Some Methodological Problems in Sport Sociology Literature

Abstract

No methodological critique should be seen as an attack on an existing study. Rather such critiques should be seen as a call to a community of scholars to re- examine or reassess work that may have seemed "finished." In view of the rela tively low esteem accorded to sport sociology (at least in the United States) it may be proper to emphasize that the problems discussed above are by no means limited to the area of sport sociology. Indeed, they are to be found in the most respectable literature of fields more in the "mainstream" of sociology (see Deutscher, 1973; Hirschi and Selvin, 1967). Hopefully, a continuing concern for better methodology among sport sociologists will help us to draw on the methodological wisdom of "general sociology" and other related fields without repeating the errors that have been made by scholars in those fields. A number of recent papers and exchanges in this journal and elsewhere have marked an apparent growth of interest in methodological issues among sport socio logists (e.g., Loy and Seagrave, 1974; Albonico and Pfister-Binz, 1971; McPherson, 1975: Wohl, 1975). This trend, especially the emergence of exchanges and discus sions regarding the relative merit of different methodological approaches (cf. Wohl, 1975 and McPherson, 1975; Lenk and Lüschen, 1975), may be seen as a sign of maturation of sport sociology as a field of inquiry. Given the nature of sport sociology such exchanges also provide an opportunity for cross-national and cross- disciplinary communication that is, perhaps, unparallelled in any other social science field. The purpose of this paper is to review some of the more significant works in the field in terms of certain methodological problems they present. It should be noted at this time that this review could not be comprehensive given the extensive literature that exists. The material selected is characterized by two general criteria: 1) it is important in terms of its substantive or theoretical content; 2) it represents an interesting methodological problem. Hopefully this paper will contribute to the apparent growth in consciousness of methodological issues among sport sociolo gists — and, perhaps further exchanges as well.