Contingent Intellectual Amateurism, or, the Problem With Evidence-Based Research

Author:

Silk Michael L.1,Bush Anthony2,Andrews David L.3

Affiliation:

1. University of Bath, Bath, UK,

2. University of Bath, Bath, UK

3. University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Abstract

Given the amalgam of neo-liberal, neo-scientist and neo-conservative forces that frame higher education_safeguarding science and medicine at the expense of arts, humanities and the social sciences_the very existence and continuance of the sociology of sport is imperiled perhaps more than ever. In this moment, and not surprisingly, the epistemological corroborator of these forces is once again championed; there has been an aggressive push towards _science_ defined by evidence based programmes, policies and practices (EBR) as the sole and legitimate avenue for academic survival. Heralded as the _gold_ standard of academic research, and forged through university-industry-government partnerships, the evidence based research mantra emphasizes a shift towards corporate principles of efficiency, accountability and profit maximization. As such, within this paper, we discuss the creeping EBR-based epistemological orthodoxy that is seeping into the critical sociological study of sport, arguing that it threatens to neuter the political and critical potentialities of our field. We propose that pandering to EBR, compromises everything that critical sporting intellectuals strive for and believe in; it is a powerful virus of sorts that speaks against our ontological, axiological, epistemological, methodological and political approaches and offers nothing but collusion with, and explicit support for, existing regimes of power.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Sociology and Political Science

Reference94 articles.

1. The Philosophy and Politics of Quality in Qualitative Organizational Research

2. Playing with Fire: Masculinity, Health, and Sports Supplements

3. Atkinson, P. & Delamont, S. ( 2005). Analytic perspectives. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 821-840). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Cited by 42 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