550510

research-article2014
IRS0010.1177/1012690214550510International Review for the Sociology of SportDonnelly

ISSA and IRSS 50th Anniversary Article

International Review for the

Assessing the sociology Sociology of Sport

2015, Vol. 50(4-5) 419­–423
© The Author(s) 2014
of sport: On public sociology Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
of sport and research that DOI: 10.1177/1012690214550510
irs.sagepub.com
makes a difference

Peter Donnelly
University of Toronto, Canada

Abstract
On the 50th anniversary of the ISSA and IRSS, one of the most influential scholars linking the
sociology of sport to policy and social change, Peter Donnelly, considers the prospects for
a nexus meshing public intellectualism with the doing of research. Noted in considering the
trajectory of the field was an early absence of the sociologist as partisan and the staking of
positions that make clear “whose side we are on.” While the critical turn in the sociology of
sport has grounded its calling more clearly, challenges remain for the field to be taken seriously,
and a key to advancing this is to quicken the pace for sociological knowledge about sport to
“filter down” to public knowledge and play a role in influencing policy changes that can help
make sport a more equitable and humane place. In considering the future of the field, Donnelly
notes the inherently practical value underlying sociological knowledge and calls for sociologists
of sport to engage Piketty’s call for public engagement in a way that can make a difference in
how people experience sport.

Keywords
assessing the field, future research, making a difference, public sociology, relevant and engaged
sociology

Over the last 50 years “sociology of sport” has become as diverse – in national and
regional terms, and in terms of theoretical, methodological and topical approaches – as
sociology itself. This essay focuses on North America, on what is now termed “public
sociology,” and on sociological work that “makes a difference.”

Corresponding author:
Peter Donnelly, University of Toronto, 55 Harbord Street, Toronto, ON L7N 3M1, Canada.
Email: peter.donnelly@utoronto.ca
420 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50(4-5)

Reflections on the trajectory of the sociology of sport

As in other countries, the sociology of sport in North America was grounded primarily in
both physical education and sociology. The sub-discipline emerged as physical education
was transforming from a professional into an academic discipline by fragmenting into
sub-disciplinary bodies of knowledge (sociological, biological, and so on). That transfor-
mation also came at a time when what Michael Burawoy terms professional sociology in
North America was coming under attack from those influenced by the social revolutions
of the 1960s. For example, Mills (1959) was critiquing “grand theory” and “abstracted
empiricism,” Howard Becker (1967) was asking “whose side are we on?,” and Alvin
Gouldner (1973) was proclaiming “the sociologist as partisan.” Thus, both sociology and
physical education were engaged in determining whether they should be involved in
producing “knowledge for the sake of knowledge” (i.e., the traditional academic disci-
pline) or “knowledge for the sake of humanity” (a more engaged, relevant and practical
approach).1
These struggles were not evident in early work in the sociology of sport in North
America. Sociologists recognized that studying sport was unlikely to garner academic
prestige, and many of those who did so opted for a relatively conservative profes-
sional sociological approach, often grounded in structural functionalism. Physical
educators coming to the sociology of sport left behind their practical approaches to
knowledge in order to engage with what they saw as the dominant approaches to soci-
ology, as practiced by their sociological peers, primarily structural functionalism.
Further, the only way to achieve academic prestige was to write for others in the fields
of sociology and the newly academicized physical education – a professional sociol-
ogy of sport.
As the anti-war, anti-colonial, anti-poverty, pro-women’s and civil rights movements
developed it soon became apparent that all was not well in the world of sport. While the
sociology of sport had not matured enough to take a strong stance on these issues as they
related to sport, the social problems approach to sport started to emerge – led by scholars
such as Jay Coakley, Harry Edwards and Ellen Gerber. Some physical educators also
focused on social problems in sport, while others followed the practical approach by
advocating an applied sociology of sport. However, apart from a few exceptions there
was little engagement outside the academy.
This changed markedly following the critical shift in North American sociology of
sport (Ingham and Donnelly, 1997). As sociologists began to engage with the work of
Marx, Mills, Raymond Williams and Antonio Gramsci, there was an evident strengthen-
ing of work in the field and a growing confidence in terms of a willingness to conduct
relevant research (i.e., research that identifies and proposes resolutions to social prob-
lems) and to engage with audiences other than peers and students.2

Assessing the challenges of the sociology of sport

The first and continuing challenge for the sociology of sport is to be taken seriously. Few
sociology departments offer sociology of sport courses as electives, and the sociologists
who teach them are often sessional instructors; full-time professors engaged in the
Donnelly 421

sociology of sport sometimes report that their work receives little respect, and sociology of
sport papers make irregular appearances at academic conferences for sociology in North
America.3 In many physical education (and equivalent) departments, sociology of sport
has also been marginalized as there has been a marked shift towards bio-science-based
course work and research.
Despite these setbacks, the field continues to grow – 300–400 researchers regularly
register for North American Society for the Sociology of Sport (NASSS) conferences,
graduate students represent an increasing presence at those conferences, and journal edi-
tors report a continuing increase in numbers of submissions. Again, despite the setbacks,
sociology of sport continues to find ways to be relevant and to produce meaningful
research that informs public policy, practice and debate; it has done so, even unintention-
ally, since its origins in North America.
Take the case of one of the most iconic pieces of research in North American sociol-
ogy of sport.4 The research for Loy and McElvogue’s (1970) article, “Racial segregation
in American sport,” was carried out in the context of the Civil Rights movement in the
USA, the desegregation of professional sports and a growing recognition that there were
racial quotas on professional sports teams. This prompted Loy and McElvogue, in what
was intended as a piece of professional sociology, to carry out the systematic measure-
ments which showed that black players were being “stacked” in non-central positions in
professional baseball and football. Numerous subsequent studies in other sports and
other countries showed similar patterns of minority players being assigned to marginal
positions in the newly desegregated sports.
“We argue that, despite the absence of any formal knowledge translation system,
knowledge about stacking and the racial stereotyping and somatotyping underpinning
the practice eventually became public knowledge, hastened the integration of team
sports, and increasingly opened central positions to minority players” (Donnelly and
Atkinson, in press). Burawoy argues that “students are our first and captive public”
(2005: 7), and it is through them, and readers of the published research, that research is
slowly disseminated and begins to enter the public domain.
Loy and McElvogue’s research also showed that players from central positions
most often became managers and coaches, again denying black players the opportu-
nity for post-playing careers in sport. Their research led others to the systematic mon-
itoring of the race of individuals appointed to leadership positions in professional and
university sport, to annual “report cards,” and to policy changes such as the National
Football League’s (NFL’s) introduction of the “Rooney Rule.”5 In other words, a
piece of sociology of sport research helped to “make a difference” in terms of racial
equity in American sport.
Distributive research based on systematic data collection has since been carried out in
many contexts, and has discovered Francophone underrepresentation in the National
Hockey League (NHL) and on Canadian national teams; women’s underrepresentation
in coaching and other leadership positions in the USA, Canada and internationally; the
underrepresentation and sometimes demeaning representation of subaltern populations
in sports media; and the frequency and (media) representation of sports injuries. These
data have been more or less available to support evidence-based policy changes and
have, in some cases, helped to “make a difference.”6
422 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 50(4-5)

Future directions for the sociology of sport: On public

sociology and research that “makes a difference”
Michael Burawoy’s fourfold classification of sociological work as professional, policy,
critical and public finds different expressions in different countries – he points out that
“perhaps, only in the context of a strong professional sociology [as in North America7]
do we need to develop the idea of a ‘public sociology’” (Burawoy, 2007: 7). The typol-
ogy is not intended to classify sociologists – many sociologists engage in work that fits
into more than one category, some into all four categories. Work in all four categories is
necessary. As Ingham and Donnelly (1990) argued, all sociological knowledge is prac-
tical knowledge. In this claim, they were following sociological luminaries such as
Peter Berger and C Wright Mills, who argued that sociological knowledge could change
your life and the lives of others; in other words, sociological knowledge can “make a
difference.”
Given the widely recognized problems of the modern world, I want to take this claim
further and argue that the work of sociologists of sport should make a difference. There
are many intriguing topics to study in the world of sport and physical culture, but we
should ask ourselves if the questions are relevant in terms of problems such as the sus-
tainability of sport (addressing problems relating to climate change, environment, and
the cost of sports and events). The sociology of sport is also able to address, from the
perspective of sport and physical culture, other problems such as poverty and social
inequality; conflict and conflict resolution; participation, the social determinants of
health and the spread of non-communicable diseases; the human rights and labor rights
of athletes and those engaged in the industries supporting sport and physical culture; and
the democratization of participation, of participants and of governance.
Thomas Piketty is the most recent, and perhaps now the most widely read, voice to
point out the need for social scientists to be relevant and engaged. He argues that

…[social sciences] can help to redefine the terms of the debate, unmask certain preconceived
or fraudulent notions, and subject all positions to constant critical scrutiny… [T]his is the role
that intellectuals, including social scientists, should play, as citizens like any other but with the
good fortune to have more time than others to devote themselves to study. (Piketty, 2014: 3)

A relevant and engaged sociology of sport can contribute to “the terms of the debate,”
not just by adding to the body of knowledge, but also by having researchers who specifi-
cally draw the connections between their work and the larger debates and problems, and
by seeking ways to engage various publics when disseminating that research. In this way,
the sociology of sport not only continues to contribute to the resolution of the major
problems facing the world today, but also may help to secure its own place in the
academy.
Loy and McElvogue’s study made a difference, but it did so slowly as that sociologi-
cal knowledge leaked from the academy to finally reach those “publics” who were able
to change their own lives and the lives of others by having that knowledge. With modern
communications, research that “makes a difference” can, if we choose to use them, reach
those publics in a more timely way.
Donnelly 423

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or
not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1. Burawoy (2005) makes this point by asking, “Sociology for Whom?” (is the audience our-
selves or others?) and “Sociology for What?” (sociology for given ends or for the discussion
of ends and/or values).
2. The subsequent cultural and postmodern shifts in the field did not have the same “public”
impact as the critical shift.
3. This is not the case internationally where ISSA, as Research Committee No. 27, has made
regular appearances at International Sociological Association’s World Congress of Sociology
since 1969, and where some national sociological associations (e.g., British Sociological
Association) have sociology of sport sub-sections.
4. Parts of the following are adapted from Donnelly and Atkinson (in press).
5. Report cards include, for example, Richard Lapchick’s annual racial and gender report cards
from the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida: http://
www.tidesport.org/racialgenderreportcard.html. The Rooney Rule was introduced by the
National Football League in 2003 to ensure that minority candidates were interviewed for
head coaching and other leadership positions.
6. See Donnelly and Atkinson (in press) for additional examples of sociology of sport research
helping to “make a difference” through, for example, myth busting and by revealing inequity
and the ways that sports have been involved in the social reproduction of social inequality.
7. Dawes (2009) points out the strong parallels between Canadian and American sociology.

References
Becker H (1967) Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14(3): 239–247.
Burawoy M (2005) For public sociology. American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28.
Burawoy M (2007) Public sociology: Mills vs. Gramsci. Sociologica 1: 7–13.
Dawes S (2009) Drifting apart? The institutional dynamics awaiting public sociology in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Sociology 34(3): 623–654.
Donnelly P and Atkinson M (in press) Where history meets biography: Toward a public sociol-
ogy of sport. In: Field R (ed.) Contested Terrain: The Continuing Struggle for Sport and
Recreation – Essays in Honour of Bruce Kidd. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Gouldner A (1973) The sociologist as partisan: Sociology and the welfare state. In: Gouldner A
(ed.) For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. Harmondsworth: Pelican
Books, pp. 27–68.
Ingham A and Donnelly P (1990) Whose knowledge counts?: The production of knowledge and
issues of application in the sociology of sport. Sociology of Sport Journal 7(1): 58–65.
Ingham A and Donnelly P (1997) A sociology of North American sociology of sport: Disunity in
unity, 1965 to 1996. Sociology of Sport Journal 14(4): 362–418.
Loy J and McElvogue J (1970) Racial segregation in American sport. International Review for the
Sociology of Sport 5: 5–24.
Mills CW (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Piketty T (2014) Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.