships in Norway has evolved, and in principle predict
how it will evolve. This prediction will eventually give an estimate of the unknown
maximum number of golf players in Norway (the capacity). This prediction is valid
if the necessary conditions for the model stay unchanged, but regrettably they do not.
More sophisticated models are required to account for the long-term behaviour of this
system. For example people, for reasons like loss of interest, emigration, age/death,
will leave the group, or — if relevant — effects from trend waves and marketing,
may cause (even cyclical) fluctuations in the number of people in the group over
time. The importance here is not the estimated value of the golf capacity in itself, nor
the accuracy of this estimate, but to point out the very possibility of estimating such a
value. This fact should be of interest and use to public administration, golf governing
bodies and private investors.
We will use a mathematical model and it is important to know the conditions
under which it works. There are also some technicalities that must be addressed.
In general, one wants to study a group of individuals within a constrained environment, i.e. study how the members of that group develop with time in the con-
86
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
strained environment. As the group develops, the capacity reaches its maximal (and
just theoretically reachable) size. In our golf model, the size of the group represents
the number of active golf players at any specific time, while the capacity represents
the (unknown) total number of persons it may (theoretically) be possible to recruit as
future (over the long term) golf players in Norway.
Table 1: Registered golf memberships in Norway, 1985-2005
Year number
Year
Number of memberships
0
1985
5,600
1
1986
2
1987
3
4
Estimated rate of
change
Yearly net growth
-
-
6,265
675
665
6,950
1,068
685
1988
8,400
1,625
1,450
1989
10,200
2,050
1,800
5
1990
12,500
2,250
2,300
6
1991
14,700
2,000
2,200
7
1992
16,500
3,150
1,800
8
1993
21,000
4,250
4,500
9
1994
25,000
4,000
4,000
10
1995
29,000
4,000
4,000
11
1996
33,000
7,000
4,000
12
1997
43,000
8,500
10,000
13
1998
50,000
6,000
7,000
14
1999
55,000
7,500
5,000
15
2000
65,000
12,500
10,000
16
2001
80,000
9,750
15,000
17
2002
84,500
10,000
4,500
18
2003
100,000
20,250
15,500
19
2004
125,000
11,000
25,000
20
2005
122,000
-
- 3,000
The notation N = N(t) is used to express that the number of individuals in the group
(golf players) is dependent on the time t, i.e. the size of the group is a function of time.
The number of individuals will change (increase) with time towards the environmental capacity C. It starts from an initial number N(0) = N0 at time t = 0 (here 1985; time
t in years), and will change with time (not only year by year, but by every half year,
month, week, day, etc.). The rate of change for the size with respect to time is usually
expressed as dN/dt.
In the logistic growth model, the rate of change is assumed to be proportional
to both the number of individuals in the group (with more members of the group,
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
87
even more can assist in spreading the rumour, and vice versa) and to the number of
individuals still outside the group (with many outside the group, many can receive
the rumour, and vice versa). In the model, both these proportionalities are gathered
in one expression
(1)
The constant p is a positive proportionality factor and (C – N) is the number of individuals left in the environment outside the group, i.e. potentially group members. Of
course, the number of individuals in the group cannot be greater than the size of the
environment where it grows so (C – N) is also positive.
In this model we see that the rate of change is always positive, it will be small
whenever N is small, and it will increase with N as long as the number (C – N) is not
too small. The rate of change is large when there are many already in the group to
assist in recruiting from still many left in the outside environment. The rate of change
will decrease to zero when N becomes large (i.e. when N approaches C), since there
will be virtually no one left to recruit. The rate of change is positive: this quite basic
model just describes a growth process. The model does not take into consideration
any factors causing a decline, such as individuals eventually leaving the group.
One can show mathematically that the rate of change is maximal (the increase is
largest) when N = C/2, i.e. when there is exactly as many members of the group (golf
players) as there are persons outside the population still to be recruited.
The logistic growth model in (1) is what one calls a differential equation and can
be solved in general, i.e. we can find an expression for N(t) containing some parameters. The parameters depend on the data to be modelled in each specific situation,
such as with our golf player data, and may be calculated in different ways depending
on which data elements one wants to emphasise.
Without going into any details, the solution of equation (1) may be written as:
(2)
The two parameters b and q are given by the expressions:
(3)
and τ is that point of time where the growth is largest (rate of change is maximal),
which is when N = N(τ) = C/2.
In our golf data (Table 1) t = 0 corresponds to 1985 and the initial number of
golf players is N(0) = N0 = 5,600.
This is a continuous model, not discrete, since the group’s size does change
throughout the year and not only every New Year. Therefore we do not have direct
access to the rate of change in the golf data in Table 1, where the memberships are
reported only once a year. However, there are different techniques for approximating
88
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
such values, for instance by using the average rate of change (ΔN/Δt) over some
time interval. One possibility is to calculate the difference between the number of
memberships one year and the following (i.e. ‘Yearly net growth’ in Table 1), another one is to smooth things by using the average over two consecutive years, let us
say from year t1 to t2, and from year t2 to t3. In the middle, at the time t, we then may
approximate:
(4)
Based on our data, we have chosen to use this expression to approximate the rate of
change at time t2, the midpoint between times t1 and t3. All such approximations are
found in the data row labelled ‘Estimated rate of change’ in Table 1. There, printed
in a bold typeface, we have marked the time τ = 18 as the point of maximal growth
of this group.
From the data row ‘Estimated rate of change’ in the same table we find that the
growth is largest in 2003, which means that t = τ = 18. The number of golf players
at this particular time is N(18) = 100,000 = C/2, i.e. the maximum number of golf
players with this model is C = 200,000. We then have enough information to calculate
the two parameters b and q based on (3):
This gives us the following solution of the differential equation (1), and thereby the
number of golf players in Norway from 1985 (t = 0):
(5)
In Figure 2 the number of golf players in Norway in the period 1985-2011 is plotted
with the corresponding values calculated from (5). We have also plotted such calculated values for 2006-2025, i.e. the model may also be used to predict the number of
golf players in Norway for the next 20 years presupposed that the conditions for using
the model will still be valid.
In Figure 2 we can see how the logistic growth model fits with the registered
data on golf memberships, and how it predicts the future development of the number
of golf players. The growth is decreasing and the number of players will flatten out
towards a limit, the total capacity, of 200,000.
How good this ‘prognosis’ will be, remains to be seen. However, this model
is based on information interchange via word of mouth from one person to another
within one and the same environment. This quite basic mathematical model neither
accounts for any effects from marketing or other social trends that may have a positive impact on the growth, nor for any limitations in golf courses or individuals’
economy that may have a negative impact on the growth of the golf playing group.
And most important, this mathematical model does not account for any golf players
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
89
leaving the group; it only describes how the group grows through recruitment of new
members via word of mouth. More sophisticated mathematical models can account
for such effects, but our focus here is more on modelling this process itself and less
on their realism and precision. Given that we are looking at a period of as much as
20 years before predicting anything at all, it is obviously a problem here as to what
extent this process is on-going within ‘one and the same environment’.
In Figure 2 we have also plotted the number of golf players in Norway in the
period 2006-2011 in the same way as the numbers from 1985-2005. Here we can see
some effects of the long term behavior of this quite complex system, not described
by our simple model.
200'000
150'000
100'000
50'000
0
1985 87
89
91
93 1995 97
99
01
03 2005 07
09 2011
2015
2025
Figure 2: The number of golf memberships calculated from a logistic growth model for the period
1985 – 2025 plotted together with the registered golf memberships in Norway, 1985 – 2011
Saying that, we have to state that the adoption of many products follows an S-shaped
function. But, we do follow Rogers (2003, 277) when he states that:
The main point here is not to assume that an S-shaped rate of
adoption is inevitability. Rather, the shape of the adopter distribution for a particular innovation ought to be regarded as an
open question, to be determined empirically. In most cases when
this has been done in past research, an adopter distribution is
found to follow a bell-shaped, normal curve or is S-shaped on a
cumulative basis.
This is also the case with the diffusion of golf in Norway (see below).
The greatest value of this analysis is, however, that since the actual memberships show a close fit to the S-shaped curve, this points in the directions of certain
factors that may produce this shape, and thereby contribute to an explanation and an
90
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
understanding of how this growth came about. Thereby other explanations and theories could be supported or rejected.
With the exception of Scotland and England (Lowerson, 1994; Storey, 1994),
the growth of golf in Europe seems to follow an S-curve in approximately the same
period.3 So does the spread of golf in USA (Rooney Jr. & White, 1994) and Japan
(Zaitsu et al., 1994). This indicates that the spread of golf in Norway is part of a more
general process, but what process is this? The concept of rumour is, however, too
vague to have sufficient scientific value. We have to reveal the societal mechanisms
behind the spread of a rumour: who is talking to whom, and about what? In other
words, more concise theoretical concepts are needed to give the metaphor of rumour
more explanatory power. First we will try to find indications as to whether golf is a
class distinction or not.
Upper-class or Sport for All?
Both in Norway and in other countries, golf has historically been associated with the
upper classes. Not surprisingly, sport sociologists turned to Pierre Bourdieu for theoretical concepts to explain such inequalities. In contrast to other great sociologists,
Bourdieu wrote explicitly on sport in some of his works (1978; 1984; 1988). He documented that the French upper classes were more likely to play golf, tennis and go
skiing than the lower classes were. Conversely, the upper classes were less involved
in boxing, rugby, body building and soccer (Bourdieu, 1978).
The differences in taste and participation were attributed to the unequal distribution of power and capital in the population. To Bourdieu, however, the concept
of capital was not restricted to its economic connotations. Capital could be cultural,
social, symbolic and economic (Bourdieu, 1986). Cultural capital consists of knowledge and competence; not only literary knowledge but also practical competence. As
such cultural capital includes modes of expression, all sorts of manners, and aesthetic appreciation. Social capital is the resources of social relationships; in particular
connected to memberships in groups or networks. Symbolic capital is the cognitive
capacity to recognise and accept hierarchical relations in society; that means to acknowledge the unequal distribution of the other forms of capital. These forms of capital represent resources that individuals and groups have, accumulate, and exchange
in order to better their positions in society, and use them as class distinctions.
Bourdieu’s concepts stimulated subsequent research on sport participation.
When it comes to golf, the literature is sparser. Ceron-Anaya (2010) documents that
in Scotland, England and the United States golf participation has historically been
an expression of symbolic capital. However, important differences and changes have
been observed. In Scotland, golf was gentrified, especially in the second half of the
19th century. In the last decades of the nineteenth and early years of the twentieth cen3
See the statistics on http://www.ega-golf.ch/050000/050300.asp.
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
91
tury, golf spread through the Scottish middle-upper and upper classes. This was also
the case in England and the United States. Golf participation first became popular
among affluent businessmen. This group could not, according to Ceron-Anaya:
afford the aristocratic lifestyle nor do they possess the symbolic
capital to detach themselves from the working class. This group
was urgently in need of practices and traditions to distance themselves from the poorer social sectors and to move closer to upper
socioeconomic groups. (2010, 354)
This tendency still seemed to be true the end of the 20th century despite some observable changes. Sport participation in general seems still to be class dependent. Sallis
et al. (2001) reviewed a number of studies of children and adolescents and found that
those from families with higher education are more likely to be physically active than
those from less-educated families. In the United States, Stempel (2005) verifies that
the most class-exclusive sport is tennis; golf, running, and aerobics are the other next
three most exclusive. In Norway, sport participation reflects the cultural and symbolic
capital of the classes (Skille, 2005). However, participation in golf does not show the
same social inequalities as does participation in other sports.
In Norway, golf is the third-largest organised sport, behind soccer and skiing.
This suggests that more than the upper class is involved in golf. In our survey we
asked about the respondents’ main occupation and highest earned degree. We found
that the largest group consisted mostly of middle-class professionals: people working
in sales, the service industry and in caregiving (28%), administrative leaders and politicians (19%), academics (18%), engineers/technicians (14%) but also a rather large
percentage of office workers/manual labourers (18.5%). Almost two-thirds of the respondents have some education beyond the obligatory 12 years of education. The largest group consisted of persons with one or two years of college or university (26%),
followed by ‘only compulsory education’ (23%), ‘college/university 3-4 years’
(22%) and ‘more than five years at college/university’ (18%). This almost reflects the
level of education in Norwegian society at large.4 In other words, in our sample using
occupation and education as indicators of cultural and symbolic capital, we found
little evidence of such distinctions in relation to golf in Norway.
Our findings are supported by a larger study of the living conditions of the
Norwegian population.5 This study found that people who play golf and tennis seem
not to come from households characterised by higher education and high income.
The sports that correlated most with higher education and high incomes were crosscountry skiing and outdoor life. This study concludes that the population’s choice of
activities in general do not elucidate class distinctions. The study claims that “there is
little evidence that confirms what Bourdieu (1978) suggests”.
4
5
http://www.ssb.no/emner/04/01/utniv/ [read November 22nd 2011].
http://www.ssb.no/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200405/06/index.html [read November 22nd 2011].
92
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
Despite this, there may nevertheless be some indices that social, cultural and
symbolic capital have been in play on the golf field in the Norwegian context, as late
as the 1990s (Bergsgard, 1993). From golf’s early start in the 1920s until the beginning of the 1980s it may be true that “a small group of upper class men kept the secret
of golf for themselves” as one of our informants expressed it. Even in the Norwegian
Golf Association, through the 1950s, there was no interest at all in the popularisation
of golf (Kleppen, 1998). In the 1980s, however, ‘the secret’ got out. It spread not only
within the dominant class, but also between social classes.
In our interviews of golf experts and from our analysis of anniversary books we
inferred that local enthusiasts and entrepreneurs were from the upper middle class.
They used their contacts and networks drawing on the group’s total knowledge and
competence in order to form a golf club and build a golf course. Doing so, they found
(more or less intentional) an arena for showing off symbolic capital. However, in the
districts and rural areas, the group of upper middle class was too small to secure economically sound and stable operations of the clubs and golf courses. Members from
other social groups had to be recruited. In other words, the growth and diffusion of
Norwegian golf can only partially be ascribed to and explained by Bourdieu’s concepts of capital. Other factors must also be considered.
The Diffusion of Golf
Since golf is said to have a British origin (Browning, 1990), it is obvious to think in
terms of cultural imperialism: a term often used to explain the spread or diffusion of
sports. In his book, Games and Empires, Guttmann (1994) sums up the discussion of
if and how the concept of “cultural imperialism” can be used to explain most of the ludic diffusion from one nation to another. Analysing the diffusion of sports like cricket, soccer, baseball, basketball, American football and the Olympic Games makes him
somewhat hesitant about the explanatory power of the concept. The concept of “cultural hegemony” comes closer to “characteris[ing] what happens during the process
of ludic diffusion” (Guttmann, 1994, 178). But even this concept has its limitations
in explaining that cultures can be resilient, adaptive, and transformative with regards
to sports and other social phenomena. Guttmann seems to think that the concepts are
too comprehensive and too general to explain all examples of ludic diffusion. Each
case has to be individually studied and conceptualised. However, he neither explicitly
expresses this, nor does he suggest more suitable explanations and concepts.
Since golf was not among the sports Guttmann (1994)discussed in relation to
cultural imperialism, we cannot be sure if this explanation applies to golf. As far as we
know, no other study has discussed this, except for Arbena (1995) who analysed the
languages of sport and of cultural imperialism and used golf as one example. It might
be that the political, economic and cultural power of the nations involved could explain
the diffusion of golf from Britain to other parts of the world. But it is a fact that golf
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
93
diffused from Scotland to England and not the other way round, i.e. from the less powerful to the more powerful (a reversal of cultural imperialism). Nor was it the case
that England wanted to ‘turn the tables’ on Scotland and beat the Scots at their own
game, nor that England used golf as an emancipatory vehicle (cultural hegemony).
In the Norwegian context, neither cultural imperialism nor cultural hegemony
seems to be the best explanation. Norway was never a part of the British Empire. Nor
did British missionaries, military personnel, and civil administrators popularise golf
in Norway. Our findings, based on documents and books about the formation of the
oldest golf clubs in Norway in 1920-1960, tell us that the founding fathers had been
introduced to the sport while working or studying abroad there. Coming home they
gathered some interested friends, formed a committee, set up a club, and negotiated
with a local farmer to rent a piece of land; as they may have learned from the British
models. On the one hand, this process, as a kind of emulation, falls within the process
of cultural hegemony. On the other hand, this process could only explain the initial
phase of the diffusion of golf in Norway. As said earlier, golf spread very slowly;
between 1920 and 1985, only 5,000 new players were recruited. The most interesting period, however, is from 1985 to 2005 when more than 120,000 people joined
the game. In this period the concepts of cultural imperialism and cultural hegemony
seem to have less explanatory power.
The unidirectional process that is implied in the term ‘cultural imperialism’ is
highly contested. A growing number of writers prefer the term globalisation (Houlihan, 1994). In sociology the term ‘globalisation’ became one of the most influential
theory (Macionis & Plummer, 2002). The term has also found its way into sport
sociology. Jarvie and Maguire (1994) suggest that “dominant, emergent and residual patterns of sport and leisure practices are closely intertwined with globalisation processes” (230). Maguire (2000) claims that the term seems to explain the diffusion, unification, and homogenisation of many social phenomena that transgress
the boundaries between the nations. He states that “The emergence and diffusion of
sport is clearly interwoven with this overall process” (357). The globalisation processes related to sport, are not a direct outcome of inter-state processes, he claims.
Instead “these processes need to be accounted for in relation to how they operate relatively independently of conventionally designated societal and socio-cultural processes” (357). Other scholars assume that sport influences the globalisation process
itself. According to Miller (2001) “sport is big enough in its effects to modify our
very use of the term ‘globalisation’” (1). The debate over definitions of the term, the
key features of globalisation, and its relationship to similar concepts, is extensive and
far reaching but has failed to reach a consensus (Houlihan, 1994; Macionis & Plummer, 2002). To us, globalisation seems not to be one process, but many, as indicated
in Macionis and Plummer (2002).
94
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
We find the concept of globalisation to be more descriptive than explanatory.
It is useful to describe a tendency in the process of modernity (Giddens, 1997) — in
particular how sport developed and spread as a modern phenomenon from Britain to
the rest of the world — but the concept is too encyclopaedic to explain the diffusion
of golf in a Norwegian context. We could not clearly recognise or document how
the key features of globalisation may have influenced the spread of golf here. The
concept of globalisation could easily explain the increased performance and the massive technological development in equipment and courses as well as the increased
economic investment and growth in this sport. But it does little to advance the understanding of the specific driving forces and constraints of why the growth was set off
in Norway in the mid-1980s and accelerated over the next 10-15 years, culminating
in 2004; 100 years later than England and more than ten years later than Sweden and
Denmark. A more concise concept or theory for explaining the growth and diffusion
of golf within Norway is needed.
An alternative route of explanation is to see the growth of sport as innovation
diffusion. Bale (1989) claims that the geographical innovation diffusion theory comprises three ideas. First, the adoption of innovations displays a temporal and spatial pattern. Initially only a small number of potential adopters adopt the innovation.
After some time, a larger group leaps on to the ‘bandwagon’. Finally the ‘laggard’
adopters accept the innovation. When plotted as a cumulative frequency curve, this
approximates to an S-shaped curve, claims Bale (1989). The second characteristic
of the geographical innovation diffusion theory is that the size of the adopting town
or country is of importance. “Large places adopt innovations before smaller places,
the innovation ‘trickling down’ an economic hierarchy” he says (Bale 1989, 50). The
third characteristic, according to Bale, is that distance from an existing adopter of the
innovation acts as a barrier to adoption. This means that there has to be some kind of
imitative, contagion or ‘neighbourhood’ effect. Nations or cities have to be familiar
with the innovation in question. This is possible when a neighbour country or city
adopts an innovation. Bale offers evidence that some sports have diffused this way,
both between countries and between cities within a country. He gives, however, only
meagre information about how golf was spread. However, we think this approach is
promising.
Without using diffusion theory, Lowerson (1983) describes the English golf
boom of 1880-1914. He uses terms that suggest that other aspects or factors than
mere space and economy are active in the diffusion process. The game was already
centuries old when it was imported from Scotland to England. The introduction to
England followed a general pattern:
Usually, a few individuals would see the game played on a holiday or business trip, perhaps making a few attempts themselves.
Returning home, after acquiring a few ‘tools’ and an instruction
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
95
book, they would knock about local waste or pastures, until,
joined by interested friends, the idea of a club would be mooted.
A public meeting of ‘influential individuals’ invariably followed,
a committee was formed and an agreement reached with a local
farmer or landowner to rent a piece of land. (26)
This describes almost exactly the initial phase in Norway a hundred years later. A
more detailed and comprehensive diffusion theory than Bale’s (1989) is needed.
Golf as an Innovation
Bale (1989) claimed that sport once was something new in both time and space, and
could therefore be considered and analysed as an innovation. His model or theory
was used to compare the time of adoption with the economic development in different
countries and partly from richer to poorer cities within a country. He also analysed
how a country’s or a city’s time of adoption depended upon the distance from a
country or a city that already had adopted the innovation. Norway could be said to be
a neighbour of Britain, and could as such have adopted the game of golf from both
Scotland and England. But it took more than 100 years from England adopted the
game from Scotland until it gained momentum in the Norwegian context, and more
than 500 years after it was ‘invented’ in Scotland. It is more likely that Norway imitated Sweden. In Sweden there were more than 105,000 memberships in 1985 when
Norway had 5,600. After that the numbers rose dramatically both in Norway and
Sweden. There has to be other factors than mere distance to explain the growth both
in Norway and in Sweden.
According to Bale’s second argument (Bale, 1989, 71) “sport tended to diffuse
from a more advanced to advancing (in a Western economic sense) nations”, we find
it difficult to categorise Britain and Sweden as more advanced nations than Norway
at the time of golf adoption in Norway. We find, however, this model to be relevant in describing the geographical diffusion of sport in general, but not in explaining the growth as such (the S-shaped curve) with regards to the game of golf. As said
above, Lowerson’s (1983) paper indicates other factors in the diffusion of golf on the
British Isles. Fortunately, these factors are discussed in Rogers’ (2003) sociological
diffusion theory.
Rogers (2003) is said to be virtually synonymous with the study of the diffusion
of innovations. He is credited with originating the diffusion of innovation theory. His
major contribution is on the cognitive and communicative aspects of the adoption of
innovations; overcoming the dominating economic perspective in other theories of
the diffusion of innovations. We will explain the diffusion of golf in Norway by using
major elements of his theory. First, the decision process behind adopting the innovation runs through five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation
and confirmation (Rogers, 2003). Second, certain attributes of innovations determine
96
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
their rate of adoption. In Rogers’ (2003) opinion, the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability are the most important attributes. Third,
the tendency of adopting innovations seems to be normally distributed, just as many
human traits are. Not all people adopt the same innovation at the same time. Some
will do it almost at once, others very much later. Rogers categorised adopters as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Fourth, the spread
of the innovations take place within certain diffusion networks. The communication
flows through interpersonal networks where individuals were sociologically alike
(homophilous) or different (heterophilous). Homophilous communication accelerates the diffusion process, but limits the spread of an innovation to the members of a
particular (and often close-knit) network. The diffusion process can only occur in a
larger scale in communications that are more heterophilous. However, the diffusion
network is also characterised by opinion leaders and situations of critical mass (i.e.
situations in which a process becomes self-sustaining after some threshold point has
been reached).
Based on our sets of data we could say something about the decision process
behind adopting the ‘golf innovation’. From our survey study, we learn that Norwegian golfers acquired the knowledge of golf mostly from family members (32%) and
friends (33%) who took them to a golf course. There they could meet other acquaintances and be persuaded about the joys of golf. To be allowed to play on a regular 18hole golf course, potential golf players have to take a seminar where they learn about
security, etiquette, rules and play. They have to pass a theoretical and practical test to
receive a certificate (a green card). This is a part of what Rogers (2003) describes as
the implementation phase in the decision process. But even if they get their certificate, they still may be uncertain whether or not golf is a suitable leisure activity.
Many newcomers will be in a dissonant condition (Festinger, 1957), but so will people who are not that good at golf. More than 50% of Norwegian golf players do not
have an official handicap. They may often experience frustration and feel like failures
at the game. They may seek information and confirmation to support their decision.
Those who have family members or friends with them will more likely decide to
continue to play than others that do not have close relationships to other members.
Stoddart (1994, 611) claims that “solutions to the mysteries of addiction to golf
is to be found more in literary and social science forms than in swing manuals”. The
attributes of golf seem to be very important in its growth. The attributes have changed
very much the last 20 or 30 years. In Norway, playing golf has become economically
possible for most of the population. The equipment, memberships and attendance
fees cost less than do those of many other sports. In our survey study, more than 30%
answered that golf is not as costly as they thought it would be. Another advantage of
golf is the possibility of increased status and prestige. This might have been a relative advantage in the middle of the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s, but very
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
97
few of the respondents in the same survey (6%) stated that golf confers status and
prestige. It could be, however, that many respondents believe this, but are reluctant
to admit it on a questionnaire. Men and women of all ages are physically capable of
playing golf. It is less physically demanding than many other sports, and its handicap
system allows players of all skill levels to play against each other. This resembles the
situation in England around 1880 when English middle class men were recruited to
golf. Many had joined the field sports of the gentry,
but their [the field sports] high costs and heavy physical demands
were too much for many older men, coming to their enjoyments
from sedentary backgrounds. For them golf was a boon; relatively gentle, it could be played at reasonable cost. (Lowerson
1983, 26)
Our survey shows that Norwegian golfers seem not to come from physical inactive
or sedentary backgrounds. More than 40% have previously competed in other sports
before taking up golf. More than 20% said that they played golf because of the possibility to compete and perform. The values of golf seem to be more compatible with
the set of values in the sample. The majority of the respondents had considered golf
snobbish before they started playing golf themselves. Only 3% of the respondents in
our survey stated that golf still is exclusive in this sense. More than 60% agreed that
golf is for the common man.
The complexity of use of an innovation will determine how well it will be received in a population. At first sight golf seems to be very simple, and many have
found that after some trial and error it is not difficult to hit the ball. The kick most
potential players get when hitting the ball right is something most players search for.
More than 80% of the respondents in our survey state that this is the most fulfilling
element of playing golf. But most of the players also learn that playing well and consistently is very hard. Many respondents with earlier experiences with other sports
state that golf was the most difficult sport they had tried. Since most golf facilities
lend out clubs and have training facilities that potential players can use for free, the
trialability of the innovation is secured. Here the potential players can observe other
novices struggling with the club and the ball. More experienced players can give a
helping hand and offer some advice and encouragement. All these factors are valuable advantages that golf has over other sports. As such, this explains a large part of
the fact that there is a growth in Norwegian golf.
What about Rogers’ (2003) argument that innovativeness is a normally distributed trait? How could the adopters of golf be categorised according to this? Rogers
(2003) demonstrates that S-shaped adopter distributions closely approach normality.
This allows him to develop five adopter categories. Plotting the rate of adoption for an
innovation against time can be represented either by a bell shaped (frequency) curve
or S-shaped (cumulative) curve. These are just two different presentations of the
98
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
same data. He uses the characteristics of the normal frequency distribution to classify
adopters. The group with a mean time of adoption less than minus two standard deviations is termed innovators. This category includes the first 2.5% of the individuals in
the system to adopt an innovation. The next 13.5% to adopt the innovation, the early
adopters, have a mean adoption time between -1 and -2 deviations. The next 34%
is called the early majority and includes those who have a mean between the mean
adoption time and the -1 standard deviation. The group of late majority consists of
the 34% that have a mean between the mean and plus one standard deviation. The
laggards are the last 16% to adopt.
If Rogers (2003) is correct in claiming that the tendency of adopting innovations
closely approaches normality, we would expect that the actual and annual growth in
Norwegian memberships to follow a bell curve. That means that in the beginning
only a few should adopt golf. Then the adoption accelerates until a maximum would
be reached. Thereafter the amount of new adopters should slow down until the point
where no more people would adopt this innovation was reached. Calculating the net
growth in memberships based on the data in Table 1, we see in Figure 3 that there is
an increase until 2004. Then the number of memberships drops by 3,000 (i.e. the net
growth in memberships suddenly becomes negative).
25'000
20'000
15'000
10'000
5'000
0
86
87
88
89 1990 91
92
93
94 1995 96
97
98
99 2000 01
02
03
04 2005
-5'000
Figure 3: Yearly net growth in Norwegian golf memberships, 1986 – 2005, plotted together with
three different possible bell shaped curves representing the same data
The data plotted in Figure 3 does not quite follow the expected distribution, but several bell curves (half of them) reasonably fit these data. The large broken line (bottom
right) is the bell curve from the logistic growth model (1), the small broken line (top
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
99
right) emphasises the peak value in 2004 and yields a more narrow bell shaped curve,
while the unbroken line (middle right) is a bell curve due to minimising the deviation
(sum of squared errors) between the curve and the data. But the most serious problem
apparent in this figure is that the number of memberships in 2005 is less than the
number in 2004. Instead of decreasing (positive) net growth values, flattening out
along a bell curve towards zero, there is a drop below the x-axis for 2005. We do not
know why this is so, but probably there could be more people leaving golf than the
number of new members (which in itself still may be increasing). Surely the amount
of new members must be non-negative. This observation tells us that using annual
growth in memberships is not the best way to estimate the number of new golf players per year.
However, the bell-curve shaped plotted data indicate which adopter groups are
recruited to golf so far. More than 50% of possible golf players have already been
recruited. In relation to Rogers’ (2003) categories of adopters we could say that the
innovators, early adopters and early majority are already recruited to Norwegian golf.
New recruits have to come from the groups of late majority and laggards. And these
are more difficult groups to recruit since they are more sceptical and more traditionally oriented to innovations than the other groups (Rogers, 2003, 284).
The last factor that according to Rogers (2003) influences the diffusion of an
innovation is the communication network where the diffusion takes place. From the
first Norwegian golf clubs formed in the 1920s until the growth in clubs and memberships accelerated in the 1980s, the communication about golf seems to have been
in a homophilous network. Only a couple of thousand people in the big cities, from
almost the same social strata, met on the golf course. The club leaders and the board
of the Norwegian Golf Federation were from the upper class or upper middle class
and seemed satisfied with the state of the art (Kleppen, 1998). It seems that they
were not interested in spreading golf to social strata other than their own. But some,
who met golf in the big city among their peers in the upper layer of society, got jobs
and moved to more remote areas of the country. They still wanted to play golf, but
in remote areas there were too few peers in the upper layers to form a golf club and
build a golf course for this class of players only. The only option was to recruit from
other social strata. In other words, “golf-infected” members of the upper class had to
recruit members of middle and lower classes. And so they did in Norway. In 2005, the
golfing population consisted mostly of people from these classes. That the communication had become heterophilous is also indicated by the fact that more than 60%
of the respondents in our survey study states that golf is now a sport for the common
man.
100
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
Golf, Politics and Welfare
Diffusion of innovations occurs within a social system. The social system, its structures like political and economic institutions, its norms and values, its opinion leaders
and change agents and its decision-making process, will also affect the innovation’s
diffusion in several ways (Rogers 2003). These factors create what we earlier termed
constraints to the spread of a rumour or the adoption of golf. But they could also, to a
certain degree, be driving forces behind the growth. As stated above, many of the innovators of golf in Norway were local entrepreneurs. In their struggle to form a club
and rent or buy a piece of land, they immediately were confronted with hostile farmers who argued that the soil should not be used for idle activities like golf (norms).
The county agricultural boards stood up for the preservation of the rural values, and
the Ministry of Agriculture had no interest in having the land used for such idle purposes. Until the beginning of 1980s this was the situation in Norway. But, paradoxically enough, the Labour government under Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland,
exposed the agricultural industry to competition (Almås, 2002). Custom duties were
reduced and more agricultural products from abroad were imported. The farmers had
to be more creative to receive a reasonable income from their land. Renting out or
selling the land to golf entrepreneurs was suddenly a possible solution. Then they
could work on the golf course as greens keepers and earn a salary. Many farmers did
this, our interviewees and anniversary books tell us.
A general growth in the Norwegian population’s welfare has also played a part
in the diffusion of golf. But this factor does not specifically affect the diffusion of
golf. The discovery of oil on the Norwegian (continental) shelf in the 1970s; wages
increasing in the beginning of 1980s and 1990s, and an increase in higher education
from 1980-2000, an increase of members in the middle (or service) class from the
1980s, a growing number of elderly in the population and an increased understanding and contact between the generations, were important changes in the Norwegian
society at the end of the 20th century (Kjølsrød & Frønes, 2005). It is reasonable to
assume that all these changes contributed to the diffusion of golf in Norway.
Many factors in Norwegian society influenced the growth of golf, some as constraints and others as driving forces. For a long time agricultural politics and values
and norms in the Norwegian society worked against it. This changed after the mid1980s. These changes in agricultural politics and general welfare, however, are necessary but not sufficient factors for the growth of golf.
Conclusion and Implications
In this article we have tried to explain the spread and growth of Norwegian golf from
1985 to 2005. The slow start of golf in Norway, and in particular the low participation
rate between 1920 and 1980 may be seen as a result of a dominant social class securing its economic, social and cultural capital using golf as a symbol and a distinction,
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
101
as Bourdieu would have put it. The growth after 1980 seems to contradict Bourdieu’s
theory of distinctions. We have not, however, found explicit indications of effects
from processes like cultural imperialism and globalisation on the spread of golf, even
if these processes may have had some effects on Norwegian society.
However, finding that the spread of golf was exponential and following a logistic
growth curve, we assumed that the processes behind this shape could be compared to
the spread of a rumour. Our empirical sets of data show a rather close fit to the mechanisms that Rogers (2003) claims determine the diffusion of innovations in a society
(i.e. cognitive and communicative processes). First, the decision process behind adopting golf runs through five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implement-ation
and confirmation. Second, there are certain attributes of golf that determine golf’s rate
of adoption. Golf seems to have a relative advantage in terms of compat-ibility, complexity, trialability and observability in comparison to other sports. The tendency of
adopting innovations is normally distributed in a population; Rogers (2003) has identified innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Our data
indicates that Norwegian golf has so far (2005) recruited the first three groups. The
spread of the innovations take place within certain diffusion networks. In Norway the
network is both homophilous and heterophilous. In addition, some factors in the Norwegian society have limited the spread of golf. From our point of view, these mechanisms lie behind the growth of golf in Norway. Whether these mechanisms also lie
behind the spread of golf in other countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Germany
remains to be investigated.
Our findings have important implications for sport policy and sport management as well as golf organisations, golf clubs and golf investors. Since family and
friends are crucial to the introduction and staying in the game of golf, most of the
arrangements, events, and competitions should have a familiar and friendly atmosphere. One should consider how to encourage families and friends to play more golf:
Could families and friends have a price reduction on green fees and memberships?
Could there be competitions for teams of parents and children, friends from both
sexes, and so forth?
Since most of the Norwegian golf players are without an official handicap, many
may experience frustration and might consider quitting. It would probably help if
they received more instruction. Should these instructions be free or paid for? Should
the Pro become self-employed or should the club pay the Pro to give this instruction?
Could other club members take part in the instruction, in cooperation with the Pro?
The numbers of golf clubs and golf courses have grown almost as fast as golf
memberships in Norway. This has given the Norwegian population ample accessibility to golf, which is greatly appreciated by the golf players. Many clubs and courses,
however, are now struggling financially due to the competition from other clubs and
courses. Some raise the prices of membership and green fee, which may lead to fewer
102
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
members because of a more difficult economic time. Would it be better to lower the
prices?
In the Norwegian society golf was for a long time considered to be expensive
and snobbish. Even golf players admit that they held this opinion before they started
with golf, but changed their minds after playing for a while. The attitude seems to
have lost ground in general, but in some social strata and institutions and among
some opinion leaders this attitude persists. Should the Norwegian golf federation
join forces with the clubs and courses and formulate a marketing strategy that shows
how much it really costs to play golf compared to do other sports? Should the golf
governing bodies be more active towards the local and central governments and show
them the social benefits of golf, like experiencing social community and improved
health? There may be more implications to derive from our findings, but these are
the most important. In order to sustain the spread of golf, such implications have to
be discussed.
Future studies should go into more detail how individuals are recruited into
golf. In particular one should look more closely into the individual’s decision process and the five stages identified by Rogers (2003). In addition future study should
construct interviews or questionnaires that measure innovators, early adopters, early
majority, late majority and laggards. The respondents could also be asked about the
recruiter’s social background and occupation in order to reveal the kind of network
in which the communication is taking place. In other word, future study should more
closely approximate Rogers’ theory than this one has.
References
Almås, R. (2002). Norges landbrukshistorie. Oslo: Samlaget.
Arbena, J. L. (1995). Sports language, cultural imperialism, and the anti-imperialist critique in Latin America. Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, 14, 129.
Bale, J. (1989). Sports geography. London: Spon.
Bergsgard, N. A. (1993). Krafttak og eleganse – en kulturanalyse av klasseforskjeller
innen idrettsfeltet [Power and elegance – a cultural analysis of class differences
on the sport field]. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Bourdieu, P. (1978). Sport and social class. Social Science Information, 17, 819-840.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory
and research for the sociology of education (241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Program for a sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2,
153-161.
Browning, R. (1990). A history of golf: The royal and ancient game. London: A&C Black:
Distributed by the Talman Co.
The Spread of a Rumour – the Growth and Diffusion of Golf in Norway
103
Buttle, F. A. (1998). Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing.
Journal of strategic marketing, 6, 241-254.
Ceron-Anaya, H. (2010). An approach to the history of golf: Business, symbolic capital,
and technologies of the self. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 34(3), 339-358.
De Vaus, D. A. (1996). Surveys in social research. London: UCL Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and
Company.
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gottlieb, Robin J. (2002). Calculus: An Integrated Approach to Functions and Their Rates of Change. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Guttmann, A. (1994). Games and empires: Modern sports and cultural imperialism. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Houlihan, B. (1994). Homogenization, Americanization, and Creolization of Sport: Varieties of globalization. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11(4), 356-375.
Jarvie, G. & Maguire, J. A. (1994). Sport and leisure in social thought. London: Routledge.
Kjølsrød, L. & Frønes, I. (2005). Det Norske samfunn. Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.
Kleppen, H. (1998). Golf: den eventyrlige sporten. Oslo: Aschehoug.
Lowerson, J. (1983). ‘Scotish Croquet’: The English golf boom 1880-1914. History Today, 33(5), 25.
Lowerson, J. R. (1994). Golf for all? The problems of municipal provision. Paper presented at the Science and Golf II, St. Andrews.
Macionis, J. J. & Plummer, K. (2002). Sociology: A global introduction. Harlow: Pearson
Education Ltd.
Maguire, J. (2000). Sport and Globalization. In J. D. Coakley (Ed.), Handbook of Sport
Studies (356-369). London: Sage Publications.
Miller, T. (2001). Globalization and sport: Playing the world. London: Sage.
Ramachandran, V. S. & Blakeslee, S. (2005). Phantoms in the brain: Human nature and
the architecture of the mind. London: Harper Perennial.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rooney Jr., J. F. & White, H. J. (1994). The database of Golf in America: A Guide to
Understanding U.S. Golf Markets. Paper presented at the Science and Golf II,
St. Andrews.
Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, M. W. & Taylor, W. C. (2001). A review of correlates of physical
activity of children and adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
32, 963-975.
Skille, E. Å. (2005). Individuality or cultural reproduction? International Review for the
Sociology of Sport, 40(3), 307-320.
Stempel, C. (2005). Adult participation sports as cultural capital. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport, 40(4), 411-432.
104
Jan Ove Tangen and Roy M. Istad
Stoddart, B. (1994). Golf, development and the human sciences: the swing is not the only
thing. Paper presented at the Science and Golf II, St. Andrews.
Storey, K. R. (1994). Targeting for success - the European golf market. Paper presented
at the Science and Golf II, St. Andrews.
Zaitsu, H., Takeshita, S., Meshizuka, T. & Kawashima, K. (1994). Golf Course development in Japan: Its abnormal supply and demand. Paper presented at the Science
and Golf II, St. Andrews.
Acknowledgement
This study received a grant from the Research Council of Norway. We also acknowledge valuable comments from the reviewers.
Jan Ove Tangen is professor in sport sociology at the Department of Sport and outdoor
Life Studies, Telemark University College. His main research interests relate to the inclusion and exclusion process in sport; power, politics and sport facilities; drug abuse in
sport and the system theoretical sociology of Niklas Luhmann.
Telemark University College, Department of Sport and outdoor Life Studies, Hallvard
Eikas plass, 3800 Bø, Norway
E-mail: [email protected]
Roy M. Istad is an associate professor of mathematics at the Department of Economics
and Computer Science, Telemark University College. His research interests relate to linear algebra, complex analysis and cross-disciplinary research.
Telemark University College, Department of Economics and Computer Science, Hallvard Eikas plass, 3800 Bø, Norway
E-mail: [email protected]