Content uploaded by Katrin Bauer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katrin Bauer on Nov 08, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
From academic silos to interdisciplinary engagement:
Understanding and advancing research and evaluation in
Sport for Development
Katrin Bauer1, Nico Schulenkorf2, Katja Siefken3
1Freelance Researcher, Tübingen, Germany
2Centre for Sport, Business and Society, UTS Business School, University of Technology Sydney; and Centre for Sport Leadership ,
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
3Institute of Interdisciplinary Exercise Science and Sports Medicine (IIES), Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Corresponding author email: mail@katrin-bauer.net
net
Journal of Sport for Development
59
www.jsfd.org
Original Research
Keywords: sport for development; interdisciplinarity; research; evaluation; scoping review
ABSTRACT
Over the last 20 years, the growing recognition of sport as
an enabler of sustainable development has allowed Sport for
Development (SFD) to emerge as a dynamic research field
featuring contributions from a wide range of scholarly
disciplines. Within this research, evaluation has played a
prominent role, especially against the background of
omnipresent demands to ‘prove impact’ and legitimize the
field. Despite the growth of scholarly activity, the field
remains largely scattered with limited interdisciplinary
engagement. This article presents an overview of the
conceptualization and implementation of SFD research and
evaluation, encompassing study types and methodological
approaches. Findings were generated from a scoping review
of publications on research and evaluation activities in the
SFD field, guided by the newly proposed Evaluation
Research Framework. They highlight that the field is
suffering from terminological imprecisions that lead to
vague and often undifferentiated debates about
methodologies and approaches. Moreover, there remains a
limited progression of theoretical advancements in SFD,
with purposeful engagement across disciplines and
innovative developments still being underutilized. We
conclude that if SFD scholars remain within their
disciplinary silos and do not move towards a common
interdisciplinary research understanding, the field will
continue to suffer from confusing theorization processes
with limited prospects for further academic advancement
and practical development.
From academic silos to interdisciplinary engagement:
Understanding and advancing research and evaluation
in Sport for Development
Since the turn of the millennium, sport has increasingly been
accepted by governmental and non-governmental actors as
both a goal in its own right and a medium for achieving a
variety of development goals. Sport’s recognition as a
critical site for socialization (Coakley, 1998) and its
reputation of being a low-cost and high-impact tool in
achieving development goals has led to an increasing
institutionalization of sport for development (SFD) within
international relations and global development, flanked and
funded by national and multilateral development agencies
including the United Nations (UN), the Commonwealth
Secretariat, and country-specific institutions such as the
Norwegian or German Development Cooperation Agencies
(Giulianotti et al., 2019; Kay & Dudfield, 2013). Although
SFD initiatives have existed for decades, the field’s practical
nature likely contributed to a delayed onset of specific
research studies and wider scholarly engagement with the
field (Darnell, 2012). In fact, there were only a handful of
dedicated SFD publications available in the early 2000s and
contributions to scientific journals only started to increase
more significantly from around 2008 onwards (Schulenkorf,
2017; Schulenkorf et al., 2016). By 2013, the number of
annual publications amounted to over 100 articles –a
remarkable development that was accompanied by the
establishment of the open-access Journal of Sport for
Development (JSFD) as well as publication and
dissemination opportunities on the SFD online platform
sportanddev.org. Taken together, these initiatives assisted in
providing much-needed accessibility and transparency
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
60 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
regarding evaluation and research approaches in SFD
(Schulenkorf et al., 2016; Whitley et al., 2019b; Whitley et
al., 2019a).
Given its widespread appeal, numerous theoretical
foundations, approaches, designs, and methods have been
used in SFD research. However, research endeavors and
scholarly engagements have largely remained within their
disciplinary silos. Disciplinary trends from sport sociology,
sport management, public health, leisure and other
disciplines have already been transferred to the SFD
context, but interconnections and common perspectives –
including transdisciplinary engagements –have thus far
been neglected (Massey & Whitley, 2019; Siefken, 2022;
Whitley et al., 2022). As a result, research to date has led to
critical yet largely isolated and often under-used SFD-
specific theories and concepts (Welty Peachey et al., 2021).
Moreover, while the benefits of intersectoral or inter-
disciplinary SFD have increasingly been recommended in
academic scholarship or mapped in the form of
brainstorming articles (Collison et al., 2019a; Delheye et al.,
2020; Welty Peachey et al., 2021; Whitley et al., 2022),
there remains a lack of clarity and common understanding
across several domains, including the terminology that
surrounds aspects of research and evaluation in SFD. Such
a common understanding is critical for interdisciplinary
research where the great diversity of parties involved –
including observers (e.g., scholars), those observed (e.g.,
project and program implementers, non-governmental
organizations), interested parties (e.g., donors, community),
and influencers (e.g., national agencies, ministries) –should
sing from the same hymn-sheet rather than remain with
different and at times contradictory understandings of
research approaches and associated terminology (Massey &
Whitley, 2019).
Against this background, we conducted a review of
publications focusing on research and evaluation in SFD to
showcase the different types of research and evaluation
studies that have been undertaken in the SFD field; how
they have been conducted; and how different research terms
have been used, understood and differentiated.
Our scoping study aimed to map the status quo of SFD
research and evaluation and the associated terminology, and
shed light on the shortcomings, development opportunities
and future advancements in this critical space. In the
following, we present the scholarly framework and
methodological processes that underpin our study. In line
with the two research questions, we then highlight and
discuss key research findings and conclude with a call for
action to define and unite common interdisciplinary
research understandings in SFD.
Evaluation Research Framework
Evaluation research emerged as a distinct field of study in
the mid-20th century, primarily in the United States of
America. Its development can be attributed to the growing
interest in assessing the impact and effectiveness of social
programs and policies. Influenced by the fields of
sociology, psychology, and public administration,
evaluation research gained prominence during the 1960s
and 1970s as a response to the growing demand for
evidence-based approaches to inform decision-making and
resource allocation (Marjanovic et al., 2009). In the 1960s,
the American development agency USAID and a few larger
United Nations organizations made first attempts to
establish evaluation as an integral part of project and
program management (Döring & Bortz, 2016). In Europe,
the integration of evaluation into institutional structures and
processes within the context of political systems, presented
a main driver for the significant increase in practical
evaluation studies, particularly in the context of growing
development cooperation (Stockmann & Meyer, 2017).
Since its inception, evaluation research has expanded
globally and is now practiced across various disciplines and
countries, shaping policy development and program
implementation worldwide.
Most authors in evaluation research use the term ‘evaluation
research’ synonymously with ‘scientific evaluation’ or in
short ‘evaluation’ (Döring & Bortz, 2016; Rossi et al.,
2004; Scriven, 2008; Vedung, 2000). Here, the common
understanding is that evaluations “are assessments made on
the basis of research findings in a scientific process by
evaluation professionals qualified in social science" (Döring
& Bortz, 2016, p. 977). As such, evaluation is part of
applied social research and it features a whole range of
social science theories, concepts and research methods
(Stockmann, 2007). In the social and health sciences,
program evaluation is likely the largest area of evaluation
research which –due to its application-oriented nature –has
the distinct ability of generating evidence-based knowledge
for practical use (Rossi et al., 2004). This practical
knowledge can then be used to optimize, steer, or legitimize
programs, among other functions of evaluations
(Stockmann, 2007). Due to its applied nature and the ability
to advance practice in the field, evaluation research is of
particular relevance and importance for SFD studies.
There are countless concepts, models, theories and
approaches to evaluation across theory and practice,
including directions for evaluation design and
implementation. As such, different attempts have been
made to classify evaluation concepts, models, theories, and
paradigms based on their similarities and differences (Alkin
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
61 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
& Christie, 2009; Rossi et al., 2004). Of particular
relevance for the current study is Rabie’s (2014)
classification system which brings together important and
widely used concepts of evaluation research and presents a
comprehensive yet clearly structured approach to evaluation
that provides analytical rigor and compensates for some of
the limitations of previous systems in use. Hence, in an
attempt to explore the research and evaluation activities in
the field of SFD, Rabie’s (2014) work underpinned the
design of the newly proposed Evaluation Research
Framework (ERF) which was used as a deductive
framework for this review study.
The ERF is based on previous work by the first author
(Bauer, 2022) and contains three different yet interrelated
domains: First, the terminologies focus on the
understanding and interplay of definitions regarding the
terms used in this space, including monitoring, evaluation
and research. According to Vedung (2000, p. 124) “the key
difference between evaluation research and fundamental
research is that the former is intended for use”.It is
therefore more prescribed and less free than fundamental or
basic research, which can strive for knowledge without a
specific pre-defined purpose. In addition, there are many
other terms used instead of, combined with, or in
conjunction with evaluation, such as appraisal, assessment,
auditing, (financial) controlling or monitoring (monitoring
and evaluation, in short: M&E). Finally, recent trends have
also emphasized evaluation and value functions combined
with research and monitoring, such as 'learning' or
‘accountability’ (e.g., MEL, MERL or MEAL). Even
though the activities associated with these terms differ from
those of evaluation, the dividing lines are often blurred
(Scriven, 2008).
As the second domain, the framework captures and
systematizes the various approaches and classifications,
including concepts, models, theories, and approaches. It
follows a three-tiered pragmatic approach: The first sub-
category helps to delineate what will be evaluated and
focuses on the scope of a study. For instance, the evaluation
may be very broad and includes comprehensive evaluands
(e.g., strategies, systems, sectors, interventions in their
entirety) which are covered by different forms of reviews
(evaluation synthesis, systematic review, meta-evaluation).
Alternatively, it may focus on one particular aspect or phase
of an intervention, which can differ in timing and its
objective: For example, ex-ante evaluations may operate as
feasibility or baseline studies before a project starts; on-
going evaluations can be used for process evaluations; and
final evaluations may feature at the end of a project for the
assessment of direct goal achievements or as ex-post studies
to evaluate program impacts and sustainability (Rabie,
2014; Rossi et al., 2004; Stockmann, 2007).
The approaches of the second sub-category can help to
clarify the purpose of the evaluation. Here, theory-based
approaches aim to increase knowledge about the object of
study and explain causalities, e.g., by using a logical
model/logical framework, which can make statements about
whether pre-formulated indicators are achieved in terms of
its resources (inputs), performance (outputs), effects at the
target group level (outcomes) or effects at the societal level
(impacts) (Kurz & Kubek, 2016; Oberndörfer et al., 2010;
Scriven, 2008). Meanwhile, participatory approaches aim
to actively involve stakeholders in evaluations, to empower
their evaluation capacities, and to create a common
understanding (Rabie, 2014).
The third and final sub-category focuses on designs and
methods and answers the question of how a specific
program is assessed or evaluated. Specifically, it determines
if quantitative (quasi-experimental or experimental designs
like Randomized Controlled Trials - RCTs), qualitative
(e.g., participatory action research) or mixed-methods
designs are used (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Rabie, 2014;
Scriven, 2008). Taken together, the ERF allows scholars to
examine research and evaluation thoroughly and
holistically. Specifically, it determines how terminology is
used; identifies the attribution and intention of a study
(basic research or evaluation research); establishes the
extent to which it is comprehensive or partial (scope);
assesses whether the purpose is theory-driven or
participatory; and understands the way research and
evaluation is carried out (design and method).
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
62 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
METHODOLOGY
Scientific review studies come in a number of different
shapes and sizes or, as Grant and Booth (2009) outlined,
there is a large variety of research types and associated
methodologies for researchers to choose from. For this
paper, in which we aimed to review and map evaluation and
research practices and debates in the field of SFD, a scoping
review approach was carried out. Scoping reviews have
gained prominence in the SFD space over the past 10 years;
specifically, previous studies have focused on SFD research
within Aboriginal communities (Gardam et al., 2017); have
examined innovation approaches such as Design Thinking
in SFD practice (Joachim et al., 2020); or have mapped
SFD evidence specific to the African continent (Langer,
2015). The scoping review seemed the most appropriate
type for this study as it aims to summarize and disseminate
findings, clarify key definitions in the literature, examine
how research is conducted on a certain field and identify
research or knowledge gaps in existing literature –
regardless of differences in publication types and without
the need to account for research quality per se (Arksey &
O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018). As such, it presents a
significant first step in our endeavor to better understand the
research and evaluation space in SFD and it may provide a
critical stepping stone for more advanced and
comprehensive systematic reviews that focus on quality and
rigor in the future. To conduct a scoping study, Arksey and
O'Malley (2005) recommend five critical steps which have
also guided our investigation.
Identification of research questions
In the first stage of a scoping study, it is recommended to
use broad search parameters to ensure that no relevant
studies are overlooked (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). To
avoid an unwieldy number of publications, we used the
ERF model as a theoretical-conceptual perspective based on
evaluation research (Bauer, 2022). This allowed us to
specifically address two interrelated research questions.
(1)How are research, evaluation and other related
terms defined and understood in the SFD context?
(2)How are research and evaluation activities
carried out, i.e., which different approaches –
including designs and methods –are used?
Identification and selection of relevant publications
To identify the literature that answers the research
questions, a comprehensive search of databases and
journals was conducted. As suggested by Arksey &
O'Malley (2005), we employed flexible strategies that
involved searching for relevant publications across various
sources, including electronic databases, reference lists,
hand-searching key journals, and relevant organizations and
conferences. In line with previous review studies, a variety
of thematically relevant and multidisciplinary databases and
catalogues were used, including sport-focused databases,
general academic search engines, and a range of topic-
specific journals (see Table 1); moreover, specific journals
that had previously been identified as leading outlets for
SFD work in Schulenkorf et al.’s (2016) comprehensive
integrative review were included. Finally, the search was
complemented with relevant items from various
supplementary materials including academic books, internet
sources, journal articles, reports, theses and grey literature
(e.g., documents of the United Nations or Commonwealth
Secretariat).
For the different sources, a combination of search terms
connecting evaluation, research and SFD were used in
English and German language. Specifically, as the review
formed part of a larger research project on SFD in the
context of German development cooperation, German
search terms and literature were used in addition to the
otherwise predominant English vocabulary and
publications. Overall, the following search strings were
used: evaluation, research, Forschung,
Methode(n)/method(s) as well as the combined terms sport
+ development, "Sport for Development", "Sport für
Entwicklung", Sportförderung. Table 1 presents the search
area and bibliographic accesses used in addition to the
search terms.
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
63 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
64 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
The initial focus on the title search made sure that results
would include documents with a clear focus on research and
evaluation in the field of SFD, including discussions on
methodological research approaches such as M&E and
qualitative methods. In other words, the intent was to
capture articles, reviews, conceptual papers or texts with a
distinct research focus, rather than single empirical studies
that merely mentioned the term research as part of their
analysis or structure. The publication types included
monographs, edited books, book chapters, internet sources,
journal articles, reports, grey literature as well as PhD and
Masters theses in English and German published between
2006 and March 2022. The year 2006 was selected as the
earliest date because it was when the first manual focusing
on M&E in the context of SFD was published (Coalter,
2006). This manual resulted from a workshop initiated by
UNICEF and attended by key scholars, politicians,
development agencies, and practitioners (Burnett, 2015).
Furthermore, to complement the automated findings of the
journal and database search, the reference lists of included
documents were manually scanned to identify further
potentially relevant materials (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005;
Herold et al., 2020).
From a process perspective, two authors eliminated
duplicate articles and analyzed all available abstracts
according to the key elements identified in the ERF that
guided this study. All abstracts were read independently by
the two authors to enhance validity and to ensure inter-
coder reliability, the third researcher became involved in
case of disagreement. In total, 204 relevant publications and
internet documents were identified and subsequently
charted. Table 2 summarizes the sampling results according
to publication types.
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
65 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
Charting the publications
Based on the total sample identified, the material was sifted,
charted and sorted according to the different key elements
identified in the ERF (see Figure 1). In particular, special
attention was paid to the terminology used (e.g., evaluation,
monitoring, etc.) as well as the various approaches and
classifications mentioned or employed (e.g., scope of
studies, designs, methods, etc.). The ERF categories were
used to record the information descriptively. As an
example, Kay's (2012) article on monitoring and evaluation
in SFD partnerships contains information about specific
terminology and approaches. She clearly distinguishes
between M&E and research and does not endorse logical
models as approaches.
Collating, summarizing and reporting the results
As the information from the publications were chartered
according to the ERF-categories, also the findings are
structured and presented in accordance with the categories
outlined in the ERF and the research questions listed above.
First, the different understandings and interplays of
terminologies within the realm of SFD research and
evaluation are presented. Subsequently, a discussion of the
various approaches and classifications employed in the SFD
context is provided.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Terminologies: Imprecisions in understanding,
application and interplay
Out of our total sample of 204 publications, 21 specifically
related to terminologies used in SFD research. Across these
documents, the terms research,evaluation,M&E and more
recently also MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning)or
MERL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning) are
used with a wide range of variations and are often
employed interchangeably. In short, there is no clear
conceptual demarcation. ‘Conducting research’ is often
equated with M&E activities, which inevitably leads to an
undifferentiated discourse (Kay, 2012). Here, the rather
simplistic merger of the terms monitoring and evaluation
into a single entity is problematic, as the two research
functions require specific approaches as they serve different
aspects: “As they pose and respond to different types of
questions, it is evident that monitoring and […] evaluation
[…] require different tools, different skills, different
strategies and ideally different personnel“ (Kaufman et al.,
2014, p. 177).
Numerous authors critically note that even well-established
evaluation and they emphasize the need for a clear
differentiation (Jeanes & Lindsey, 2014; Welty Peachey &
Cohen, 2015). For Jeanes and Lindsey (2014, p. 199), M&E
should be considered a "processes of research". They see
the distinction in the fact that M&E is mainly used in the
program context and aims at optimization, while research
goes beyond that. However, Whitley et al. (2020, p. 22)
note that “evaluation and research are not mutually
exclusive, and there are arguments that evaluation is a
subset of research (and vice versa)". Collison et al. (2019a,
p. 6) concur that research simply cannot be separated from
M&E processes:
We would argue that the assumption that research
necessarily informs, guides, influences or even constructs
M&E frameworks or evidence is misguided. Progressive
research methodologies focused on M&E, for example
participatory action research, may well serve the dual
purpose of knowledge production while producing and
assisting with the formal process of evidencing and
reporting, but the relationship between these processes
requires ongoing negotiation and reflexivity.
Overall, this review reveals that the current incoherence in
the SFD research field stems from the imprecisions in the
use of terminology and concepts. The absence of clarity
concerning research, evaluation, and M&E terminologies
inevitably leads to a variety of debates in SFD research,
including the role of researchers (who carries out the
research and under which conditions?), methodological
procedures (which designs and methods are best suited?)
and the overall objective of the research (is it merely about
generating new knowledge, about making strategic
decisions or about receiving funding?).
A starting point for addressing imprecision in the use of
terminology and related discussions would be the
establishment of a shared vocabulary with the intention of
‘finding a common language’ (Barisch-Fritz & Volk, 2016).
The benefit of such a vocabulary –particularly in the
context of interdisciplinary research –is the ability to
overcome obstacles by creating a unified language based on
mutual understanding and effective dialogue among
researchers from a range of disciplines. However, achieving
a shared understanding requires acknowledging and
including external expertise from a variety of areas.
Moreover, given the potpourri of approaches taken by
researchers –including fundamental research, evaluation
research, or evaluation based on monitored information, and
the different objectives and strategies in place –active
collaboration and clear communication are required to
achieve overall consensus.
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
66 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
Within the described debates and underpinned by the results
of our study, there remains a regrettable lack of
acknowledgement and inclusion of traditional debates from
the social sciences and development studies. In fact, it
seems important to consider multi-perspective
considerations, such as critical voices of –and relations
between –researchers, evaluators, commissioners and
donor organizations, to find some common ground. Instead,
SFD is as heavily influenced by hegemonic discourses,
particularly in relation to the concept of development. In
fact, it is widely acknowledged that the conceptualization of
development presents one of the foremost challenges in the
field of SFD (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011). Accordingly, the
field of SFD has encountered similar debates and policy
challenges to those reported in wider development studies
(Darnell & Black, 2011). Overall, it is suggested that unless
the SFD research community addresses the described
ambiguities and establishes crucial distinctions and a
common language through active engagement and
deliberation, progress towards terminological and
conceptual clarity will be difficult to achieve.
Approaches and classifications: Many use what they
know, few use what is established
Before the different sub-categories from the ERF are
discussed (approaches based on scope, theory-driven and
participatory approaches, designs and methods), general
theorization processes in SFD research are highlighted first.
This is done to provide the wider context and to ‘couch’ the
applied findings related to approaches and classifications.
Due to their importance in SFD research, the aspects of
impacts and sustainability –which from an evaluation-
theoretical perspective are subject of ex-post evaluations –
are considered separately.
The theorization of SFD
Our scoping study identified 127 publications that engaged
with aspects of theorization in SFD. Our review revealed
that a lack of a theoretical foundation for research in the
field of SFD was an early warning raised by numerous
authors and that over the years, the demand for its
establishment and the call for connectivity to other
disciplines has only intensified (e.g., Coalter, 2013b;
Darnell et al., 2019; Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011; Massey
& Whitley, 2019; Siefken, 2022; Welty Peachey & Cohen,
2015; Zanotti & Stephenson, 2019). Despite a stated lack of
theoretical grounding and the scholarly verdict that "much
work remains to be done" (Zanotti & Stephenson, 2019,
p. 172), it should be noted that a number of significant
theoretical and conceptual developments have taken place
over the past decade (Darnell et al., 2019; Massey &
Whitley, 2019; Schulenkorf et al., 2016). Specifically, the
contributions in the Routledge Handbook of Sport for
Development and Peace (Collison et al., 2019b), as well as
Welty Peachey et al.'s (2021) meta-analysis of theoretical
advances in SFD illustrate the research community's
willingness and associated attempts to develop, employ and
advance theoretical approaches.
Given the need to advance theoretical and conceptual thinking
in SFD, a number of studies have employed a distinct sport-
focused model of theoretical framing. Here, Welty Peachey et
al. (2021) have identified the Sport for Development Theory
(SFDT) (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011), the S4D Framework
(Schulenkorf, 2012), Sugden’s Ripple Effect Model (2014),
Coalter’s Program Theory (2013b) and Schulenkorf and
Siefken’s (2019) Sport-for-Health Model as relevant
examples. However, to date, most of these are hardly used to
guide or support other studies which speaks to the relative
infancy of SFD theory and the need to do more and better in
an attempt to truly legitimize the field (Welty Peachey et al.,
2021).
Meanwhile, where SFD studies have been underpinned by a
derivate model of theoretical framing (see Chalip, 2006),
the concepts of social capital and Positive Youth
Development (PYD) theories have most commonly been
employed in the context of SFD (Schulenkorf et al., 2016).
However, despite their popularity, Darnell, Chawansky and
colleagues (2018, pp. 138-139) describe these approaches
as "relatively neutral" and "apolitical" and are calling for
more critical SFD research that uses politicizing approaches
(e.g., postcolonial or feminist), including those "that draw
attention to the roots of inequality".
As part of this development towards critical scholarship,
academics from different disciplinary backgrounds have
started to compile their varied theoretical approaches and
brainstorm possibilities for transdisciplinary research in
SFD. Here, a special issue in the journal Social Inclusion
has opened transdisciplinary and intersectoral perspectives
by providing a selection of articles that bring together
various disciplinary streams (Delheye et al., 2020).
Moreover, a recent journal article in JSFD has described
selected disciplinary trends from the fields of sport
sociology, social anthropology, sport management, public
health, leisure, sport pedagogy, and sport psychology and
provided critical avenues for transdisciplinary engagement
(Delheye et al., 2020). Further, Siefken et al. (2022)
emphasized the necessity to connect physical activity
research with SFD, as highlighted in their recently
published edited volume addressing opportunities and
challenges in low- and middle-income countries. The call
for cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary work has been
made. The integration of these perspectives certainly
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
67 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
provides first important steps towards interdisciplinarity
modifiable; however, thus far the selection of viewpoints
has largely been based on the research backgrounds of the
contributing authors of the articles published and a
concerted effort to include all disciplines of the SFD field is
yet to be realized.
In order to foster true interdisciplinarity, it is essential to
‘identify shared problem perspectives’ (Barisch-Fritz &
Volk, 2016). Here, Whitley et al. (2022, p. 9) emphasize
that common interests between different disciplines include
life skills development and transfer, as well as the parallels
between PYD theory and “the anthropological examination
of youth in SFD”. Furthermore, the wide-ranging
orientation of SFD organizations towards the Sustainable
Development Goals and related issues such as social
inequality, environment, safeguarding, refugees, and social
entrepreneurship (Giulianotti et al., 2019) could form
common denominators.
Approaches based on scope
The scope of research studies varies considerably across
academic domains and our review revealed that this is no
different in the SFD space. Overall, we identified 18
publications related to scope-based approaches.
Specifically, after an initial focus on micro-level case
studies and first attempts to ‘map the field’ (e.g., Hillyer et
al., 2011), SFD researchers have now embarked on the next
level of systematic reviews and assessments. In this context,
Darnell, Chawansky and colleagues (2018, p. 134) call it "a
marker of the field's maturation" that more and more
researchers are conducting and publishing comprehensive
systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in this case based on
available SFD literature (Holt et al., 2017; Jones et al.,
2017; Langer, 2015; Schulenkorf et al., 2016; Svensson &
Woods, 2017; Welty Peachey et al., 2021; Whitley et al.,
2019a).
Whilst these review studies have contributed significantly
towards a broad picture of the SFD overall research
landscape, the findings show that there remains a lack of
specific meta-evaluations that examine the quality of studies
and evaluations, including those that focus on specific
themes or domains such as impact and sustainability –
issues that are considered critical in SFD work and which
are discussed in more detail later in this article. Moreover,
our scoping analysis revealed that to date only one
systematic review has examined the methodological quality
of studies in detail (Darnell et al., 2019) and can therefore
be classified as a meta-evaluation in the context of the ERF.
To further support SFD’s ‘maturation’ process, it seems
essential that further studies with a wider scope and deeper
focus –in particularly meta-evaluations that explore and
improve the quality of SFD studies –will be undertaken in
future research.
Our review further shows that most SFD studies take place
during project implementation (“ongoing”) or right at the
end of the project (“final”) when research funding is often
still available. No studies could be identified that explicitly
focus on the planning (“ex-ante”) or post project/program
phase (“ex-post”), highlighting the persistent lack of focus
on researching long-term impacts and aspects of
sustainability. Both these aspects are discussed in more
detail at the end of this section.
Theory-driven vs. participatory approaches
Overall, the scoping study identified 47 publications that
discussed theory-driven or participatory approaches.
Despite their ability to demonstrate the causal relationship
between projects inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts
(Kurz & Kubek, 2016), to date, only few SFD organizations
can be credited for –or have proven to employ –theory-
driven approaches such as logic models to underpin their
operations (Whitley et al., 2019b). However, there seems to
be a growing interest and increased understanding in this
critical space. Most notably, the theory-driven Results
Based Management (RBM) approach –which has been
widely used in general development cooperation work since
the 1990s (Binnendijk, 2000) –is part of the most recently
published SFD-guidelines of the Commonwealth Secretariat
(2019). However, the findings show that overall attitudes
towards theory-driven logic models still differ among SFD
researchers: on the one hand, critics describe them as being
overly output-oriented, linear and rigid, and largely top-
down or donor-imposed (Kay, 2012; Lindsey & Grattan,
2012; Spaaij et al., 2018). On the other hand, according to
proponents, they represent flexible frameworks "that are
participative, collaborative, iterative, and developmental"
(Whitley et al., 2020, p. 23). Preti (2012) points out that
criticism in this regard must distinguish between the general
approach (i.e., project planning including problem analysis,
development of objectives and indicators, identification of
risks and assumptions) and the logframe matrices used in
programs summarizing the main elements. The latter tend to
have numerous shortcomings: They often remain "inflexible
blueprints" in that they are established before a project
begins, 'imposed' on a project, and therefore limited in their
ability to make regular adjustments during the course of the
project. Hence, Whitley et al. (2020, p. 24) advocate for
active support of SFD organizations "in setting up their own
[...] frameworks [...]or adapting/adopting existing
frameworks" that hold credibility and provide legitimacy to
funders, align with national policy priorities, and enable
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
68 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
organizational development and learning.
Meanwhile, our review revealed that numerous researchers
are also calling for more participatory, culturally and
context-sensitive approaches, designs, and methods to
holistically understand complex development dynamics,
including M&E processes (Burnett, 2015; Collison &
Marchesseault, 2018; Darnell, Chawansky, et al., 2018;
Darnell et al., 2016; Kay, 2012; Sherry et al., 2017). In
general, participatory approaches such as Participatory
Action Research (PAR) have been used on a regular basis
when analyzing SFD projects and programs (Burnett, 2015;
Sherry et al., 2017). Furthermore, participatory approaches
are modifiable into guiding study models or frameworks,
for example in the form of the Sport for Development
Impact Assessment Tool (SDIAT) (Burnett & Hollander,
2007), Participatory Social Interaction Research (PSIR)
(Collison & Marchesseault, 2018), Post-colonial-feminist
Participatory Action Research (PFPAR) (Hayhurst et al.,
2015) and the qualitative Sport in development settings
(SPIDS) framework –where reflection and reflexivity are
given a special role in sport and development scholarship
(Schulenkorf et al., 2020). The latter comes on the back of
research by Spaaij and colleagues (2018) who examined a
variety of participatory SFD studies which showed
particular deficits in reflection and critical questioning of
the researchers’ roles (reflexivity) –an area that has
previously been highlighted as a critical yet understudied
space in SFD research (Darnell, Giulianotti, et al., 2018).
Designs and methods
In our analysis, we identified 23 publications related to the
designs and methods used in the field of SFD.In their
integrative review of SFD scholarship, Schulenkorf et al.
(2016, p. 35) identified a "potpourri of research approaches
and methods" with more qualitative designs being used
overall and fewer quantitative or mixed methods designs.
For data collection, mainly traditional qualitative methods
have been used, including observations, interviews, and
document analyses (Schulenkorf et al., 2016). The benefits
of innovative, creative, culturally appropriate, and
technologically savvy designs and methods are only starting
to be realized. Specifically, methods that use innovative
media technologies, such as videos, iPads or social media,
as well as diverse creative and flexible survey types such as
drawings, poems, stories of change or participatory
mapping have been suggested as critical elements for
methodological advancement (Darnell et al., 2016; Luguetti
et al., 2022; Preti, 2012; Schulenkorf et al., 2016; Sherry et
al., 2017).
It is logical that a field of research –which is shaped by
researchers from various disciplines with different
theoretical approaches and educational backgrounds –
cannot show unity with regard to research paradigms or
methodological procedures. However, the review
uncovered that in the specific SFD context, more seems to
be at play. At first glance, it may be seen as merely a
methodological dispute that takes place in empirical social
research, i.e., a split between supporters of the quantitative
and qualitative ‘camps’.On closer examination, however,
the dispute goes beyond the discussion about the ‘right’
methodological approaches and leads to fundamental
debates about power and ownership, including top-down
and bottom-up (research) approaches in development work.
Here, discussion topics go beyond the value and rigor of
scientific traditions (positivist vs. interpretivist,
constructivist or critical paradigms) and extend to the
research perspective of researchers from the Global North
('colonizer') evaluating projects and organizations in the
Global South; the conceptualization and definition of
'development' in general; and the production of new
knowledge and localized, Indigenous voices in particular
(Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011; Whitley et al., 2020).
In this context, critics often question positivist approaches
and are concerned that associated methods and top-down
procedures (external researchers assessing local projects
without local contributions) reinforce neo-colonial power
structures and hegemonic systems while suppressing local
knowledge production (Kay, 2012; Lindsey & Grattan,
2012). Opposing voices portray this as a critique of militant
"liberation methodologists" (Coalter, 2013a, p. 38) who
defy reality and who seek to put neo-colonial attitudes on
par with positivist methodological approaches whilst
avoiding the much-needed defining and measuring of
outcomes and impacts (Whitley et al., 2020). Overall, the
repartee is sometimes more, sometimes less extensive
across all kinds of publications (e.g., Coalter, 2013a;
Darnell et al., 2016; Kay 2012; Lindsey & Grattan, 2012)
which leads Massey and Whitley (2019, p. 177) to suggest
that to meaningfully address this issue, it would be better to
have a more nuanced debate on methodology: "Rather than
lay blanket critiques across different research paradigms
and epistemologies, there is a need to discuss higher levels
of sophistication in both instrumental/positivist (i.e.,
quantitative) and descriptive/critical (i.e., qualitative) SDP
research". In building on this recommendation, researchers
are now increasingly trying to bridge the gap between the
two main streams. In other words, in an attempt to avoid an
‘either-or’ perspective scholars have started to engage in
more nuanced discussions for more inclusive theoretical
and methodological solutions (Whitley et al., 2020). Here,
the previously discussed use of theoretical approaches that
focus on systemic interrelationships –such as the concept
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
69 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
of policy coherence (Lindsey & Darby, 2019) or actor-
network theory (Darnell, Giulianotti, et al., 2018) –could
be valid ways forward.
Impacts and sustainability
Overall, we identified 44 publications related to impacts
and sustainability aspects. Due to its label as a "low-cost,
high-impact tool" for international development (Kay &
Dudfield, 2013, p. 13), sport is –perhaps more than any
other tool –under pressure to prove what it can contribute
to various development outcomes (Levermore, 2011).
Hence, impact studies have become a popular approach to
justify sport-based development programs. However,
critical voices have objected the instrumentalization of
impact studies and have accused both implementers and
donors to mainly use them as a vehicle that legitimizes their
investments and shows alleged “proof” of the effects of
their programs (Burnett, 2015; Preti, 2012; Schulenkorf et
al., 2016).
The difficulty of tracking, measuring, or even isolating the
'sport-made' impacts and thus closing the attribution gap has
long been recognized in the SFD domain (Coalter, 2013b,
2013a; Levermore, 2011). In fact, in some cases attempts to
measure sport-specific contributions have been declared as
impossible (Lindsey & Chapman, 2017). While there is
agreement in regards to the criticality of making impacts
’visible’ (Commonwealth Secretariat, 2019), impact
attributions are therefore formulated more ’cautiously’ (Kay
& Dudfield, 2013; Schulenkorf, 2017) and scholars mainly
talk about (often indirect) contributions to specific
development objectives or the SDGs more broadly (Lindsey
& Chapman, 2017). Perhaps the exaggeration of sport being
an "all-purpose social vaccine" (Coalter, 2013a, p. 55) has
finally been demystified, or –as Schulenkorf (2017, p. 244)
has put it – “it seems that the SFD community has largely
cured its own biggest social ill; namely, the simplistic view
that sport, and even SFD, automatically leads to positive
social, cultural, educational, health-related and/or economic
development”.
Popular across the natural sciences, RCTs –also known as
the 'gold standard' of evaluations –are supposed to close
attribution gaps and isolate the effects of an intervention by
comparing changes of randomly selected intervention and
control groups (Mueller & Albrecht, 2016; Scriven, 2008).
In the SFD context, this rigorous yet complex design is
rarely feasible. Although there is an increasing demand for
robust SFD study designs (Darnell et al., 2019; Kaufman et
al., 2014; Lindsey & Darby, 2019; Massey & Whitley,
2019), researchers are weary that in addition to
methodological and practical challenges of RCT trials –
including limited opportunities for control groups –ethical
challenges remain. Specifically, interventions have to be
controlled and standardized in order to explain causal
mechanisms in away that may neglect the specific needs
and concerns of vulnerable populations, including
individual children (Mueller & Albrecht, 2016). This also
speaks to a wider issue of quantitative impact studies which
tend to neglect the social context of programs. Here,
internal and external factors and their influence on an
intervention’s effects are often not appropriately considered
or underestimated. Associated social, managerial and
political factors such as internal organizational structures,
staff rotations, project durations as well as political systems
and cultural peculiarities do have a great influence on the
impacts and outcomes of a project or program, and they
tend to be largely ignored in RCT assessments (Lindsey,
2017; Stockmann, 2006).
While the absence of RCT studies can be explained in part
by the factors above, the limited use of ex-post evaluations
–meaning studies which are set-up after the completion of a
project in order to assess long-term effects (impacts) and
sustainability –remains a surprise, specifically as there are
also readily available theoretical models for impact
evaluation in evaluation research (Oberndörfer et al., 2010).
Aspects of sustainability (in terms of durability) of donor-
dependent SFD projects have previously been questioned
and criticized (Lindsey, 2017). Furthermore, (long-term)
ecological impacts have been discussed in the context of
sport and environmental issues (Darnell, 2019) and 'thought
about' in the context of the S4D Framework (Schulenkorf,
2012). However, the issue of sustainability per se has
received little explicit practical attention in SFD evaluations
and research. In fact, with the notable exception of
Lindsey’s (2008) conceptual work, suitable theoretical
approaches or assessment frameworks have not yet been
developed (Sherry & Osborne, 2019). As the findings of the
category “approaches based on scope” have already shown,
no studies could be identified that explicitly focus on the
post project/program phase (“ex-post”), highlighting the
persistent lack of focus on researching long-term effects and
aspects of sustainability. Again, these omissions provide a
worrying status quo as it has long been argued that
conducting more ex-post evaluations on completed projects
is crucial to assess processes (e.g., the influence of project
planning, management, and follow-up on sustainability),
sustainability (i.e., the fate of projects after funding), and
overall SFD impact (i.e., intended and unintended effects,
identify factors of success and failure).
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
70 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
CONCLUSION
The present scoping study aimed to review and
subsequently advance our understanding of research and
evaluation in SFD. The study was underpinned by the
newly designed ERF which has been introduced to the SFD
space as a conceptual guide that provides an appropriate
lens from which to conduct evaluation research. In SFD
circles, evaluation research has struggled to receive the
explicit attention it deserves and as such, the ERF
framework makes an important conceptual contribution for
the sector and beyond, as it draws attention to evaluation-
relevant aspects, such as the timing of studies (ex-ante, on-
going, ex-post) or the objectives and function of studies.
Against this background, our study uncovered several key
findings and implications. Firstly, by examining SFD
research through the lens of evaluation research, it became
apparent that there is a lack of clarity surrounding research,
evaluation and M&E terminologies resulting in imprecise
study foci and associated debates around research
objectives and researcher roles. In other words, our review
uncovered one critical source of misunderstandings and
misalignment amongst researchers, and a potential obstacle
to stronger interdisciplinary engagement in research.
Secondly, concerning approaches employed in SFD
generally, our review highlights a limited progression of
theoretical advancements in SFD, with researchers from a
wide range of disciplines merely relying on the approaches
and concepts they already know. Purposeful engagement
across disciplines and innovative developments for new
theoretical concepts related to SFD are still underutilized,
despite a number of promising avenues including systems
approaches or sustainability concepts that deserve to be
investigated further. Overall, the limited utilization of
existing concepts and lack of interdisciplinary collaboration
remains a challenge, despite recent efforts to bring together
approaches from various disciplines.
On the basis of the findings –and in order to tackle
identified challenges with an end-goal of shifting towards
more interdisciplinary engagement in SFD –three steps are
suggested as away forward:
(1) Establishing effective communication strategies to
create a shared language: The review reinforced the
criticality of this first step. A clearer differentiation and
communication of the type of research being conducted
(e.g., basic research, evaluation research, research based on
M&E) is necessary to establish mutual understanding. In
this context, it is important to consider evaluation not just as
a component of M&E, but also as a segment of applied
social research that utilizes a broad range of social science
theories, concepts and methods. One initial measure would
be to create a cross-disciplinary SFD glossary that
integrates evaluation and research elements. Another option
could be for researchers to provide a clear description
within studies of how the research –specifically studies
with quantitative or mixed-methods designs –was
undertaken and how this may have impacted the study,
including categorizing the role of the researcher in relation
to the study (‘reflexivity’).
(2) Examining neighboring fields to unify approaches and
reconcile methods: By reviewing and summarizing
approaches from different disciplines in the form of
handbooks and brainstorming articles, researchers have
started to examine the different disciplines connected to
SFD. A critical next step would be to deepen the
engagement with other fields of study and to identify
further crucial theoretical elements for SFD, focusing on so
far neglected but important theoretical models and
approaches (e.g., concepts focusing on quality, impacts,
sustainability and systems from development studies and
evaluation research). However, instead of just imposing
familiar theories stemming from their own disciplines,
researchers should also engage in exploring some of the
previously proposed SFD theories and concepts in order to
assess their feasibility and applicability in different
contexts. Such a sport-focused approach would allow for
much needed critical engagement with SFD
conceptualizations as well as opportunities for theoretical
and methodological advancement ‘from within’ the
discipline (see also Chalip, 2006; Welty Peachey et al.,
2021). Taken together –and acknowledging the inherent
complexity involved in combining or reconciling fields for
interdisciplinary research –we argue the recommendation
of ‘spreading out’ to other theoretical fields does not have
to come at the expense of ‘diving deeper’ into existing SFD
conceptualizations.
(3) Identifying shared perspectives and interests on
problems: SFD scholars have already identified key
development areas that are critical for future engagement
and collaboration between organizations and researchers,
such as social inequality, environmental issues,
safeguarding, refugees and social entrepreneurship
(Giulianotti et al., 2019). There is also a shared interest in
different impact mechanisms and processes of SFD - i.e.,
explanations for why certain impacts and developments
occur when using SFD (Whitley et al., 2022). These
subjects form an opportune foundation for collaboration, as
already realized by various scholarly initiatives, including
webinars organized by the authors of “Moving beyond
disciplinary silos: the potential for transdisciplinary
research in Sport for Development”, led by Meredith
Whitley in October 2022. As a consequence of this
exchange amongst SFD researchers with diverse
disciplinary backgrounds from across the globe, working
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
71 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
groups were established to explore different SFD-relevant
subjects, including ‘livelihoods', 'policy', 'system thinking
and collective impact', and 'education, youth development
and life skills'. With a first step towards shared perspectives
now realized, it will be intriguing to observe if and how
interdisciplinary contributions to SFD research will emerge
from these working groups in the future.
Embarking on this suggested three-step approach
necessitates resources and a shared commitment.
Familiarizing oneself with the theoretical concepts of other
fields, engaging in dialogues and debates, and gaining a
comprehensive understanding require both willingness and
availability. Regrettably, university structures often fall
short in providing said resources, particularly to early-
career scholars who often struggle with limited time and
financial capabilities (Welty Peachey & Cohen, 2015). We
conclude that evaluating SFD programs is complex for a
multitude of inter-related reasons, including their
multifaceted nature; their transdisciplinary approaches; and
the diverse range of goals they aim to achieve. Addressing
these challenges requires a collaborative approach that
involves active engagement from researchers, practitioners,
and the wider SFD community.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of
interest.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for this
article and/or publication of this article.
REFERENCES
Alkin, M., & Christie, C. (2009). An Evaluation Theory
Tree. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing
theorists' views and influences (pp. 13–65). Sage
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412984157.n2
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies:
Towards a methodological framework. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Barisch-Fritz, B., & Volk, C. (2016). Übersicht zum Thema
Interdisziplinarität und Sportwissenschaft. Ze-Phir,23(2),
4–7. https://www.sportwissenschaft.de/fileadmin/pdf/Ze-
phir-Ausgaben/23_2_Interdisziplinaritaet.pdf
Bauer, K. (2022). Zwischen Verwissenschaftlichung und
Anwendungsorientierung: EvaluationsForschung im
Kontext von Sport für Entwicklung [Dissertation]. Deutsche
Sporthochschule Köln.
Binnendijk, A. (2000). Results Based Management in the
Development Co-operation Agencies: A Review of
Experiences: Background Report. Paris. OECD, DAC
Working Party on Aid Evaluation.
https://www.mfcr.cz/assets/cs/media/ODA_Pr-
028_2000_Rizeni-podle-vysledku-v-agenturach-rozvojove-
spoluprace-Prehled-praxe-Shrnuti.pdf
*Burnett, C. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On
Sport for Development and Peace. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport,50(4-5), 385–390.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690214539695
*Burnett, C., & Hollander, W. J. (2007). The Sport-in-
Development Impact Assessment Tool (S•DIAT). African
Journal for Physical, Health Education, Recreation and
Dance,June,123–135.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a Distinctive Sport Management
Discipline. Journal of Sport Management,20(1), 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.20.1.1
Coakley, J. (1998). Sport in Society: Issues and
Controversies (2nd ed.).McGraw-Hill Education (ISE
Editions).
*Coalter, F. (2013a).Sport for development: What game
are we playing? Routledge.
*Coalter, F. (2013b).‘There is loads of relationships here’:
Developing a programme theory for sport-for-change
programmes. International Review for the Sociology of
Sport,48(5), 594–612.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690212446143
Coalter, F. (2006). Sport‐in‐Development. A Monitoring
and Evaluation Manual.
https://www.sportanddev.org/en/article/publication/sport-
development-monitoring-and-evaluation-manual
*Collison, H., Darnell, S. C., Giulianotti, R., & Howe, P. D.
(2019a). Introduction. In H. Collison, S. C. Darnell, R.
Giulianotti, & P. D. Howe (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Sport for Development and Peace (pp. 1-10). Routledge.
*Collison, H., Darnell, S. C., Giulianotti, R., & Howe, P. D.
(Eds.). (2019b).Routledge Handbook of Sport for
Development and Peace. Routledge.
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
72 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
*Collison, H., & Marchesseault, D. (2018). Finding the
missing voices of Sport for Development and Peace (SDP):
using a ‘Participatory Social Interaction Research’
methodology and anthropological perspectives within
African developing countries. Sport in Society,21(2), 226–
242. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1179732
*Commonwealth Secretariat. (2019). Measuring the
contribution of sport, physical education and physical
activity to the Sustainable Development Goals: Toolkit and
model indicators. Commonwealth Secretariat. London.
https://thecommonwealth.org/sites/default/files/inline/Sport-
SDGs-Indicator-Framework.pdf
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design:
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
(Fifth Edition). Sage.
*Darnell, S. C. (2012). Sport for Development and Peace:
A Critical Sociology. Bloomsbury Academic.
*Darnell, S. C. (2019). SDP and the Environment. In H.
Collison, S. C. Darnell, R. Giulianotti, & P. D. Howe
(Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sport for Development and
Peace (pp. 396–405). Routledge.
*Darnell, S. C., & Black, D. R. (2011). Mainstreaming
Sport into International Development Studies. Third World
Quarterly,32(3), 367–378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.573934
*Darnell, S. C., Chawansky, M., Marchesseault, D.,
Holmes, M., & Hayhurst, L. (2018). The State of Play:
Critical sociological insights into recent ‘Sport for
Development and Peace’ research. International Review for
the Sociology of Sport,53(2), 133–151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690216646762
*Darnell, S. C., Giulianotti, R., David Howe, P., &
Collison, H. (2018). Re-Assembling Sport for Development
and Peace Through Actor Network Theory: Insights from
Kingston, Jamaica. Sociology of Sport Journal,35(2), 89–
97. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2016-0159
*Darnell, S. C., Whitley, M. A., Camiré, M.,
Massey, W. V., Blom, L. C., Chawansky, M., Forde, S., &
Hayden, L. (2019). Systematic Reviews of Sport for
Development Literature: Managerial and Policy
Implications. Journal of Global Sport Management, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2019.1671776
*Darnell, S. C., Whitley, M. A., & Massey, W. V. (2016).
Changing methods and methods of change: reflections on
qualitative research in Sport for Development and Peace.
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health,8(5),
571–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1214618
*Delheye, P., Verkooijen, K., Parnell, D., Hayton, J., &
Haudenhuyse, R. (2020). Sport for Development: Opening
Transdisciplinary and Intersectoral Perspectives. Social
Inclusion,8(3). https://doi.org/10.17645/si.i152
Döring, N., & Bortz, J. (2016). Forschungsmethoden und
Evaluation in den Sozial- und Humanwissenschaften (5.
vollständig überarbeitete, aktualisierte und erweiterte
Auflage). Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer.
Gardam, K., Giles, A., & Hayhurst, L. M. (2017). Sport for
development for Aboriginal youth in Canada: A scoping
review. Journal of Sport for Development,5(8), 30-40.
https://jsfd.org/2017/04/20/sport-for-development-for-
aboriginal-youth-in-canada-a-scoping-review/
*Giulianotti, R., Coalter, F., Collison, H., & Darnell, S. C.
(2019). Rethinking Sportland: A New Research Agenda for
the Sport for Development and Peace Sector. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues,43(6), 411–437.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723519867590
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an
analysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries
Journal,26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
1842.2009.00848.x
Herold, D. M., Breitbarth, T., Schulenkorf, N., & Kummer,
S. (2020). Sport logistics research: Reviewing and line
marking of a new field. The International Journal of
Logistics Management, 31(2), 357-379.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2019-0066
*Hartmann, D., & Kwauk, C. (2011). Sport and
Development. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,35(3),
284–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723511416986
*Hayhurst, L. M., Giles, A. R., & Radforth, W. M. (2015).
‘I want to come here to prove them wrong’: using a post-
colonial feminist participatory action research (PFPAR)
approach to studying sport, gender and development
programmes for urban Indigenous young women. Sport in
Society,18(8), 952–967.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2014.997585
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
73 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
*Hillyer, S. J., Zahorsky, M., & Munroe, Amanda, Moran,
Sarah. (2011). Sport & Peace: Mapping the Field.
Georgetown University, M.A. Programme in Conflict
Resolution.
www.sportanddev.org/sites/default/files/downloads/finalrep
ortsportandpeacemappingthefield.pdf
*Holt, N. L., Neely, K. C., Slater, L. G., Camiré, M.,
Côté, J., Fraser-Thomas, J., MacDonald, D., Strachan, L., &
Tamminen, K. A. (2017). A grounded theory of positive
youth development through sport based on results from a
qualitative meta-study. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology,10(1), 1–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2016.1180704
*Jeanes, R., & Lindsey, I. (2014). Where's the "Evidence"?
Reflecting Monitoring and Evaluation within Sport-for-
Development. In K. Young & C. Okada (Eds.), Research in
the Sociology of Sport: v.8. Sport, Social Development and
Peace (pp. 197–217). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Joachim, G., Schulenkorf, N., Schlenker, K., & Frawley, S.
(2020). Design thinking and sport for development:
Enhancing organizational innovation. Managing Sport and
Leisure, 25(3), 175-202.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2019.1611471
*Jones, G. J., Edwards, M. B., Bocarro, J. N., Bunds, K. S.,
& Smith, J. W. (2017). An integrative review of sport-based
youth development literature. Sport in Society,20(1), 161–
179. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2015.1124569
*Kaufman, Z. A., Rosenbauer, B. P., & Moore, G. (2014).
Lessons learned from Monitoring and Evaluating Sport-for-
Development Programmes in the Caribbean. In N.
Schulenkorf & D. Adair (Eds.), Global Sport-for-
Development: Critical Perspectives (pp. 173–193).
Palgrave Macmillan.
*Kay, T. (2012). Accounting for legacy: monitoring and
evaluation in sport in development relationships. Sport in
Society,15(6), 888–904.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2012.708289
*Kay, T., & Dudfield, O. (2013). The Commonwealth
Guide to Advancing Development through Sport.
Commonwealth Secretariat.
https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848591431-en
Kurz, B., & Kubek, D. (2016). Social Impact Navigator.
The practical guide for organizations targeting better
results. Phineo.
*Langer, L. (2015). Sport for development –a systematic
map of evidence from Africa. South African Review of
Sociology,46(1), 66–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2014.989665
*Levermore, R. (2011). Evaluating sport-for-development.
Progress in Development Studies,11(4), 339–353.
https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100405
*Lindsey, I. (2008). Conceptualising sustainability in sports
development. Leisure Studies,27(3), 279–294.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360802048886
*Lindsey, I. (2017). Governance in sport-for-development:
Problems and possibilities of (not) learning from
international development. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport,52(7), 801–818.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690215623460
*Lindsey, I., & Chapman, T. (2017). Enhancing the
contribution of sport to the Sustainable Development Goals.
Commonwealth Secretariat.
https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848599598-en
*Lindsey, I., & Darby, P. (2019). Sport and the Sustainable
Development Goals: Where is the policy coherence?
International Review for the Sociology of Sport,54(7), 793–
812. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690217752651
*Lindsey, I., & Grattan, A. (2012). An ‘international
movement’? Decentring sport-for-development within
Zambian communities. International Journal of Sport
Policy and Politics,4(1), 91–110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2011.627360
Luguetti, C., Singehebhuye, L., & Spaaij, R. (2022). ‘Stop
mocking, start respecting’:an activist approach meets
African Australian refugee-background young women in
grassroots football. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise
and Health,14(1), 119-136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2021.1879920
*Lyras, A., & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Integrating sport-
for-development theory and praxis. Sport Management
Review,14(4), 311–326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.006
Marjanovic, S., Hanney, S., & Wooding, S. (2009). A
historical reflection on research evaluation studies, their
recurrent themes and challenges. Rand Europe, Technical
Report.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR789.html
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
74 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
*Massey, W. V., & Whitley, M. A. (2019). SDP and
Research Methods. In H. Collison, S. C. Darnell, R.
Giulianotti, & P. D. Howe (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Sport for Development and Peace (pp. 175–184).
Routledge.
Mueller, C.E., Albrecht, M. (2016). The Future of Impact
Evaluation Is Rigorous and Theory-Driven. In: Stockmann,
R., Meyer, W. (Eds.), The Future of Evaluation (pp. 283-
293). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137376374_21
Munn, Z., Peters, M.D.J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C.,
McArthur, Alexa, & Aromataris, A. (2018). Systematic
review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when
choosing between a systematic or scoping review
approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18,143.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Oberndörfer, D., Hanf, T., & Weiland, H. (Eds.). (2010).
Freiburger Beiträge zu Entwicklung und Politik: Vol. 36.
Verfahren der Wirkungsanalyse: Ein Handbuch für die
entwicklungspolitische Praxis. Arnold Bergstraesser
Institut. https://zewo.ch/wp-
content/uploads/2019/07/Verfahren_Wirkungsanalyse-
letzte_Version.pdf
*Preti, D. (2012). Monitoring and Evaluation: Between the
Claims and Reality. In K. Gilbert & W. Bennett (Eds.),
Sport, Peace and Development (pp. 309–317). Common
Ground Publishing. LLC.
Rabie, B. (2014). Evaluation Models, Theories and
Paradigms. In F. Cloete, B. Rabie, & C. de Coning (Eds.),
Evaluation Management in South Africa and Africa (First
edition, pp.116–151). SUN Media.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004).
Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7. ed.). Sage.
*Schulenkorf, N. (2012). Sustainable community
development through sport and events: A conceptual
framework for Sport-for-Development projects. Sport
Management Review,15(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.06.001
*Schulenkorf, N. (2017). Managing sport-for-development:
Reflections and outlook. Sport Management Review,20(3),
243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.11.003
*Schulenkorf, N., Edwards, D., & Hergesell, A. (2020).
Guiding qualitative inquiry in sport-for-development: The
sport in development settings (SPIDS) research framework.
Journal of Sport for Development,8(14), 53–69.
https://jsfd.org/2020/05/01/guiding-qualitative-inquiry-in-
sport-for-development-the-sport-in-development-settings-
spids-research-framework/
*Schulenkorf, N., Sherry, E., & Rowe, K. (2016). Sport for
Development: An Integrated Literature Review. Journal of
Sport Management,30(1), 22–39.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0263
*Schulenkorf, N., & Siefken, K. (2019). Managing sport-
for-development and healthy lifestyles: The sport-for-health
model. Sport Management Review,22(1), 96–107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.09.003
Scriven, M. (2008). Evaluation Thesaurus (4. Aufl.). Sage
Publications.
*Sherry, E., & Osborne, A. (2019). SDP and Homelessness.
In H. Collison, S. C. Darnell, R. Giulianotti, & P. D. Howe
(Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sport for Development and
Peace (pp. 374–384). Routledge.
*Sherry, E., Schulenkorf, N., Seal, E., Nicholson, M., &
Hoye, R. (2017). Sport-for-development: Inclusive,
reflexive, and meaningful research in low- and middle-
income settings. Sport Management Review,20(1), 69–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.10.010
*Siefken, K. (2022). Calling out for Change Makers to
Move Beyond Disciplinary Perspectives. Journal of
Physical Activity & Health,19(8), 529–530.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2022-0361
*Siefken, K., Varela-Ramirez, A., Waqanivalu, T., &
Schulenkorf, N. (Eds.). (2022). Routledge Research in
Physical Activity and Health.Physical Activity in Low-and
Middle-Income Countries. Routledge.
*Spaaij, R., Schulenkorf, N., Jeanes, R., & Oxford, S.
(2018). Participatory research in sport-for-development:
Complexities, experiences and (missed) opportunities. Sport
Management Review,21(1), 25–37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.05.003
www.jsfd.org
Journal of Sport for Development
75 Bauer et al.
Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2024
Stockmann, R. (2006). Evaluation und
Qualitätsentwicklung: Eine Grundlage für
wirkungsorientiertes Qualitätsmanagement.
Sozialwissenschaftliche Evaluationsforschung: Vol. 5.
Waxmann.
Stockmann, R. (Ed.) (2007). Handbuch zur Evaluation: Eine
praktische Handlungsanleitung: Vol. 6. Waxmann.
Stockmann, R., & Meyer, W. (2017). Evaluation in
Deutschland: Woher sie kommt, wo sie steht, wohin sie
geht. Zeitschrift Für Evaluation (ZfEv),16(2), 57–110.
*Sugden, J. (2014). The Ripple Effect: Critical Pragmatism,
Conflict Resolution and Peace Building through Sport in
Deeply Divided Societies. In N. Schulenkorf & D. Adair
(Eds.), Global Sport-for-Development: Critical
Perspectives (pp. 79–98). Palgrave Macmillan.
*Svensson, P. G., & Woods, H. (2017). A systematic
overview of sport for development and peace organizations.
Journal of Sport for Development,5(9), 36–48.
https://jsfd.org/2017/09/20/a-systematic-overview-of-sport-
for-development-and-peace-organisations/
Vedung, E. (2000). Evaluation Research and Fundamental
Research. In R. Stockmann (Ed.), Evaluationsforschung:
Grundlagen und ausgewählte Forschungsfelder (pp. 103–
126). Leske + Budrich.
*Welty Peachey, J., & Cohen, A. (2015). Reflections from
scholars on barriers and strategies in sport-for-development
research. Journal of Sport for Development,3(4), 16–27.
https://jsfd.org/2015/09/01/reflections-from-scholars-on-
barriers-and-strategies-in-sport-for-development-research/
*Welty Peachey, J., Schulenkorf, N., & Hill, P. (2021).
Sport-for-development: A comprehensive analysis of
theoretical and conceptual advancements. Sport
Management Review,5(23), 783-796.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.11.002
*Whitley, M. A., Collison, H., Wright, P. M.,
Darnell, S. C., Schulenkorf, N., Knee, E., Holt, N. L., &
Richards, J. (2022). Moving beyond disciplinary silos: the
potential for transdisciplinary research in Sport for
Development. Journal of Sport for Development,10(2), 1–
22. https://jsfd.org/2022/06/01/moving-beyond-
disciplinary-silos-the-potential-for-transdisciplinary-
research-in-sport-for-development/
*Whitley, M. A., Massey, W. V., Camiré, M., Blom, L. C.,
Chawansky, M., Forde, S., Boutet, M., Borbee, A., &
Darnell, S. C. (2019a). A systematic review of sport for
development interventions across six global cities. Sport
Management Review, 22(2), 181-193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.06.013
*Whitley, M. A., Farrell, K., Wolff, E. A., & Hillyer, S. J.
(2019b). Sport for development and peace: Surveying
actors in the field. Journal of Sport for Development,7(12),
1–15. https://jsfd.org/2019/02/01/sport-for-development-
and-peace-surveying-actors-in-the-field/
*Whitley, M. A., Fraser, A., Dudfield, O., Yarrow, P., &
van der Merwe, N. (2020). Insights on the funding
landscape for monitoring, evaluation and research in sport
for development. Journal of Sport for Development,8(14),
21-35. https://jsfd.org/2020/03/01/insights-on-the-funding-
landscape-for-monitoring-evaluation-and-research-in-sport-
for-development/
*Zanotti, L., & Stephenson, M. (2019). SDP and Social
Theory. In H. Collison, S. C. Darnell, R. Giulianotti, & P.
D. Howe (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Sport for
Development and Peace (pp. 165–174). Routledge.
