Abstract
In our societally extractive age, sport science risks being swept up in the intensifying desire to commodify the experiences of those that scientists proclaim to study. Coupled with the techno-digital revolution, this stems from a vertical (onto)logic that frames the sporting landscape as a static space filled with discrete objects waiting for us to capture, analyse, re-present and sell on as knowledge. Not only does this commodification degrade primary experience in the false hope of epistemological objectivity, it reinforces the unidirectionality of extractivism by setting inquirer apart from, and above of, inquiry. Here, we advocate for a different, more sentient logic grounded in the relationality of gifting as understood in indigenous philosophies. This foregrounds an ecological orientation to scholarship that sets out neither to objectify or describe that which is of concern, but to correspond with its becoming. On this, there are three threads we cast forward. First, in a corresponsive sport science, inhabitants are not objects of analysis, but lines in-becoming, who in answering to others, form knots in a meshwork. These knots constitute communal places in which inhabitants have joined with the differentiating coming-into-being of others. Second, knowledge is not authoritatively (re)cognitive, but humbly ecological; not produced vertically through imposition, but grown longitudinally in responsively moving from place to place. Third, research does not follow a vertically extractive (onto)logic, but is a practice of participant observation. This perspective appreciates that we, sport scientists, are also lines in-becoming that form parts of the knots in which we seek to know. In coda, our thesis is not a call for more qualitative or applied research in the sport sciences. It is a call to response-ably open up to that which sparks our curiosity, answering to what is shared with care, sensitivity and sincerity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The grammatical use of singular pronouns “I” and (forthcoming) “me” do not denotate a separation from the world. Rather, “I/me” constitute a posthuman self, in which “I/me” am always unfolding with-in a field of relations [2 (p. 15)]. The use of such pronouns are grammatical conventions of communicating in the first person. In a similar vein, the forthcoming collective pronouns “we”, “us” and “our” do not refer to a conformed view of humankind; a homogenised universal. They appreciate a profoundly diverse and uneven multiplicity of human (and nonhuman) becomings in the sport sciences and beyond [2,3,4,5].
Gifts would often take on varying temporalities and materialities, and were not anthropocentric. This logic was better reflective of a world view that called for our responsibility to the land in which the communal garden resided. This perspective stemmed from the cascading question: what gave its life for ‘our’ garden to grow?
See [9] for an interesting critique on such a ‘productive’ account of what it means ‘to do’ sport science.
Like denoted on the garden’s welcoming sign, the grammatical use of “all” includes human and nonhuman beings. For recent post-humanist theorising in the sport sciences, see [10].
The grammatical use of “our” here should not be construed to denote an exclusive ownership, as if “our” research is locked away from the goings on of the world. Rather, “our” appreciates the many correspondences that continue to shape the coming-into-being of “our” ideas, from scholars in disparate fields and coaches of many different sports, to farmers in North Queensland, hiking trails along Southern coastal regions and coffees with friends. Unashamedly, “our” ideas are response-ably leaky!
The grammatical use of “(onto)logic” is intended to denote a logic of imposition, germane to extractivism. That is, a ‘logic’ to impose ‘onto’ a performance environment that we seek to know about.
While we welcome the dissemination of scientific findings, the rise of ‘pop-science’ in the sport sciences and beyond exemplifies such extraction and production. Such work oft-focuses on re-packaging ‘simple’ messages that are sold onto mainstream readerships without careful consideration of the nuance entangled in the original ideas.
As mentioned in Footnote 2, gifts can take on many different materialities and temporalities. While we explore this later, we have chosen not to elaborate on what gifts may ‘be’, given it is more reflective of a worldview, not a material exchange per se.
While we use the term “humans” abstractly here, we do appreciate that such “human” betterment is not a betterment for all humans.
As Haraway [37] notes, ‘the god trick’ is performed by the dislocated scientist who sees “everything from nowhere”. This presumed (objective) position of authority is what leads observations to be turned into resources for appropriation.
Like Haraway [37] suggests, this manifests in the insistence that one form of knowledge reigns supreme. In this instance, we suggest that ‘the scientists’ knowledge is prioritised over others; a view which risks flattening the world, reducing it of its infinitely rich variegations. What we propose here, is that scientists voice is just one in an unfolding ensemble—not ‘the’ one.
While situated verbally between people, questioning need not be de-limited to such. One can, for example, pose a question to a plant by manipulating various features of the environment. By carefully observing how the plant responds to such a ‘question’, one can adjust their response accordingly. Questions, thus, are akin to ‘probes’ or ‘experiments’ that help us come to know the world a little better.
This metaphor for thought is enlightening, even though it was not aware that such artificial, linear and bounded logic does not exist in trees’ functioning, nor even in nature (see, [57]).
As an aside, this leads us to an interesting question: what would a communal sport science—a sport science for the common good in a community of those with nothing in common—entail? While we have foregrounded a direction of travel in response to this question through our meanderings here, we will leave its traversal for future works.
For a detailed insight, see [14].
References
Menzies H. Reclaiming the commons for the common good. New York: New Society Publishers; 2014.
Murris K. Karen Barad as educator: agential realism and education. Berlin: Springer; 2022.
Barad K. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.
Juelskjær M, Plauborg H, Adrian S. Intra-active entanglements: an interview with Karen Barad. Kvinder KØn Forskning. 2021;2:10–23. https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v0i1-2.28068.
Woods CT, Davids K. Sport scientists in-becoming: from fulfilling one’s potential to finding our way along. Sport Educ Soc. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2163231.
Shapiro J, McNeish JA. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021.
Le Billon P, Middeldorp N. Empowerment or imposition? Extractive violence, indigenous peoples, and the paradox of prior consultation. In: Shapiro J, McNeish JA, editors. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 71–93.
Reed E. The necessity of experience. Yale: Yale University Press; 1996.
Hornsby WG, Gleason BH, DeLong M, Stone MH. “Are you doing any sport science?” A brief editorial. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2022;7:69–77. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk7030069.
Davies M, Stone JA, O’Sullivan M, Williams J, Davids K. Can’t jump, won’t jump: affordances of the horse-rider dyad underpin skill adaptation in showjumping using a constraints-led approach. Int J Sports Sci Coach. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/179541221107379.
Ingold T. Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge; 2011.
Fullagar HK, McCall A, Impellizzeri F, Favero T, Coutts AJ. The translation of sport science research to the field: a current opinion and overview on the perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches. Sports Med. 2019;49:1817–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01139-0.
Camiré M. Proposing an ontological shift from intervention to intravention in sport and exercise psychology. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102342.
Woods CT, Araújo D, Davids K. Joining with the conversation: research as a sustainable practice in the sport sciences. Sports Med Open. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00493-0.
Despret V. Responding bodies and partial affinities in human-animal worlds. Theory Cult Soc. 2013;30:51–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413496852.
Henry E. Toward a “feeling for the organism.” NWSA J. 1997;9:156–62. https://doi.org/10.2979/NWS.1997.9.3.156.
Ingold T. On human correspondence. J R Anthropol Inst. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12541.
Chagnon CW, Hagolani-Albov SE, Hokkanen S. Extractivism at your fingertips. In: Shapiro J, McNeish JA, editors. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 176–88.
Bishop D. An applied research model for the sport sciences. Sports Med. 2008;38:253–63. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200838030-00005.
Woods CT, Davids K. Thinking through making and doing: sport science as an art of inquiry. Sport Educ Soc. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2054792.
Kuokkanen R. The gift logic of indigenous philosophies in the academy. In: Vaughan G, editor. Women and the gift economy: a radically different worldview is possible. Toronto: Inanna Publications; 2007. p. 72–84.
Kuokkanen R. Reshaping the university: responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2008.
Ingold T. Anthropology and/as education. London: Routledge; 2018.
Ingold T. Imagining for real: essays on creation, attention and correspondence. London: Routledge; 2022.
Ingold T. Lines: a brief history. London: Routledge; 2007.
Ingold T. Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge; 2013.
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The “Anthropocene.” Glob Newsl. 2000;41:17–9.
van Dooren T. Flight ways: life and loss at the edge of extinction. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014.
Durante F, Kröger M, LaFleur W. Extraction and extractivisms: definitions and concepts. In: Shapiro J, McNeish JA, editors. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021. p. 19–30.
Araújo D, Couceiro MS, Seifert L, Sarmento H, Davids K. Artificial intelligence in sport performance analysis. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2021.
Woods CT, Araújo D, Davids K, Rudd J. From a technology that replaces human perception-action to one that expands it: some critiques of current technology use in sport. Sports Med Open. 2021;7:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00366-y.
Williams S, Manley A. Elite coaching and the technocratic engineer: thanking the boys at Microsoft! Sport Educ Soc. 2016;21:828–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.958816.
Woods CT. Toward Ithaka: hiking along paths of knowing of/in an ecologically dynamic world. Sport Educ Soc. 2021. Rolling Special Issue: environmental attunement in health, sport and physical education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1994939.
Brooks RA. Intelligence without representation. Artif Intell. 1991;47:139–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90053-M.
Morris C, Davids K, Woods CT. On the wisdom of not-knowing: reflections of an Olympic canoe slalom coach. Sport Educ Soc. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2140135.
van Dijk L, Withagen R. The horizontal worldview: a Wittgensteinian attitude towards scientific psychology. Theory Psychol. 2014;24:3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/095935431351715.
Haraway D. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem Stud. 1988;14:575–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
Araújo D, Hristovski R, Seifert L, Carvalho J, Davids K. Ecological cognition: expert decision-making behaviour in sport. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2019;12:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1349826.
Araújo D, Davids K. Towards a theoretically-driven model of correspondence between behaviours in one context to another: implications for studying sport performance. Int J Sport Psychol. 2015;46:745–57. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2015.46.745.
Brunswik E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1956.
Holdrege C. Doing Goethean science. Janus Head. 2005;8:27–52. https://doi.org/10.5840/jh20058132.
Ingold T. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge; 2000.
Ross A, Sherman KP, Snodgrass JG. Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2011.
Reed E. Encountering the world: toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Mifflin and Company; 1979.
Turvey MT, Kugler PN. A comment on equating information with symbol strings. Am J Physiol. 1984;246:R925–7. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.1984.246.6.R925.
Wahl DC. “Zarte Empirie”: Goethean science as a way of knowing. Janus Head. 2005;8:58–76. https://doi.org/10.5840/jh20058134.
Vaughan G. For-giving: a feminist criticism of exchange. Austin: Plain View Press; 1997.
Biesta G. Beyond learning: democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers; 2006.
Cage J. Silence: letters and writings, 50th anniversary. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press; 2011.
Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin the Chthulecene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.
Strum S. Almost human. New York: Random House; 1987.
Tsing A. The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2015.
Aporta C. Routes, trails and tracks: trail breaking among the Inuit of Igloolik. Études Inuit Stud. 2004;28:9–38. https://doi.org/10.7202/013194AR.
Ingold T. The life of lines. London: Routledge; 2015.
Deleuze G, Guattari F. A thousand plateaus. London: Bloomsbury; 2013.
Simard SW, Perry DA, Jones MD, Myrold DD, Durall DM, Molina R. Net transfer of carbon between tree species with shared ectomycorrhizal fungi. Nature. 1997;388:579–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/41557.
Dewey J. Art as experience. Perigee; 1934/2005.
Rubin D. Go for the skill. In: Neisser U, Winograd E, editors. Remembering reconsidered: ecological and traditional approaches to the study of memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988. p. 374–82.
Dall Jensen R, Brydges R, Grierson L. Re-examining the integration of routine and adaptive expertise: there is no such thing as routine from a motor control perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2022;27:1283–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-022-10163-1.
Masschelein J. Educating the gaze: the idea of a poor pedagogy. Ethics Educ. 2010;5:43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449641003590621.
Wood CT, Davids K. “You look at an ocean; I see the rips, hear the waves, and feel the currents”: dwelling and the growth of enskiled inhabitant knowledge. Ecol Psychol. 2021;33:279–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2021.1965481.
Ingold T. Postscript: an anthropologist lands in phenomenology. In: Vaujany F, Aroles J, Pérezts M, editors. The Oxford handbook of phenomenologies and organization studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2023. p. 719-C37.
Acknowledgements
As mentioned in Footnote 6, the ideas presented here are response-ably leaky. We would like to thank our friends and colleagues for the ongoing correspondences that grew into the knot that is this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No funding was sought nor received for the writing or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
Carl T. Woods, Duarte Araújo and Keith Davids have no conflicts of interest associated with the publication and dissemination of this article.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Availability of data and material
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
CW conceptualised the idea, while DA and KD offered a detailed critique throughout the conceptualisation process. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing and drafting.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Woods, C.T., Araújo, D. & Davids, K. On a Corresponsive Sport Science. Sports Med 54, 1071–1084 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01981-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01981-3