Kyle A. Rich
Claire Jenkin
Patti Millar
Katie Sveinson
Emma Sherry- 1Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
- 2Institute of Sport, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, United Kingdom
- 3Department of Kinesiology, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada
- 4McCormack Department of Sport Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, United States
- 5Department of Management and Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
Editorial on the Research Topic
Sport and community
The sport-community relationship is a tenuous, yet somewhat ubiquitous idea. Sport is often described in academic, policy, and public discourse as an avenue for developing pride (1), civic engagement (2), tourism and economic development (3, 4), social inclusion (5), social capital (6, 7), and a host of other social outcomes. However, these claims are often either tentative, speculative, decontextualized, or poorly understood. Indeed, the advent of sport as a cultural signifier may be a symptom of ever-increasing rhetoric of individualism and market-oriented thinking of neoliberal ideologies and globalization (8)—processes which have undeniably changed public perceptions of sport's relationship with community.
The task of linking sport with any sort of common good is not a simple one. As sport is developed, accessed, and consumed through public, commercial, and civil society organizations, its relationship to community is shaped by varying policies and politics which are developed and enacted differently (9). Sport is therefore understood and enacted within distinct cultural contexts. Further, as sport is also practiced in varying ways (from leisurely, informal engagement to extremely structured and regulated elite competitions), how we define sport in communities, and work to support or develop participation opportunities has also been problematized (10). Therefore, mapping the sport-community relationship is a complex and difficult, conceptual endeavor.
The purpose of this Research Topic was to provide an interdisciplinary and holistic exploration of the sport-community relationship through empirical, theoretical, and methodological contributions. In doing so, we hoped to highlight the various social, cultural, political, and managerial implications of community in and for sport. We aimed to advance the discussion in several ways. Firstly, by engaging perspectives from diverse disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, political science, leisure studies, and sport management, we sought out diverse theoretical and methodological approaches to understanding community and its relationship to and with sport. Secondly, by inviting contributions from a range of international contexts, we aimed to provide rich discussions about different sport(s) and community(ies). Thirdly, we encouraged both studies that illustrate the sport-community connection, as well as those that critique assumptions about this relationship. Cumulatively, through this approach, we aimed to provide a critical, contextual, and rich exploration of the sport-community relationship in order to stimulate future discussions across disciplines.
As the editorial team, we were thrilled with the contributions submitted to this special topic. In total, eight research teams participated. These contributions included conceptual work examining how community has been invoked and theorized (Rich et al.) as well as practical applications of methods for understanding community contexts in sport for development and peace projects (Gadais et al.). Contributions problematized participation contexts and challenged readers to consider how leisurely engagement such as neighborhood walking (Glover et al.) and recreation programs offered through University-based partnerships (Ali et al.) have implications for our understandings of community. Contributors also examined diverse contexts by interrogating the ideological underpinnings of national sport policies in Sweden (Bjärsholm and Norberg) and the features (i.e., scope and location) of private community sport organizations in London, Ontario, Canada (Doherty et al.). Publications in this collection also challenge us to think critically about the structures that frame our understandings of community. For example, authors examined mentorship for Black women coaches in community sport (Joseph and McKenzie) as well as youth development initiatives in Latino-based community sport (Robledo et al.).
Through these contributions, much of what we sought out to do was achieved. Contributors have engaged a range of theoretical perspectives from critical sociology, political economy, management, and leisure studies. Our collection is interdisciplinary and boundary-spanning in many ways. Authors also provided rich and critical analyses of the sport-community relationship. This is evident through the variety of conceptual framings (from social ecological systems and positive youth development to racial inequality) as well as the diversity of methodological approaches involved (from GIS mapping to participatory research methods). In this way, contributors have confirmed some established ways of examining sport and community, but also challenged some assumptions and conceptual applications of previous work. This collection illustrates the value of interdisciplinary work in navigating complex and messy conceptual domains.
One area where this collection does come up short is the representation and diversity of research contexts and authorship. The majority of our contributors are situated in North American Institutions, with some European and Australian representation. This aligns with previous review work that identified a similar trends in other fields of sport scholarship (11–13). This collection therefore, does represent a more narrow perspective than we initially hoped, and should be considered as such. Future work should address this limitation and continue to contribute to diverse theorizations of community and how sport is framed by political, social, and cultural contexts.
We hope that the collection of articles offered here lays the conceptual and methodological foundation for a critical and interdisciplinary body of literature that continues to challenge the ways we think about sport, community, and the possibility of a common good.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Meier HE, and Mutz M. Political regimes and sport-related national pride: a cross-national analysis. Int J Sport Policy Politics. (2018) 10:525–48. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1447498
2. Jarvie G. Communitarianism, sport and social capital: neighbourly insights into Scottish sport'. Int Rev Sociol Sport. (2003) 38:139–53. doi: 10.1177/1012690203038002001
3. Davies LE. Sport in the city: measuring economic significance at the local level. Euro Sport Manage Q. (2002) 2:83–112. doi: 10.1080/16184740208721915
4. Preuss H. The economic impact of visitors at major multi-sport events. Euro Sport Manage Q. (2005) 5:281–301. doi: 10.1080/16184740500190710
5. Schaillée H, Haudenhuyse R, and Bradt L. Community sport and social inclusion: international perspectives. Sport Soc. (2019) 22:885–96. doi: 10.1080/17430437.2019.1565380
6. Zhou R, and Kaplanidou K. Building social capital from sport event participation: an exploration of the social impacts of participatory sport events on the community. Sport Manage Rev. (2018) 21:491–503. doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.11.001
8. Silk ML, and Andrews DL. Sport and Neoliberalism: Politics, Consumption, and Culture. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press (2012).
9. Dowling M, Brown P, Legg D, and Grix J. Deconstructing comparative sport policy analysis: assumptions, challenges, and new directions. Int J Sport Policy Politics. (2018) 10:687–704. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1530276
10. Jeanes R, Spaaij R, Penney D, and O'Connor J. Managing informal sport participation: tensions and opportunities. Int J Sport Policy Politics. (2019) 11:79–95. doi: 10.1080/19406940.2018.1479285
11. Schulenkorf N, Sherry E, and Rowe K. Sport for development: an integrated literature review. J Sport Manage. (2016) 30:22–39. doi: 10.1123/jsm.2014-0263
12. Misener L, Rich K, and Pearson E. Tensions and opportunities in researching social change in sport management. Sport Manage Rev. (2022) 25:323–40. doi: 10.1080/14413523.2021.1902123
Keywords: sport, community, common good, theory, context, culture, interdisciplinary
Citation: Rich KA, Jenkin C, Millar P, Sveinson K and Sherry E (2022) Editorial: Sport and community. Front. Sports Act. Living 4:1057368. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.1057368
Received: 29 September 2022; Accepted: 03 October 2022;
Published: 13 October 2022.
Edited and reviewed by: Gayle McPherson, University of the West of Scotland, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Rich, Jenkin, Millar, Sveinson and Sherry. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kyle A. Rich, a3JpY2gmI3gwMDA0MDticm9ja3UuY2E=