Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise

Brett Smith, Andrew C. Sparkes, Brett Smith, Andrew C. Sparkes

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781138792487
• eBook ISBN: 9781317646907
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

The last two decades have witnessed a proliferation of qualitative research in sport and exercise. The Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise is the first book to offer an in-depth survey of established and emerging qualitative methods, from conceptual first principles to practice and process.

Written and edited by a team of world-leading researchers, and some of the best emerging talents, the book introduces a range of research traditions within which qualitative researchers work. It explores the different methods used to collect and analyse data, offering rationales for why each method might be chosen and guidance on how to employ each technique successfully. It also introduces important contemporary debates and goes further than any other book in exploring new methods, concepts, and future directions, such as sensory research, digital research, visual methods, and how qualitative research can generate impact.

Cutting-edge, timely and comprehensive, the Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise is an essential reference for any student or scholar using qualitative methods in sport and exercise-related research.

1

INTRODUCTION

An invitation to qualitative research

Brett Smith and Andrew C. Sparkes

Qualitative research is a craft skill that to master takes time, practice and intellectual engagement (Demuth, 2015). It is, as Denzin and Lincoln (2011) point out, a field of inquiry in its own right that cross-cuts disciplines, fields and subject matter. They note that a complex, interconnected family of concepts and assumptions surround the term, and that qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological practice over another. In her review of twenty-five years of rapid development in qualitative research, Lincoln describes the following situation.

We are interpretivists, postmodernists, poststructuralists; we are phenomenological, feminist, critical. We choose lenses that are border, racial, ethnic, hybrid, queer, differently abled, Indigenous, margin, center, Other. Fortunately, qualitative research – with or without the signifiers – has been porous, permeable, and highly assimilative . . . Its adherents, and theorists have come from multiple disciplines . . . Consequently, we have acquired richness and elaboration that has both added to our confusion and at the same time, been broad and pliant enough to encompass a variety of claimants.

(Lincoln, 2010, p. 8)

Given the open-ended nature of the qualitative research project and its multiplicity, it becomes almost impossible to provide, or impose, a single all-encompassing definition of the field. It means different things to different people at different historical periods of moments. That said, Denzin and Lincoln offer an initial generic definition.

Qualitative research is a situated activity which locates the observer in the world. Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3)

To interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them, qualitative researchers draw on a variety of empirical materials that include case study, personal experience, life-story and life-history interviews, participant observation, artifacts, cultural texts and productions, along with observational, historical, interactional and visual texts. Accordingly, as Denzin and Lincoln point out, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, “hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject at hand. It is understood, however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way” (2011, p. 5).

Qualitative research is a movable and constantly expanding scholarly community of practice and intellectual engagement. For example, in comparing the fourth edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research published in 2011 to the third edition published in 2005, Denzin and Lincoln (2011) state that the latest edition is virtually a new volume with nearly two-thirds of the authors from the third edition being replaced by new contributors. They point out that there are 53 new chapters, authors and/co-authors, with 18 totally new chapter topics. These include contributions on critical social science, Asian epistemologies, disability communities, criteria for assessing interpretive validity, models of representation, varieties of validity, qualitative research and technology, queer theory, performance ethnography, narrative inquiry, arts-based inquiry, the politics and ethics of on-line ethnography, teaching qualitative research, and controversies in mixed-methods research.

In terms of expansion, it is interesting to note that in the 1994 edition of the Handbook of Qualitative Research a key chapter by Guba and Lincoln analyzed four paradigms that they considered to be competing for acceptance as the one of choice for informing and guiding qualitative inquiry. These paradigms were those of positivism, postpositivism, critical theory and related ideological positions, and constructionism. Moving on to the 2011 edition of the Handbook, the chapter by Lincoln, Lynham and Guba that deals with paradigms and perspectives in contention, includes the four paradigms named previously but adds the participatory paradigm. Likewise, in their introductory chapter to the first edition of the Handbook, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) name the following paradigms: positivist/postpositivist, constructionism, feminist, ethnic, Marxist, and cultural studies (see also Chapter 10). All but positivist paradigms can be seen to fall under the umbrella of interpretivism. In the fourth edition Denzin and Lincoln’s introductory chapter adds queer theory to this list of interpretive paradigms. Therefore, the number of paradigms that inform qualitative research is not fixed but is flexible and changes over time. Interpretivism has therefore grown into a variety of different paradigms.

Even though the terrain of qualitative research is constantly shifting and characterized by multiplicity, this does not mean that a state of confusion prevails. Certainly, differences exist between the paradigms mentioned above as basic belief systems and worldviews that define for their holder the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts. However, a sense of purchase can be gained by examining the ways in which proponents of any given paradigm respond to the three fundamental questions posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994), which are interconnected in such a way that the answer given to any one question, taken in order, constrains how the others may be answered.

The three fundamental questions posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) are as follows (see also Chapters 10, 18, 21, 25, and 29). First, the ontological question: What is the form and nature of reality, and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? Second, is the epistemological question: What is the nature of the relationship between the knower and would-be knower and what can be known? How this question is answered is constrained by the answer given to the ontological question; that is, not just any relationship can now be postulated. Third, there is the methodological question: How can the inquirer (would-be knower) go about finding out whatever they believe can be known? Once again, the answer given to this question is constrained by the answers given to the two previous questions; that is, not just any methodology is appropriate.

At a fundamental level, as the work of Demuth (2015), Guba and Lincoln (1994), Krane and Baird (2005), Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011), Sparkes (2015), and Sparkes and Smith (2014) illustrate, researchers of different paradigmatic persuasions respond to these questions in different ways (see also Chapters 10, 25, and 29). Thus, in response to the ontology question adherents of positivism call upon naive realism, whereas those that subscribe to postpositivism connect with critical or neo realism. Rather than adhering to a form of realism, many qualitative researchers subscribe to a form of interpretivism, and therefore respond in a different way from positivists to the ontological question. For example, in response to the ontological question about the nature of reality, critical theory and other openly ideological approaches call on historical realism, constructionism on relativism, and participatory research on participative realities. In relation to the epistemological question, positivism adopts a dualist/objectivist position, and postpositivism a modified dualist/objectivist position. In terms of interpretive paradigms, critical theory adopts a transactional/subjectivist position with value mediated findings, constructionists a transactional/subjectivist position but with cocreated findings, while participatory research holds to a critical subjectivity with practical forms of knowing and cocreated findings. The responses to these two questions shape the responses to the methodological question, which for positivism is experimental/manipulative, for postpositivism is modified experimental/manipulative, for critical theory is dialogical/dialectical, for constructionism is hermeneutic/dialectical, and for participatory it is political participation in terms of collaborative or community action inquiry.

How these three questions are answered, as Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011) illustrate, has further implications for how each paradigm positions itself on selected practical issues, such as the aims and purpose of inquiry, researcher posture, the role of values in the inquiry, the criteria used to judge the quality of the inquiry, and the nature of “voice” within the inquiry. For example, with regard to inquirer posture, for positivists it is that of the disinterested scientist who should remain distant and detached. In contrast, the constructionist researcher is seen as a coconstructor of knowledge, of understanding and interpretation of the meaning of lived experiences. Different again, is the posture adopted by the critical researcher, which involves being an activist and transformative intellectual.

As Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011), and Sparkes and Smith (2014) argue, the differences that exist between paradigms lead researchers working within them to generate different questions, develop different research designs, use different techniques to collect various kinds of data, perform different types of analyses, represent their findings in different ways, and judge the “quality” of their studies using different criteria. For some, these differences are problematic. For us, however, such differences are to be celebrated and valued because they allow us to know and understand the social world, including that of sport and exercise, in diverse and enriched ways.

The proliferation of paradigms, perspectives, traditions, theories, methodologies and methods signaled above, has been mirrored in the rapid growth of, and importance attached to, qualitative research in the domain of sport and exercise. For example, in their review of qualitative research published in three sports psychology journals during 2000–2009, Culver, Gilbert and Sparkes (2012) point to a 68% increase in the percentage of qualitative studies published since the period 1990–1999 (from 17.3% to 29%). They also found that there was a significant increase in the number of authors publishing qualitative research in these journals. Accordingly, not only is more qualitative research being published in sport psychology journals but also, very importantly, more scholars are engaging with and producing qualitative work of different kinds. While similar numerical comparisons are not available in relation to sociological journals, such as the Sociology of Sport Journal, the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Sport, Education and Society, and Journal of Sport and Social Issues, it is self-evident from what is published within them that such journals are favorably inclined towards and supportive of qualitative research of various forms.

A significant marker in the development and legitimation of qualitative research in sport and exercise was the launch, in 2009, of a new journal by Routledge, entitled Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health (twitter @QualiSEH). This journal is dedicated to supporting work produced in different paradigms and encourages innovative methodologies within a multidisciplinary framework. The success of this journal is evidenced by the diverse range of articles that have appeared in it to date, and the international nature of the authors who submit their work there for consideration. For example, yearly this journal receives over 200 manuscripts from over 100 different authors around the globe. In 2012 the journal was also awarded “Gold” by peers for the best special issue published by all Routledge journals (over 50) that year on the Olympics and Paralympics. There is also an ever-growing number of conferences and workshops attempting to address the demand for qualitative research from students, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. For instance, the International Qualitative Conference in Sport and Exercise now occurs every two years, attracting established scholars and newcomers from around the world.

Finally, the rapid growth of interest in qualitative research in sport and exercise is evident in the increasing number of books devoted specifically to this topic. Most recently, these include the following: Qualitative Research in Physical Activity and the Health Professions (Pitney & Parker, 2009), Research Methods for Sport Studies (2nd edition) (Gratton & Jones, 2010), Qualitative Research for Physical Culture (Markula & Silk, 2011), Qualitative Research in Sport and Physical Activity (Jones, Brown, & Holloway, 2012), Qualitative Research on Sport and Physical Culture (Young & Atkinson, 2012), and Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health: From Process to Product (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). These books are excellent resources for seasoned qualitative researchers, as well as for newcomers to the field. This said, as we know from our own experience of producing one of the books named above, we had to cover a lot of ground within the word limits imposed on us by the publishers. Consequently, we necessarily touched on many issues but were unable to deal with any of those in an appropriate depth. There was also far too much we had to omit about qualitative research. As such, we did the best job we could, but feel and know we could have done better. We are sure the authors of the other books named earlier will validate our experiences.

The Routledge International Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, the first of its kind, allows the shortcomings of an...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Routledge Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• About the Editors
• List of Illustrations
• Notes on Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: An Invitation to Qualitative Research
• PART I: Traditions of Qualitative Research
• PART II Collecting Qualitative Data
• PART III Analysing qualitative data
• PART IV Representation, Evaluation and Ethics
• PART V Opening Up Qualitative Research Practices in Sport and Exercise
• PART VI Future Visions
• Index