人才发展整体生态方法十年定性元研究

N. Feddersen, R. Morris, N. Ronkainen, S. A. Sæther, Martin A. Littlewood, David J. Richardson
{"title":"人才发展整体生态方法十年定性元研究","authors":"N. Feddersen, R. Morris, N. Ronkainen, S. A. Sæther, Martin A. Littlewood, David J. Richardson","doi":"10.7146/sjsep.v3i.128317","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Holistic-Ecological Approach (HEA) was introduced in 2010, and it is now important to provide a critical review after a decade of research elaborating on the framework. The purpose of this study was to critically assess the methodological and theoretical trends in research using the HEA in the study of athletic talent development environments (ATDE). We used a qualitative meta-study to review twelve studies published from 2010 to the first quarter of 2021. Our meta-theory analysis found that future studies should consider the use of Bronfenbrenner’s work on development and address previous critiques on its use since it can limit the potential of the HEA re-search. In the meta-methods, we found that all studies used multiple and varied data collection strategies (e.g., interviews, observations, organisational documents). We also found a high degree of transparency and rigour exemplified by using multiple validity strategies. Method weaknesses were an underrepresentation of neutral or negative cases. The meta-data analysis showed that most ATDEs were classified as successful or unsuccessful ahead of data collection, suggesting potential confirmation bias. We also found that all ATDEs had competing findings, which suggests a need for exploring negative or ambiguous findings. Future research could benefit from clarifying the use of underlying theoretical assumptions; contrasting findings with neutral cases, outliers, and negative cases to clarify the definition of successful ATDEs; and expanding on the methodological approach.","PeriodicalId":169757,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology","volume":"63 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Meta-Study of a Decade of the Holistic Ecological Approach to Talent Development\",\"authors\":\"N. Feddersen, R. Morris, N. Ronkainen, S. A. Sæther, Martin A. Littlewood, David J. Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/sjsep.v3i.128317\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Holistic-Ecological Approach (HEA) was introduced in 2010, and it is now important to provide a critical review after a decade of research elaborating on the framework. The purpose of this study was to critically assess the methodological and theoretical trends in research using the HEA in the study of athletic talent development environments (ATDE). We used a qualitative meta-study to review twelve studies published from 2010 to the first quarter of 2021. Our meta-theory analysis found that future studies should consider the use of Bronfenbrenner’s work on development and address previous critiques on its use since it can limit the potential of the HEA re-search. In the meta-methods, we found that all studies used multiple and varied data collection strategies (e.g., interviews, observations, organisational documents). We also found a high degree of transparency and rigour exemplified by using multiple validity strategies. Method weaknesses were an underrepresentation of neutral or negative cases. The meta-data analysis showed that most ATDEs were classified as successful or unsuccessful ahead of data collection, suggesting potential confirmation bias. We also found that all ATDEs had competing findings, which suggests a need for exploring negative or ambiguous findings. Future research could benefit from clarifying the use of underlying theoretical assumptions; contrasting findings with neutral cases, outliers, and negative cases to clarify the definition of successful ATDEs; and expanding on the methodological approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":169757,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/sjsep.v3i.128317\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/sjsep.v3i.128317","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

整体生态方法(HEA)于2010年引入,在对该框架进行了十年的研究之后,现在重要的是提供一个批判性的审查。本研究的目的是批判性地评估在运动人才发展环境(ATDE)研究中使用HEA的研究方法和理论趋势。我们使用了一项定性元研究来回顾从2010年到2021年第一季度发表的12项研究。我们的元理论分析发现,未来的研究应该考虑使用Bronfenbrenner在发展方面的工作,并解决先前对其使用的批评,因为它可能限制HEA研究的潜力。在元方法中,我们发现所有研究都使用了多种不同的数据收集策略(例如,访谈、观察、组织文件)。我们还通过使用多种有效性策略发现了高度的透明度和严谨性。方法的缺点是中性或阴性病例的代表性不足。元数据分析显示,大多数atde在数据收集之前被分类为成功或不成功,这表明可能存在确认偏差。我们还发现所有的atde都有相互矛盾的发现,这表明有必要探索负面或模棱两可的发现。未来的研究可以从澄清潜在理论假设的使用中受益;将结果与中性病例、异常值和阴性病例进行对比,以明确成功atde的定义;在方法论上进行扩展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Qualitative Meta-Study of a Decade of the Holistic Ecological Approach to Talent Development
The Holistic-Ecological Approach (HEA) was introduced in 2010, and it is now important to provide a critical review after a decade of research elaborating on the framework. The purpose of this study was to critically assess the methodological and theoretical trends in research using the HEA in the study of athletic talent development environments (ATDE). We used a qualitative meta-study to review twelve studies published from 2010 to the first quarter of 2021. Our meta-theory analysis found that future studies should consider the use of Bronfenbrenner’s work on development and address previous critiques on its use since it can limit the potential of the HEA re-search. In the meta-methods, we found that all studies used multiple and varied data collection strategies (e.g., interviews, observations, organisational documents). We also found a high degree of transparency and rigour exemplified by using multiple validity strategies. Method weaknesses were an underrepresentation of neutral or negative cases. The meta-data analysis showed that most ATDEs were classified as successful or unsuccessful ahead of data collection, suggesting potential confirmation bias. We also found that all ATDEs had competing findings, which suggests a need for exploring negative or ambiguous findings. Future research could benefit from clarifying the use of underlying theoretical assumptions; contrasting findings with neutral cases, outliers, and negative cases to clarify the definition of successful ATDEs; and expanding on the methodological approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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