Deconstructing comparative sport policy analysis: assumptions, challenges, and new directions

ABSTRACT

Despite progress within comparative sport policy analysis over the past two decades and advancements within the broader comparative sociology literature, comparative analysis within sport policy/management remains limited and challenging. Furthermore, there is a dearth of literature that explicitly addresses the philosophical, methodological, and practical challenges of comparing sporting nations. We address this shortcoming by developing a framework to interrogate the philosophical assumptions and methodological approaches of comparing sporting nations. In doing so, we review the current state of comparative sport policy research and elaborate on the challenges and limitations of conducting comparative sport policy analysis. Thus, we seek to deconstruct the theory and method of comparative sport policy research by exploring its underlying assumptions and challenges. Ultimately, our broader intention is to reengage and reinvigorate scholarly debate surrounding the philosophical and methodological approaches of comparing sporting nations.

KEYWORDS:

• Comparative
• methodology
• sport policy
• high-performance sport
• nations

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Øyen’s (1990) typology distinguishes four types of comparative researchers: Purists who believe that comparative analysis is no different to any other kind of sociological research; Ignorants who actively pursue comparative analysis without any consideration of the added complexities of the comparative methodology; Totalists are consciously aware of the many stumbling blocks in comparative research but deliberately choose to ignore them for pragmatic reasons; and comparativist acknowledge the above points of view but argue that the advancement of comparative research can only occur through further questioning of the distinctive characteristics of comparative analysis.

2. Comparative methodologists have also put forward alternative approaches to either MSSD or MDSD. Ragin (2006), for example, argued for a reconciliation of these two approaches which he labelled ‘configurational comparative research’.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mathew Dowling

Mathew Dowling is a Senior Lecturer within the Cambridge Centre for Sport and Exercise Sciences at Anglia Ruskin University. His principal research interests include sport policy and governance, organisational theory, professionalisation, and government involvement within the not-for-profit sport sector.

Phil Brown

Phil Brown is a Senior Lecturer and programme area leader in sport development at Plymouth Marjon University. His current teaching and research interests include sport policy, community sport development, local government, and student experiences of higher education.

David Legg

David Legg is a Chair and Professor in the Department of Health and Physical Education at Mount Royal University in Calgary. David is Past President of the Canadian Paralympic Committee and the incoming President of the International Federation of Adapted Physical Activity.

Jonathan Grix

Jonathan Grix is a Professor of sports policy within the Business and Law Faculty, Manchester Metropolitan University. He has published widely in the area of sport politics and policy. His latest research monographs include Sport under Communism. Behind the East German “Miracle” (co-authored with Mike Dennis) (Palgrave, 2012) and Sport Politics: An Introduction (Palgrave, 2016). Jonathan is the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics.