Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise

Abstract

Qualitative research is a craft skill that to master takes time, practice and intellectual engagement (Demuth, 2015). It is, as Denzin and Lincoln (2011) point out, a field of inquiry in its own right that cross-cuts disciplines, fields and subject matter. They note that a complex, interconnected family of concepts and assumptions surround the term, and that qualitative research, as a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological practice over another. In her review of twenty-five years of rapid development in qualitative research, Lincoln describes the following situation. We are interpretivists, postmodernists, poststructuralists; we are phenomeno-logical, feminist, critical. We choose lenses that are border, racial, ethnic, hybrid, queer, differently abled, Indigenous, margin, center, Other. Fortunately, qualitative research – with or without the signifiers – has been porous, permeable, and highly assimilative. .. Its adherents, and theorists have come from multiple disciplines. .. Consequently, we have acquired richness and elaboration that has both added to our confusion and at the same time, been broad and pliant enough to encompass a variety of claimants. (Lincoln, 2010, p. 8). Given the open-ended nature of the qualitative research project and its multiplicity, it becomes almost impossible to provide, or impose, a single all-encompassing definition of the field. It means different things to different people at different historical periods of moments. That said, Denzin and Lincoln offer an initial generic definition. Qualitative research is a situated activity which locates the observer in the world. Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves and interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them.

Full text

1
1
INTRODUCTION
An invitation to qualitative research
Brett Smith and Andrew C. Sparkes
Qualitative research is a craft skill that to master takes time, practice and intellectual engagement
(Demuth, 2015). It is, as Denzin and Lincoln (2011) point out, a eld of inquiry in its own
right that cross-cuts disciplines, elds and subject matter. They note that a complex, intercon-
nected family of concepts and assumptions surround the term, and that qualitative research, as
a set of interpretive activities, privileges no single methodological practice over another. In her
review of twenty-ve years of rapid development in qualitative research, Lincoln describes the
following situation.
We are interpretivists, postmodernists, poststructuralists; we are phenomeno-
logical, feminist, critical. We choose lenses that are border, racial, ethnic, hybrid,
queer, differently abled, Indigenous, margin, center, Other. Fortunately, qualita-
tive research – with or without the signifiers – has been porous, permeable, and
highly assimilative . . . Its adherents, and theorists have come from multiple
disciplines . . . Consequently, we have acquired richness and elaboration that has
both added to our confusion and at the same time, been broad and pliant enough to
encompass a variety of claimants.
(Lincoln, 2010, p. 8).
Given the open-ended nature of the qualitative research project and its multiplicity, it becomes
almost impossible to provide, or impose, a single all-encompassing definition of the field. It
means different things to different people at different historical periods of moments. That said,
Denzin and Lincoln offer an initial generic definition.
Qualitative research is a situated activity which locates the observer in the world.
Qualitative research consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the
world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of
representations, including fieldnotes, interviews, conversations, photographs, record-
ings and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves and interpretive,
naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things
in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret phenomena in terms
of the meanings people bring to them.
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2011, p. 3)
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Brett Smith & Andrew C. Sparkes
2
To interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them, qualitative researchers
draw on a variety of empirical materials that include case study, personal experience, life-story
and life-history interviews, participant observation, artifacts, cultural texts and productions,
along with observational, historical, interactional and visual texts. Accordingly, as Denzin and
Lincoln point out, qualitative researchers deploy a wide range of interconnected interpretive
practices, “hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject at hand. It is understood,
however, that each practice makes the world visible in a different way” (2011, p. 5).
Qualitative research is a movable and constantly expanding scholarly community of practice
and intellectual engagement. For example, in comparing the fourth edition of the Handbook
of Qualitative Research published in 2011 to the third edition published in 2005, Denzin and
Lincoln (2011) state that the latest edition is virtually a new volume with nearly two-thirds
of the authors from the third edition being replaced by new contributors. They point out
that there are 53 new chapters, authors and/co-authors, with 18 totally new chapter topics.
These include contributions on critical social science, Asian epistemologies, disability com-
munities, criteria for assessing interpretive validity, models of representation, varieties of valid-
ity, qualitative research and technology, queer theory, performance ethnography, narrative
inquiry, arts-based inquiry, the politics and ethics of on-line ethnography, teaching qualitative
research, and controversies in mixed-methods research.
In terms of expansion, it is interesting to note that in the 1994 edition of the Handbook of
Qualitative Research a key chapter by Guba and Lincoln analyzed four paradigms that they consid-
ered to be competing for acceptance as the one of choice for informing and guiding qualitative
inquiry. These paradigms were those of positivism, postpositivism, critical theory and related
ideological positions, and constructionism. Moving on to the 2011 edition of the Handbook, the
chapter by Lincoln, Lynham and Guba that deals with paradigms and perspectives in contention,
includes the four paradigms named previously but adds the participatory paradigm. Likewise, in
their introductory chapter to the first edition of the Handbook, Denzin and Lincoln (1994) name
the following paradigms: positivist/postpositivist, constructionism, feminist, ethnic, Marxist,
and cultural studies (see also Chapter 10). All but positivist paradigms can be seen to fall under
the umbrella of interpretivism. In the fourth edition Denzin and Lincoln’s introductory chapter
adds queer theory to this list of interpretive paradigms. Therefore, the number of paradigms that
inform qualitative research is not fixed but is flexible and changes over time. Interpretivism has
therefore grown into a variety of different paradigms.
Even though the terrain of qualitative research is constantly shifting and characterized
by multiplicity, this does not mean that a state of confusion prevails. Certainly, differences
exist between the paradigms mentioned above as basic belief systems and worldviews that
define for their holder the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it, and the range of
possible relationships to that world and its parts. However, a sense of purchase can be gained
by examining the ways in which proponents of any given paradigm respond to the three
fundamental questions posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994), which are interconnected in such
a way that the answer given to any one question, taken in order, constrains how the others
may be answered.
The three fundamental questions posed by Guba and Lincoln (1994) are as follows (see also
Chapters 10, 18, 21, 25, and 29). First, the ontological question: What is the form and nature of
reality, and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it? Second, is the epistemological
question: What is the nature of the relationship between the knower and would-be knower
and what can be known? How this question is answered is constrained by the answer given to
the ontological question; that is, not just any relationship can now be postulated. Third, there
is the methodological question: How can the inquirer (would-be knower) go about finding out
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Introduction
3
whatever they believe can be known? Once again, the answer given to this question is con-
strained by the answers given to the two previous questions; that is, not just any methodology
is appropriate.
At a fundamental level, as the work of Demuth (2015), Guba and Lincoln (2004), Krane
and Baird (2005), Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011), Sparkes (2015), and Sparkes and Smith
(2014) illustrate, researchers of different paradigmatic persuasions respond to these questions in
different ways (see also Chapters 10, 25, and 29). Thus, in response to the ontology question
adherents of positivism call upon naive realism, whereas those that subscribe to postpositiv-
ism connect with critical realism. Rather than adhering to a form of realism, many qualita-
tive researchers subscribe to a form of interpretivism, and therefore respond in a different
way from positivists to the ontological question. For example, in response to the ontological
question about the nature of reality, critical theory and other openly ideological approaches
call on historical realism, constructionism on relativism, and participatory research on par-
ticipative realities. In relation to the epistemological question, positivism adopts a dualist/
objectivist position, and postpositivism a modified dualist/objectivist position. In terms of
interpretive paradigms, critical theory adopts a transactional/subjectivist position with value
mediated findings, constructionists a transactional/subjectivist position but with cocreated
findings, while participatory research holds to a critical subjectivity with practical forms of
knowing and cocreated findings. The responses to these two questions shape the responses to
the methodological question, which for positivism is experimental/manipulative, for postposi-
tivism is modified experimental/manipulative, for critical theory is dialogical/dialectical, for
constructionism is hermeneutic/dialectical, and for participatory it is political participation in
terms of collaborative or community action inquiry.
How these three questions are answered, as Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011) illustrate,
has further implications for how each paradigm positions itself on selected practical issues, such
as the aims and purpose of inquiry, researcher posture, the role of values in the inquiry, the
criteria used to judge the quality of the inquiry, and the nature of “voice” within the inquiry.
For example, with regard to inquirer posture, for positivists it is that of the disinterested scientist
who should remain distant and detached. In contrast, the constructionist researcher is seen as a
coconstructor of knowledge, of understanding and interpretation of the meaning of lived expe-
riences. Different again, is the posture adopted by the critical researcher, which involves being
an activist and transformative intellectual.
As Lincoln, Lynham and Guba (2011), and Sparkes and Smith (2014) argue, the differences
that exist between paradigms lead researchers working within them to generate different ques-
tions, develop different research designs, use different techniques to collect various kinds of
data, perform different types of analyses, represent their findings in different ways, and judge
the “quality” of their studies using different criteria. For some, these differences are problem-
atic. For us, however, such differences are to be celebrated and valued because they allow us
to know and understand the social world, including that of sport and exercise, in diverse and
enriched ways.
The proliferation of paradigms, perspectives, traditions, theories, methodologies and meth-
ods signaled above, has been mirrored in the rapid growth of, and importance attached to,
qualitative research in the domain of sport and exercise. For example, in their review of
qualitative research published in three sports psychology journals during 2000–2009, Culver,
Gilbert and Sparkes (2012) point to a 68% increase in the percentage of qualitative studies
published since the period 1990–1999 (from 17.3% to 29%). They also found that there was a
significant increase in the number of authors publishing qualitative research in these journals.
Accordingly, not only is more qualitative research being published in sport psychology journals
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Brett Smith & Andrew C. Sparkes
4
but also, very importantly, more scholars are engaging with and producing qualitative work of
different kinds. While similar numerical comparisons are not available in relation to sociologi-
cal journals, such as the Sociology of Sport Journal, the International Review for the Sociology of Sport,
Sport, Education and Society, and Journal of Sport and Social Issues, it is self-evident from what
is published within them that such journals are favorably inclined towards and supportive of
qualitative research of various forms.
A significant marker in the development and legitimation of qualitative research in sport and
exercise was the launch, in 2009, of a new journal by Routledge, entitled Qualitative Research
in Sport, Exercise and Health (twitter @QualiSEH). This journal is dedicated to supporting work
produced in different paradigms and encourages innovative methodologies within a multidisci-
plinary framework. The success of this journal is evidenced by the diverse range of articles that
have appeared in it to date, and the international nature of the authors who submit their work
there for consideration. For example, yearly this journal receives over 200 manuscripts from
over 100 different authors around the globe. In 2012 the journal was also awarded “Gold” by
peers for the best special issue published by all Routledge journals (over 50) that year on the
Olympics and Paralympics. There is also an ever-growing number of conferences and work-
shops attempting to address the demand for qualitative research from students, researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers. For instance, the International Qualitative Conference in Sport
and Exercise now occurs every two years, attracting established scholars and newcomers from
around the world.
Finally, the rapid growth of interest in qualitative research in sport and exercise is evi-
dent in the increasing number of books devoted specifically to this topic. Most recently, these
include the following: Qualitative Research in Physical Activity and the Health Professions (Pitney &
Parker, 2009), Research Methods for Sport Studies (2nd edition) (Gratton & Jones, 2010), Qualitative
Research for Physical Culture (Markula & Silk, 2011), Qualitative Research in Sport and Physical
Activity (Jones, Brown, & Holloway, 2012), Qualitative Research on Sport and Physical Culture
(Young & Atkinson, 2012), and Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health: From Process to
Product (Sparkes & Smith, 2014). These books are excellent resources for seasoned qualitative
researchers, as well as for newcomers to the field. This said, as we know from our own experi-
ence of producing one of the books named above, we had to cover a lot of ground within the
word limits imposed on us by the publishers. Consequently, we necessarily touched on many
issues but were unable to deal with any of those in an appropriate depth. There was also far too
much we had to omit about qualitative research. As such, we did the best job we could, but
feel and know we could have done better. We are sure the authors of the other books named
earlier will validate our experiences.
The Routledge International Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise, the first of
its kind, allows the shortcomings of any one book as we have described above, to be rectified.
Of course, no handbook can cover everything, certainly not to all readers’ satisfaction. Whereas
a handbook can cover much more than a book, handbooks will also always contain gaps,
absences, different concerns, and differently organized content. That accepted, this Handbook
extends what has been written in qualitative books on sport and exercise by offering a highly
varied, deep, and detailed menu of qualitative research. Written by leading scholars and some
of the best emerging talents, the chapters in the Handbook operate collectively to provide a
wide-ranging, original, timely, and cutting-edge resource for students, established scholars, and
scholars who wish to learn about qualitative research. For example, chapters map in some detail
commonly used and more novel ways of collecting, analyzing, and representing data in the
sport and exercise sciences. Many chapters also push boundaries by offering an expanded vision
of what the future might hold, in terms of both the process and products of inquiry. As such,
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Introduction
5
the contributors to the Handbook consolidate what we know, but also ask critical questions and
pose challenging dilemmas to disturb taken-for-granted ways of thinking, and guard against any
misplaced sense of methodological complacency that might occur.
The Handbook contains 38 chapters, with the majority of 49 contributors coming from
the disciplines of the Sociology of Sport, Sport and Exercise Psychology, or Sport Coaching.
However, most of these authors here cross discipline boundaries by drawing on work from both
inside and outside their disciplinary home to support points, serve as examples, stimulate debate,
and so on. Several leading figures from “mainstream” qualitative research also contribute chap-
ters. They not only extend their previous work, but also connect with different disciplines in
the sport and exercise sciences. Crossing boundaries is no easy task (Smith & McGannon, 2015;
Sparkes & Smith, 2016). We are therefore grateful to all contributors for doing the hard work
of moving outside their discipline and engaging with different vocabularies, ways of thinking,
and histories. The combination of all these scholars, and the different disciplines within the sport
and exercise sciences that are engaged with here, help make the Handbook further accessible and
relevant for the widest possible audience.
The chapters in the Handbook are organized into six parts. We appreciate that certain chapters
may seem more protypical of that part than others. Some chapters may fit equally comfortably
in two or three parts simultaneously. Therefore, we suggest that readers use the categorization
of parts as a guide. The guide might be useful for readers who wish to devour the Handbook in
its entirety, or to nibble selectively at its chapters, depending on their specific tastes and needs
at any given time. Each chapter also suggests related chapters in the handbook to help navigate
the content.
Part I presents a range of qualitative traditions, in an effort to represent some of the diversity
that helps make up and define the field of qualitative research. No tradition is positioned in the
Handbook as better or worse than another. Each tradition differently structures and influences,
sometimes very subtlety, how we can think about qualitative research, go about doing it, and
judging the work that follows. Part II presents a varied and detailed selection of methods to col-
lect qualitative data. These include interviewing, observation, visual methods, media research,
material objects, and documents of life, such as diaries and autobiographies. Many of these
chapters describe what each data collection is, present rationales for why each might be used, and
offer some practical tips for how to go about collecting said data. Conceptual discussions and
critical insights are also provided.
Part III focuses on methods of analysis. Out of the many that could have been chosen,
attention is given to thematic analysis, phenomenological analysis, interpretive phenomeno-
logical analysis, discourse analysis, conversational analysis, narrative analysis, and qualitative
meta-synthesis. Together the chapters connect with some traditions (e.g., phenomenology
and narrative inquiry) outlined in Part II. The combination provides a flavor of the diverse
landscape of analyses available to us, ranging from widely used methods in certain disciplines,
like thematic analysis and interpretive phenomenological analysis in sport and exercise psy-
chology, to analytic approaches that have been rarely utilized in all of the sport and exercise
sciences, such as conversational analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis. Throughout, ration-
ales for choosing an analysis, practical tips for implementing each, and discussions of major
intellectual challenges are offered.
Part IV examines how we might represent qualitative research, evaluate it, and go about
doing ethical work. Combined, the chapters present a respectful overview of some traditional,
yet still very important issues that qualitative researchers need to grapple with. These include
communicating research through realist tales, respecting writing as a form of analysis, engag-
ing carefully in procedural ethics, and reflecting critically on commonly used criteria to judge
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Brett Smith & Andrew C. Sparkes
6
qualitative research. The chapters also develop understandings by, for example, providing a
nuanced account of how realist tales might be understood now, presenting an overview of
various creative analytical practices (e.g., different kinds of auto-ethnography and performance
social science), thinking of ethics as a process and chain-like, and highlighting contemporary
ways to think about “validity” in qualitative research.
Part V is concerned with opening up qualitative research practices (further). This section
seeks to open up different and relatively new ways of doing research by focusing on sen-
sory research, Internet research, and pluralistic qualitative analysis. It aims to open up more
informed dialogues about integrating qualitative research in mixed-methods research. This
part also opens up access further to the role of theory, interpretation, and critical thinking in
qualitative work, especially for those new to the field. It makes an exciting opening into a too
often neglected topic; that is, teaching qualitative methods and methodologies in “research
methods” university courses. The penultimate chapter in the section is an opening into the
issue of impact, and how qualitative research can make a difference in society. It provides a
resource that gives seasoned researchers from different paradigms and methods, newcomers,
policymakers, and organizations a strong rationale for what qualitative research can do, and
why it is so valuable. The last chapter in this section turns to Indigenous physical cultures.
Complementing several other chapters in other parts of the Handbook, such as Chapter 8 that
focuses on community-based participatory action research, this final section chapter opens up
further dialogue into Indigenous methodologies and insights into why these matter.
Part VI speculates on the future of qualitative research. Authors in this section come mainly
from Sociology of Sport or Sport and Exercise Psychology. Each author was invited to write a
short chapter on what they perceived to be the future issue(s) in qualitative research. All took a
different tack, and each scholar raises differing questions for the future of qualitative research in
the Sociology of Sport and/or Sport and Exercise Psychology.
The Routledge International Handbook of Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise is not a final
statement. It is a starting point. We hope it is a springboard for new thought and new work.
It is hoped that this Handbook, with all its strengths and flaws, will contribute to the growing
maturity and influence of qualitative research in the sport and exercise sciences. We hope you
gain as much from reading it as we have gained from acting as editors, and working with the
excellent scholars whose contributions have made it all possible.
References
Culver, D., Gilbert, W., & Sparkes, A. (2012). Qualitative research in sport psychology journals: The next
decade 2000–2009 and beyond. The Sport Psychologist, 26, 261–281.
Demuth, C. (2015). “Slow food” post-qualitative research in psychology: Old craft skills in new disguise?
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 207–215.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the eld of qualitative research. In N. Denzin, &
Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). London: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. (2011).
In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–19). London: Sage.
Gratton, C., & Jones, I. (2010). Research methods for sport studies (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N., &
Lincoln, Y. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). London: Sage.
Jones, I., Brown, L., & Holloway, I. (2012). Qualitative research in sport and physical activity. London: Sage.
Krane, V., & Baird, S. (2005). Using ethnography in applied sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 17, 87–107.
Lincoln, Y. (2010). “What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been . . .”: Twenty-ve years of qualitative and new
paradigm research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 3–9.
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Introduction
7
Lincoln, Y., Lynham, S., & Guba, E. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging
conuences revisited. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97–128).
London: Sage.
Markula, P., & Silk, M. (2011). Qualitative research for physical culture. London: Palgrave.
Pitney, W., & Parker, J. (2009). Qualitative research in physical activity and the health professions. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, B., & McGannon, K. (2015). Psychology and sociology in sport studies. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.).
Routledge handbook of the sociology of sport (pp. 194– 203). London: Routledge.
Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology: Critical
reections on ve points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 49–59.
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2014). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From process to
product. London: Routledge.
Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2016). Interdisciplinary connoisseurship in sport psychology research. In
R. Schinke, K. R. McGannon, & B. Smith (Eds). Routledge international handbook of sport psychology
(pp. 581–588). London: Routledge
Young, K., & Atkinson, M. (Eds.) (2012). Qualitative research on sport and physical culture. Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution

Taylor and Francis
Not for distribution