Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

26-12-2023 | Leading Article

On a Corresponsive Sport Science

Authors: Carl T. Woods, Duarte Araújo, Keith Davids

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 5/2024

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
1
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 [25].
 
2
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?
 
3
See [9] for an interesting critique on such a ‘productive’ account of what it means ‘to do’ sport science.
 
4
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].
 
5
For overviews to the limitations of instigating change through research in the sport and exercise sciences, see [12, 13].
 
6
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!
 
7
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.
 
8
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.
 
9
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.
 
10
While we use the term “humans” abstractly here, we do appreciate that such “human” betterment is not a betterment for all humans.
 
11
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.
 
12
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.
 
13
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.
 
14
See [14, 26] for an overview as to this directionality. Moreover, such a directional shift in ontology aligns with the Wittgensteinian attitude of horizontality [36].
 
15
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]).
 
16
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.
 
17
For a detailed insight, see [14].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Menzies H. Reclaiming the commons for the common good. New York: New Society Publishers; 2014. Menzies H. Reclaiming the commons for the common good. New York: New Society Publishers; 2014.
2.
go back to reference Murris K. Karen Barad as educator: agential realism and education. Berlin: Springer; 2022.CrossRef Murris K. Karen Barad as educator: agential realism and education. Berlin: Springer; 2022.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Barad K. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.CrossRef Barad K. Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press; 2007.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Shapiro J, McNeish JA. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021.CrossRef Shapiro J, McNeish JA. Our extractive age: expressions of violence and resistance. London: Routledge; 2021.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference 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. 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.
8.
go back to reference Reed E. The necessity of experience. Yale: Yale University Press; 1996. Reed E. The necessity of experience. Yale: Yale University Press; 1996.
11.
go back to reference Ingold T. Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge; 2011.CrossRef Ingold T. Being alive: essays on movement, knowledge and description. London: Routledge; 2011.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference 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. 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.
22.
go back to reference Kuokkanen R. Reshaping the university: responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2008.CrossRef Kuokkanen R. Reshaping the university: responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: University of British Columbia; 2008.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ingold T. Anthropology and/as education. London: Routledge; 2018. Ingold T. Anthropology and/as education. London: Routledge; 2018.
24.
go back to reference Ingold T. Imagining for real: essays on creation, attention and correspondence. London: Routledge; 2022. Ingold T. Imagining for real: essays on creation, attention and correspondence. London: Routledge; 2022.
26.
go back to reference Ingold T. Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge; 2013.CrossRef Ingold T. Making: anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. London: Routledge; 2013.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The “Anthropocene.” Glob Newsl. 2000;41:17–9. Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. The “Anthropocene.” Glob Newsl. 2000;41:17–9.
28.
go back to reference van Dooren T. Flight ways: life and loss at the edge of extinction. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014.CrossRef van Dooren T. Flight ways: life and loss at the edge of extinction. New York: Columbia University Press; 2014.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference 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. 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.
30.
go back to reference Araújo D, Couceiro MS, Seifert L, Sarmento H, Davids K. Artificial intelligence in sport performance analysis. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2021.CrossRef Araújo D, Couceiro MS, Seifert L, Sarmento H, Davids K. Artificial intelligence in sport performance analysis. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2021.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Brunswik E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1956.CrossRef Brunswik E. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1956.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Ingold T. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge; 2000. Ingold T. The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge; 2000.
43.
go back to reference Ross A, Sherman KP, Snodgrass JG. Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2011. Ross A, Sherman KP, Snodgrass JG. Indigenous peoples and the collaborative stewardship of nature. New York: Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2011.
44.
go back to reference Reed E. Encountering the world: toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996. Reed E. Encountering the world: toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1996.
45.
go back to reference Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Mifflin and Company; 1979. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Mifflin and Company; 1979.
48.
go back to reference Vaughan G. For-giving: a feminist criticism of exchange. Austin: Plain View Press; 1997. Vaughan G. For-giving: a feminist criticism of exchange. Austin: Plain View Press; 1997.
49.
go back to reference Biesta G. Beyond learning: democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers; 2006. Biesta G. Beyond learning: democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers; 2006.
50.
go back to reference Cage J. Silence: letters and writings, 50th anniversary. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press; 2011. Cage J. Silence: letters and writings, 50th anniversary. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press; 2011.
51.
go back to reference Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin the Chthulecene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.CrossRef Haraway D. Staying with the trouble: making kin the Chthulecene. Durham: Duke University Press; 2016.CrossRef
52.
go back to reference Strum S. Almost human. New York: Random House; 1987. Strum S. Almost human. New York: Random House; 1987.
53.
go back to reference Tsing A. The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2015.CrossRef Tsing A. The mushroom at the end of the world: on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2015.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Deleuze G, Guattari F. A thousand plateaus. London: Bloomsbury; 2013. Deleuze G, Guattari F. A thousand plateaus. London: Bloomsbury; 2013.
58.
go back to reference Dewey J. Art as experience. Perigee; 1934/2005. Dewey J. Art as experience. Perigee; 1934/2005.
59.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
On a Corresponsive Sport Science
Authors
Carl T. Woods
Duarte Araújo
Keith Davids
Publication date
26-12-2023
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Sports Medicine / Issue 5/2024
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-023-01981-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2024

Sports Medicine 5/2024 Go to the issue