Making sense of the lack of evidence discourse, power and knowledge in the field of sport for development

Author:

Adams Andrew,Harris Kevin

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyse the power dynamics and vested interest groups that shape the lack of evidence discourse, which is critical of the way evidence is produced within and for the sport for development (SFD) field. This examination recognises that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical. Design/methodology/approach – Using a Foucauldian conceptual framework, power, knowledge and discourse relating to political actors in SFD – funders, policy makers, academics and sport development practitioners (SDPs) – are assessed. This paper addresses two key questions: How is the lack of evidence discourse constructed, and what is its impact? And whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence? Findings – This paper concludes that although in a Foucauldian sense power surrounding evidence is everywhere, the neo liberal context, which situates SFD, favours the privileging of evidence discourses associated with and derived from funding organisations, political and academic interest groups to the detriment of evidence discourses associated with SDPs. Clearly then there is a major tension concerning knowledge transfer, power and process, and the way that evidence can be used to inform practice. Originality/value – The paper attempts to highlight the power dynamics influencing the way evidence is produced within SFD and that much is needed to move the field forward in a more united approach for what counts as evidence for all political actors.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Political Science and International Relations,Public Administration,Geography, Planning and Development

Reference54 articles.

1. Bell, B. (2010), “Building a legacy for youth and coaching”, in Collins, M. (Ed.), Examing Sport development, Routledge, London.

2. Budd, L. (2007), “Post-bureaucracy and reanimating public governance: a discourse and practice of continuity?”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 531-547.

3. Chen, H.T. (1990), Theory Driven Evaluations, Sage, London.

4. Christensen, T. and Laegried, P. (2001), “A transformative perspective on administrative reforms”, in Christensen, T. and Laegried, P. (Eds), New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice, Ashgate, Aldershot.

5. Coalter, F. (2007), A Wider Social Role for Sport, Routledge, London.

Cited by 26 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3