Assessing the sociology of sport: On the trajectory,challenges,and future of the field

Introduction

In 1964, a meeting of eight sociologists of sport in Geneva, Switzerland led to the formation of the International Committee for the Sociology of Sport (ICSS) in 1965, and the publication of a journal, the International Review of Sport Sociology from 1966. In 1993, the names of the association and journal were changed to the International Sociology of Sport Association (ISSA) and the International Review for the Sociology of Sport (IRSS). In 2015, the ISSA celebrates 50 years of operation and the IRSS publishes its fiftieth volume of issues. In order to mark this occasion, the boards of the ISSA and the IRSS decided to produce a special anniversary issue reflecting on the trajectory, challenges, and likely future directions of the sociology of sport.

The trajectory of the sociology of sport, the ISSA and the IRSS

The sociology of sport as an academic sub-discipline has traditionally struggled for acceptance as a legitimate field of enquiry, facing a dual challenge from those within the ‘parent’ disciplines of sociology and sport science/kinesiology. Mainstream sociologists have often questioned the merit of ‘sport’ as worthy of study, while some academics within sport science/kinesiology saw little value in social scientific and cultural enquiry (most recently see Atkinson, 2011; Carrington, 2013; Dart, 2014; Silk et al., 2010). In the early stages of the development of the subject area, there was a tendency to refer to the field as ‘sport sociology’ reflecting the focus on sport, until we witnessed a gradual move to change the name to the ‘sociology of sport’ from the late 1970s onward, in order to stress that sport, and its scholars, are worthy of serious sociological recognition. However, it remains the case that most sociologists of sport work, and publish, in departments and journals dedicated to sport, rather than mainstream sociology areas, which may serve to limit their engagement with, and influence on, the wider community within and outside academia. Furthermore, many scholars of the sociology of sport are increasingly restricted in their critical analysis and innovation by research audit cultures requiring data-based research and demonstrable ‘impact’, combined with increasingly restrictive ethical review processes (Bairner, 2009).

Given these trends, it would be easy to be discouraged about the progress that has been made over the past 50 years. In particular, many subjects within the humanities are being threatened by neo-liberal agendas influenced by cost-efficiencies and utilitarian learning, which means that subjects such as sociology and sport may be viewed as less germane, inappropriate, and/or undeserving of scholarly scrutiny. However, as a cultural institution and practice, ‘sport’ has never been more popular among the general public, nation-states and scholars. And, with respect to the sociology of sport, the subject does appear to be thriving in some institutions and countries, offering a legitimate research and career pathway, and attracting the critical scholarly gaze of academics from a wide range of disciplinary fields, including anthropology, communication, economics, gender, international relations and politics and even mainstream sociology. In fact, one can make a case that today the ‘sociology of sport’ is more than sociology in the necessary embrace of a broad array of social and cultural concerns that entail sport. Beyond the ISSA, there are national and regional sociology of sport organisations that hold regular conferences in Latin America, North America, Europe, China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan, among others. The ISSA itself operates as Research Committee 27 within the International Sociology Association (ISA). There are also several journals dedicated to the sociology of sport. The IRSS was the first journal to focus on the sociology of sport. It has always had its publishing base in Europe, originally in Poland, moving to Germany in 1983, and then to its current publisher, SAGE, in the UK in 1997. The development of the field is reflected in the increased volume of publication of the IRSS, which started as an annual publication, increasing to quarterly in 1973, bi-monthly in 2012, and then to eight issues per year in 2015. The journal has made important strides in its impact and offers articles Online First in response to the open access agenda.

While it may be argued that research within the sociology of sport has not always had the highest profile or been very visible, it has had considerable social influence, playing diverse roles in policy development, and it is due to the work of sociology of sport scholars that public and media attention has been directed to a myriad of pressing issues facing sport in society today. For example, there is now growing public awareness of, among other concerns: corruption in the organisation of major events and institutions and inappropriate expenditure of public funds; exorbitant profits and skyrocketing salaries and ticket prices in professional sports; the treatment of athletes on the grounds of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, disability and other identity issues; compromises to the well-being of athletes and others working in the sport industry in order to ensure athletic achievement and performance; and the potential that sport has to challenge and protest against formidable social inequalities.

In the fiftieth year of the ISSA and the IRSS, as we reflect on the field as a whole, our point here is that the sociology of sport is simultaneously under threat while also possibly making a greater contribution to public discourse than ever before. In key ways, sociologists of sport have already addressed the call from the former president of the International Sociological Association for a ‘public sociology’ (Burawoy, 2004). It is worthy of note that the fiftieth anniversary of the ISSA and the IRSS falls just six years after the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of C Wright Mills’ classic book The Sociological Imagination. Mills (1959), of course, argued that we need to connect private experience with wider social structures, personal problems with public, and scientific analysis with political awareness. In this spirit, the articles in this issue present research and perspectives that are both global and local, both macro and micro, both qualitative and quantitative, and, perhaps most significantly, both contextually relevant and publicly accessible. We hope that the framing of the topics and themes in this collection of papers will serve as a foundation for further advancing understanding of the work of sociologists of sport and contributing to debates outside academia.

The challenges of a special issue representing 50 years of the sociology of sport

What we have tried to do in this special issue of the IRSS is provide an intellectual marker of where we have come from, where we are at and where we need to go. We can attest that this was a challenging project, not the least of which was deciding on some terms of reference: what was to be the scope of this special issue; what topics should be included/excluded, which authors should be invited and based on what criteria? Ultimately, we reached agreement on a unique format: a ‘50@50’ strategy in which we sought perspectives from 50 notable scholars who could offer papers that speak to key themes that have developed over the past 50 years in the field, association and journal. We sought voices and contributions that would not only represent the past, present and future of the IRSS but also represent the diversity of the ISSA with respect to geographic location and language, gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity.

Guided by such concerns, we looked to include key scholars with demonstrable commitment to the organisation and/or journal through service of a minimum of one full term on at least one of the boards of the association (the executive, extended or the IRSS’ editorial boards). This provided us with a long list of 80 possible contributors for our target of 50 papers. In some cases invited authors were not able to contribute due to conflicting schedules, retirement, health or personal issues. Throughout the process we carefully monitored our list of contributors to ensure that we remained as true as possible to our criteria, always mindful that we needed to strike a balance between representing the field’s past (with all its biases, including the dominance of the English language and males) as well as its present and, to some degree, what we think the field should aspire to in the future. The final issue includes contributions from 50 scholars: 29 male and 21 female, representing 24 different countries and all continents. It is interesting to note that the first issue of the IRSS in 1966 included authors from 13 countries representing three continents and only one female contributor (Donnelly, 2005). Ultimately, we are well aware of the limitations of our approach and accept that our list of selected contributors and themes is likely to stimulate considerable discussion and debate. At this stage, we would like to apologise to those scholars, past and present, whom we have not been able to include in this special issue.

We invited each author to contribute a short (2000 word) essay with a common basic title ‘Assessing the sociology of sport’. In each article, we asked authors to comment on (1) the trajectory of the sociology of sport as a field of inquiry, (2) the challenges ahead for the sociology of sport, and (3) future directions for the sociology of sport, with special reference to intersectional concerns (theoretical, topical and/or regional/national issues) that have driven and focused the author’s personal scholarly agenda. We have adopted this framework for this introductory editorial paper as well. The key themes that have emerged from this issue primarily relate to: identity politics; deviancy; capitalism and the commodification of sport; politics, power and control; national identity and globalisation. The papers draw on a range of theoretical frameworks and flag methodological issues for consideration. The authors highlight many matters that need to be considered in shaping the development of future scholarly agendas, and we hope that this collection will stimulate debate and further academic enquiry.

Future directions for the sociology of sport, the ISSA and the IRSS

The process of editing this special issue raised for us some key issues for future consideration. We would like to speak to two overarching issues here – language and interdisciplinarity – that have particular resonance for both the current state of affairs and the future of the field.

As an international association and journal, we remain challenged by and still have considerable work to do to overcome the limitations presented by the global dominance of English as the lingua franca of scholarly discourse (whether spoken at conferences, transmitted via social media and other communications, or published in our journal). This linguistic imperialism is exacerbated by the ‘thesaurusisation’ of so much scholarship: the unnecessary use of complex words and jargon to either demonstrate our mastery of language, to mask the inadequacies of our research and/or to attempt to legitimate our research to colleagues both within, and often more importantly, outside the field. According to a 2010 UNESCO report, 80 per cent of academic journals in the social sciences are published in English, and two-thirds of the most influential publications in sociology are written by authors in only four countries – the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. By way of contrast, Oceania, Latin America and Africa are each responsible for fewer than 5% of the global production of articles (Martin, 2012). The ISSA has made considerable efforts to encourage the participation of non-native English speakers on its boards (the executive and extended boards have 18 members, usually from 18 different countries), at its conferences (held annually in different regions of the world and often offering parallel sessions in the native language of the host country), and in the journal. However, further recognition is needed that there are not only language barriers but also cultural differences in the style of composing an academic paper, which continue to undermine the contribution of non-English speaking scholars to the global sociological understanding of sport.

On the second issue, of engagement with scholars from disciplines other than the sociology of sport, pressures to score highly in audit cultures, meet the criteria of employment committees, and secure external funding, has led to what may be described as an ‘intellectual arms race’. Some, over eager to apply the newest sociological/cultural studies theory or method to sport, colonise a new cultural/regional context, or apply for new sources of funding (regardless of their source or politics), may be unwittingly exacerbating the field’s marginalisation and putting its future at risk. In the early years of the development of the sociology of sport, scholars engaging with the field came from a wide range of disciplinary backgrounds, including physical educators, social psychologists, historians and philosophers. In order to effectively challenge the marginalisation of the field and to transact more integrally with the worlds of sport and sociology, sociologists of sport will need to facilitate meaningful dialogue and collaborations with scholars working in other social sciences, sport sciences and mainstream sociology. We hope that this collection of papers, reviewing the past and present, and considering the more immediate future of the field, might advance that dialogue and help to ensure the future sustainability and progress of the sociology of sport.