Boxing, myths and reality building in sport for development programmes

IF 2.5 3区 教育学 Q2 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Christopher R. Matthews, Ashleigh Hurrell, Thomas B Oliver, A. Channon
{"title":"Boxing, myths and reality building in sport for development programmes","authors":"Christopher R. Matthews, Ashleigh Hurrell, Thomas B Oliver, A. Channon","doi":"10.1177/10126902221112878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The training regimes which are associated with boxing are thought to impart lessons in discipline that are particularly valuable for social groups often associated with the sport. This leads to a variety of sport for development programmes that seek to leverage this potential in one way or another. Research which is conducted on such programmes is often produced internally without academic support. We argue it is possible, and perhaps likely, for such research to evidence, justify and recreate sporting myths. To this end, we explore the allure and apparent utility of boxing as a sport for social development. We then consider how people involved in such programmes attempted to evidence their passionate beliefs in boxing's positive potentials. Rather than considering myths as being completely unfettered from objective reality, we have explored how they are part of an interactional process that can produce stubbornly persistent accounts of the world. We present this analysis as evidence of the ways that myths can become embedded in people’s lives and, as such, must be conceptualised accurately, accounted for empirically and explored using considered research strategies. Our observations paint an awkward picture of the validity of the evidence-base upon which boxing programmes boasted of their success. That is, embracing personal biases and avoiding rigorous, critical research methods were being financially incentivised, with no external accountability for challenging pre-conceived ideas and a priori conclusions. Our concluding remarks situate these claims within ongoing ontological, epistemological and axiological debates which sport development scholars have developed.","PeriodicalId":47968,"journal":{"name":"International Review for the Sociology of Sport","volume":"58 1","pages":"531 - 549"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review for the Sociology of Sport","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902221112878","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The training regimes which are associated with boxing are thought to impart lessons in discipline that are particularly valuable for social groups often associated with the sport. This leads to a variety of sport for development programmes that seek to leverage this potential in one way or another. Research which is conducted on such programmes is often produced internally without academic support. We argue it is possible, and perhaps likely, for such research to evidence, justify and recreate sporting myths. To this end, we explore the allure and apparent utility of boxing as a sport for social development. We then consider how people involved in such programmes attempted to evidence their passionate beliefs in boxing's positive potentials. Rather than considering myths as being completely unfettered from objective reality, we have explored how they are part of an interactional process that can produce stubbornly persistent accounts of the world. We present this analysis as evidence of the ways that myths can become embedded in people’s lives and, as such, must be conceptualised accurately, accounted for empirically and explored using considered research strategies. Our observations paint an awkward picture of the validity of the evidence-base upon which boxing programmes boasted of their success. That is, embracing personal biases and avoiding rigorous, critical research methods were being financially incentivised, with no external accountability for challenging pre-conceived ideas and a priori conclusions. Our concluding remarks situate these claims within ongoing ontological, epistemological and axiological debates which sport development scholars have developed.
拳击:体育促进发展项目中的神话与现实
与拳击有关的训练制度被认为传授纪律课程,这对经常与这项运动有关的社会群体特别有价值。这导致了各种各样的体育促进发展计划,试图以这样或那样的方式利用这一潜力。对这些方案进行的研究往往是在没有学术支持的情况下进行的。我们认为,这样的研究有可能,或许有可能证明、证明和重现体育神话。为此,我们探讨了拳击作为一项促进社会发展的运动的吸引力和明显的效用。然后,我们考虑参与此类节目的人们如何试图证明他们对拳击积极潜力的热情信念。我们不认为神话完全不受客观现实的束缚,而是探索了它们是如何成为一个相互作用过程的一部分,这个过程可以产生对世界的顽固持久的描述。我们提出这一分析,作为神话可以嵌入人们生活的方式的证据,因此,必须准确地概念化,以经验为依据,并使用考虑过的研究策略进行探索。我们的观察描绘了一幅令人尴尬的画面,即拳击项目吹嘘其成功的证据基础的有效性。也就是说,接受个人偏见,避免严格、批判性的研究方法是受到经济激励的,而对挑战先入为主的想法和先验结论没有外部责任。我们的结束语将这些主张置于体育发展学者正在进行的本体论、认识论和价值论辩论中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
13.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The International Review for the Sociology of Sport is a peer reviewed academic journal that is indexed on ISI. Eight issues are now published each year. The main purpose of the IRSS is to disseminate research and scholarship on sport throughout the international academic community. The journal publishes research articles of varying lengths, from standard length research papers to shorter reports and commentary, as well as book and media reviews. The International Review for the Sociology of Sport is not restricted to any theoretical or methodological perspective and brings together contributions from anthropology, cultural studies, geography, gender studies, media studies, history, political economy, semiotics, sociology, as well as interdisciplinary research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信