Sport and social capital in British higher education

Prof. Grant Jarvie

University of Stirling, Scotland

Much energy and angst has been spent over the years arguing about whether sports science is a social construct, or whether sociology has contributed to the understanding of sports science, or whether sports scientists should know what is going on in the sociology of science. No doubt such debates will continue into the 21st century, and yet the context in which sosol is launched is one which few sports scientists could have envisaged a decade or so ago. The concepts we use to describe the world urgently need to be reformulated and this will clearly be the central task both within the sociology of sport and sports science for years to come. Towards the millennium we are facing new situations in which many, but not all, of the old polarities of thought can no longer apply, or at least require scrutiny. In the 1970s few would have envisaged radical means of communication such as that pioneered in electronic journals such as sociology of sport online. One can see new epistemologies emerging where instead of science as a monolithic smart system, in which the trick is to learn it and do it, we get the very different epistemological model of many partially smart systems, with their limitations. It is the users of this knowledge who have to be smart since they have to transcend and interweave between many inter-dependent systems of knowledge.

What then of today's intellectual environment into which sociology, sports studies and sports science are to be placed? Historical, intellectual milieu, institutional specificity and every research-active grouping looking for a unique intervention are all part and parcel of research-driven academic life in the late 20th century. Debates and controversies about the breakdown of an orthodox consensus have raised some fundamental questions about the respective knowledge interests of certain fields, groups and institutions that practise both sports science and sports studies. The existing boundaries between psychology, physiology, sociology, economics and politics have perhaps come to mean less for the current readers of sosol. Numerous neo-disciplinary subjects such as sports science, sports studies, organisational studies, and many others have all emerged in the same way as sociology and psychology emerged in their own time. Integrative impulses from new bodies of knowledge are not a new phenomenon. Perhaps the challenge for the students of sports science and sports studies in the closing years of the 20th century is to look for new analytical ways which speak to, and take cognisance of, the radically changed realities that we now face. In many ways, this paper might concern all subject areas because the issues that are briefly raised are not just pertinent to sociology and sports science but all bodies of knowledge that operate within the framework of what is currently higher education in Britain.

The first issue that needs to be raised is the issue of what is called here 'sport and social capital'. Sport and social capital, like social capital in general, relates to relations among and between communities, research groups and people. It might be that mutual collaboration and trust between sport studies and sports science would produce a greater benefit for sport and sport in higher education per se. One such venture might be a joint taught Doctoral programme in Sport, such as the Scottish Doctoral programme in Economics or Psychology. This is no new arena for those in the sociology of sport, but it has implications for all students and researchers of sports studies and sports science. There are two reasons why the notion of social capital is important. On the one hand sport depends on it. Sportspeople, including those lecturers and staff in higher education, may learn more if they draw on the cultural resources and knowledge of people around them. Sports departments will work better if staff and students trust that the social arrangements exist to ensure that learning and staff development take place. On the other hand, democracy depends upon social capital too, in that democracy in sport, higher education and society depends upon trusting that people will operate the system constructively. Sport science, sports studies and sport can contribute to the facilitation of education, trust and citizenship.

The second issue that needs to be raised relates to sports courses and a broad knowledge base, and the notion of social capital is important here too. If the Dearing (1997) and Garrick (1997) reports are to be implemented then students are to be given a broader education than that which sports studies/science currently offer. The crucial link being that the notion of social capital promotes a set of common principles that allow different bodies of knowledge and people to talk to each other. We need to have an intellectual justification for breadth in sports courses which stops courses degenerating into an incoherent assemblage of modules on the basis of cost benefits and efficiency gains. The main contribution to social capital that could be made by course designers is to enable students and staff, at different levels, to find a way of understanding each other.

The third issue relates to research and scholarship. If social capital and trust depends upon intellectually exciting networks permeating sport and society, then good-quality research is crucial. Even if this simply raises the level of the critical debate about sports studies/ sports science, or indeed sport, then this would be a valuable intervention. The results of social science research enter the public domain as soon as they are published, but the dissemination of a greater volume or research from critical supporters of sport and sports research is also vital. It is healthy to raise the number of networked sports researchers, particularly in policy areas, because this in itself would add to social capital through creating the basis of a more open, critical but supportive mass of academics and students . This would be an important part of sports social capital. The same is true of part- time post-graduate students who combine work with study. Research suggests that people who take such degrees are more likely to be active in a variety of civic organisations, including sport and education (Paterson, 1993).

Finally, there is an issue of accountability - a term that has gained a negative association over the past decade due to an endless stream of performance indicators. Nevertheless, it can be argued that in the interests of civil society and social capital, sport and education should be more open and accountable on the grounds that social capital, through sport and higher education, is also about developing mutual trust and understanding. In much the same way, exercise physiologists and those interested in the sociology of sport should develop a more healthy respect for the promises and possibilities of closer co-operation and support for sport. Internal democracy between and within subject boundaries and groups is as much a principle of social capital as is independence from the state. Creating the atmosphere through which groups of researchers and practitioners are confident enough to take risks would be a healthy performance indicator of any sports department or higher education institution or indeed society. All subjects, including sports science, should have a technical, emancipatory and practical interest (Wilmott, 1997). Those unsympathetic to such an exercise are not working in the interests of sport, society or education.

There will always be those who argue that sports science is a social construct because it depends upon plausibility within a community, and there will always be those who argue that sports science is not a social construct because it is independent of society (Irwin, 1994; Dawkins, 1994; Gruneau, 1981). Both are surely interested in destroying myths and establishing a closer relationship between evidence and conceptual knowledge - in whatever form it might take. This has been said many times and is indeed still an important facet of research and work, but it is crucial to hold on to the bigger picture and not be afraid of partisanship in sport between traditional subject boundaries. If a journal such as sosol contributes to such a goal then it will have contributed to not just sport but social capital.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my former colleague Lindsay Paterson for bearing with me while I thought these thoughts aloud with him on a number of occasions.

References

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-119.

Dawkins, R.(1994, 30 September). The moon is a calabash. Times Higher Educational Supplement

Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the Learing Society. HMSO : Norwich.

Garrick, R. (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society : Report of the Scottish Committee. HMSO : Norwich.

Gruneau, R. (1981). Research methods in the sociology of sport : Strategies and problems. Qualitative Sociology, 4(3), 179-194.

Irwin, A. (1994, September 30). A science's social standing. Times Higher Educational Supplement

Paterson, L. (1993). Democracy and curriculum in Scotland. Edinburgh Review, 90, 21- 28.

Wilmott, H. (1997). Management and organisation studies as science? Organisation, 4(3), 309-405.

Copyright sociology of sport online, 1998