Making sense of the lack of evidence discourse, power and knowledge in the field of sport for development.

Kevin Harris, A Adams

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyse the power dynamics and vested interest groups that shape the lack of evidence discourse, which is critical of the way evidence is produced within and for the sport for development (SFD) field. This examination recognises that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical.

Design/methodology/approach
– Using a Foucauldian conceptual framework, power, knowledge and discourse relating to political actors in SFD – funders, policy makers, academics and sport development practitioners (SDPs) – are assessed. This paper addresses two key questions: How is the lack of evidence discourse constructed, and what is its impact? And whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence?

Findings
– This paper concludes that although in a Foucauldian sense power surrounding evidence is everywhere, the neo liberal context, which situates SFD, favours the privileging of evidence discourses associated with and derived from funding organisations, political and academic interest groups to the detriment of evidence discourses associated with SDPs. Clearly then there is a major tension concerning knowledge transfer, power and process, and the way that evidence can be used to inform practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)140-151
JournalInternational Journal of Public Sector Management
Volume27
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

sport
Sports
discourse
lack
evidence
interest group
political organization
conceptual framework
knowledge transfer
political actor
development policy
methodology
funding
examination
interpretation

Cite this

@article{75dd98db97cf48969e1ecdee5cc4e03a,
title = "Making sense of the lack of evidence discourse, power and knowledge in the field of sport for development.",
abstract = "Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyse the power dynamics and vested interest groups that shape the lack of evidence discourse, which is critical of the way evidence is produced within and for the sport for development (SFD) field. This examination recognises that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical.Design/methodology/approach– Using a Foucauldian conceptual framework, power, knowledge and discourse relating to political actors in SFD – funders, policy makers, academics and sport development practitioners (SDPs) – are assessed. This paper addresses two key questions: How is the lack of evidence discourse constructed, and what is its impact? And whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence?Findings– This paper concludes that although in a Foucauldian sense power surrounding evidence is everywhere, the neo liberal context, which situates SFD, favours the privileging of evidence discourses associated with and derived from funding organisations, political and academic interest groups to the detriment of evidence discourses associated with SDPs. Clearly then there is a major tension concerning knowledge transfer, power and process, and the way that evidence can be used to inform practice.",
author = "Kevin Harris and A Adams",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "140--151",
journal = "International Journal of Public Sector Management",
issn = "0951-3558",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Making sense of the lack of evidence discourse, power and knowledge in the field of sport for development.

AU - Harris, Kevin

AU - Adams, A

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyse the power dynamics and vested interest groups that shape the lack of evidence discourse, which is critical of the way evidence is produced within and for the sport for development (SFD) field. This examination recognises that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical.Design/methodology/approach– Using a Foucauldian conceptual framework, power, knowledge and discourse relating to political actors in SFD – funders, policy makers, academics and sport development practitioners (SDPs) – are assessed. This paper addresses two key questions: How is the lack of evidence discourse constructed, and what is its impact? And whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence?Findings– This paper concludes that although in a Foucauldian sense power surrounding evidence is everywhere, the neo liberal context, which situates SFD, favours the privileging of evidence discourses associated with and derived from funding organisations, political and academic interest groups to the detriment of evidence discourses associated with SDPs. Clearly then there is a major tension concerning knowledge transfer, power and process, and the way that evidence can be used to inform practice.

AB - Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyse the power dynamics and vested interest groups that shape the lack of evidence discourse, which is critical of the way evidence is produced within and for the sport for development (SFD) field. This examination recognises that an understanding of the dominant neoliberal context within which SFD is located is critical.Design/methodology/approach– Using a Foucauldian conceptual framework, power, knowledge and discourse relating to political actors in SFD – funders, policy makers, academics and sport development practitioners (SDPs) – are assessed. This paper addresses two key questions: How is the lack of evidence discourse constructed, and what is its impact? And whose interests are served in the interpretation, generation and reporting of evidence?Findings– This paper concludes that although in a Foucauldian sense power surrounding evidence is everywhere, the neo liberal context, which situates SFD, favours the privileging of evidence discourses associated with and derived from funding organisations, political and academic interest groups to the detriment of evidence discourses associated with SDPs. Clearly then there is a major tension concerning knowledge transfer, power and process, and the way that evidence can be used to inform practice.

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 140

EP - 151

JO - International Journal of Public Sector Management

JF - International Journal of Public Sector Management

SN - 0951-3558

IS - 2

ER -