Abstract
On the 50th anniversary of the ISSA and IRSS, a leading scholar of the sociology of sport in China, Ruotao Huang, provides a historically-oriented cultural and organizational history of the development of social inquiry concerning sport in China. The trajectory of the sociology of sport in China can be seen through three periods, characterized as (1) initiation and legitimacy (1978–1997), (2) emergent and competing approaches (1998-2010), and (3) new directions (2011–present). The important roles of the China Sport Science Society, the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science, and other government bodies are considered in conjunction with stocktaking of funding priorities and topics. Key challenges surrounding the development of sociology of sport research in China concern understanding sport participation by social groups and classes, the linking of social inquiry with practical and business applications, and increasing interdisciplinarity in approaching topics such as the Olympic Games. Future directions in research indicate increased sophistication and moving beyond reliance on historical perspectives to more integral understanding of sport in social context.
Reflections on the trajectory of the sociology of sport
The sociology of sport has been developing formally in China for about 30 years. This tradition of inquiry started in the late 1970s and its development can be divided into three phases. These can be characterized as (1) initiation and legitimacy (1978–1997), (2) emergent and competing approaches (1998–2010), and (3) new directions (2011–present).
The relatively late development of the sociology of sport needs to be put in context. In 1952, three years after the independence of the People’s Republic of China, the central government shut down all Departments of Sociology in universities in China as sociological theories were linked to specious scientific claims of the bourgeois class in West. This situation lasted 28 years, beyond the scheduled end of the decade of Cultural Revolution in 1977. Yet, with the implementation of Mr. DENG Xiaoping’s “Reform and Opening Up Policy” in 1978, China’s social and economic development began to capture the attention of an increasing number of Chinese scholars. Western sociological theories and research methods resumed their influence in both academic and political sectors in China and provided basic guidance on the mounting of social inquiry. In particular, studies of societal economics and surveys of class in cities were most common on the research agenda at that time.
The first meaningful development of sociology of sport came in a period of initiation and legitimacy from 1986 to 1997. The first formal recognition of the sociology of sport as a research discipline occurred in 1986 when a research project titled “Sociology Studies on Chinese Sport” was financially supported by what is now the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science (NPOPSS, established 1991). This official linking of sociology and sport laid the groundwork for a new research field.
In 1987, the China Sport Science Society (CSSS, established in 1980), the first and most prestigious academic society for sport science, set up a section that embraced the sociological study of sport. Named the Branch of Sport Social Science (BSSS), this section recognized the sociology of sport as a subdiscipline of sport science and invited scholars to participate in its programs. In 1994, the Chinese Sociological Association (CSA, established in 1979), the premier national academic society for the field of sociology, also set up its Sport Sociology Professional Committee (SSPC). This further legitimized the development of the sociology of sport as a subdiscipline.
In July 1996, Sport Science was for the first time formally identified as a First-level Discipline in the National Discipline Plan. When this was done, Sport Sociology was listed as a Second-level Discipline of Sport Science, which as been stated earlier (Chen, 2009) as a designation that also helped advance the discipline’s recognition within sociology.
Shortly thereafter, in 1997, the NPOPSS allocated about 540,000 RMB (US$88,000) of the National Social Science Fund (NSSF, established in 1991) to support 10 research projects that advanced social scientific understandings of sport. This funding was 20% of the entire NPOPSS budget in 1997 (about 2,500,000 RMB) and provided a significant stimulus for the sociology of sport’s development through state-funded research.
The second major period of development from 1998 to 2010 could be called “the period of a hundred flowers blossoming and a hundred schools of thought contending.” This was in many ways a confusing period with emergent and competing agendas that both clashed and coexisted.
Some clues about the diversity and activity during this period may be found by examining research topics supported by the Chinese government’s research fund NSSF of the NPOPSS. Because it funded only 10% of applications for research projects, the NSSF influenced the research agenda, not only for funded applicants, but also for researchers seeking future funding. Research by Hao (2009) and Xu (2004) on key words used in the titles of projects receiving NSSF research guidance between 1999 and 2008 shows an emphasis on national-level topics, as illustrated in Table 1.
Key words analysis on National Social Science Fund research guidance (1999–2008).
Several studies (Sao and Wang, 2003; Fang and Huang, 2005; Xia, 2007; Hao, 2009; Qiao, 2010) showed that, during the 1999–2008 period, 331 research projects on sport social science were financed by the NPOPSS. Of these, 44 could be classified as basic theory studies (13.3%), 254 as applied or integrated research (76.7%) and 33 as other interest projects (10%). Overall, applied or integrated research dominated funding.
These 331 projects shared a total funding of roughly 22,500,000 RMB (US$3,688,500) by calculations based on the standard funding rules: 120,000 RMB for 17 important projects, 70,000 RMB for 243 general projects, and 50,000 RMB for young researcher projects in the 331 projects (229 government financed and two titled but not funded projects). Compared to the initial funding in 1997, the average funding for each subsequent year has increased. Table 2 shows the increasing trend of NSSF supported sport-related research projects and total funding from 1997 to 2012.
National Social Science Fund funding of projects on sociology of sport-related research (1997–2012).
The NSSF was not alone in providing financial support to research related to the sociology of sport. Previous work by Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2009) has described that prior to NSSF funding, what is now the General Administration of Sport of China (GASC, established in 1998), the top governing body on sport, set up national research grants in 1991 to finance research on sport philosophy and social science, when the GASC was still known as the National Sport Commission (NSC, established in 1952). For the past 20 years, the GASC has offered grants to support about 2000 projects covering six research areas: (1) Sport and Economic Social Development; (2) Sport Strategy Development; (3) Sport Reform and Law; (4) Mass Sport (Sport for All); (5) Elite and Competitive Sport; and (6) Sport Industry. Receiving 26% of funding, research on mass sport (sport for all) has been a priority for the GASC.
More recently, in the period following the 2008 Beijing Olympics, sociology of sport research in China gained momentum as its influence reached beyond domestic borders. This has stimulated some new directions. In 2011, China started its 12th “Five Year Plan (2011–2015),” which placed emphasis on China’s goals for becoming a leading nation in the world. Here, social science researchers have been encouraged in innovative and original projects that mesh theory with critical understandings. At the same time, there is an emerging sense that Chinese sociology of sport research needs to help assess the changes taking place in the sports industry and its increasing impacts. On both fronts, the needs for interdisciplinary approaches are clear and this is attracting more scholars from diverse fields to sport-centered social inquiry.
Assessing the challenges for the sociology of sport
Sociology of sport research in China now spans a wide continuum, but many gaps in understanding remain. Studies focused on “social groups” remain central following the dramatic shifts in the structure of Chinese social classes. Here there has been a focus on understanding the sport behaviors and habits of different social classes. The focus of increasingly stable research teams, research on adolescents, infants, senior citizens, and women has received notable attention.
Thanks to the government’s emphasis on the sport industry, mass sport, school sport, and elite sport, “sociological studies of different types of sports and their internal relations” still attracts ample funding and attention. Research on sport in rural, urban, and city communities has recently started to gain momentum. Notable new research programs in areas such as Olympic studies have received growing interest. Here, a widened purview of research has moved beyond the summer Olympics to include studies of the Winter Olympics, Paralympic Games, and Special Olympics.
The sociology of sport in China is still developing its basic theoretical and methodological footing. It may be that increased proficiency in foreign languages, particularly English, may help Chinese scholars in broadening their theoretical development. From its earliest university textbooks on the sociology of sport in the 1990s, the field in China still carries the legacy of Western sociological theory and has struggled to develop theories with a unique Chinese perspective.
An ongoing challenge for researchers remains in linking theoretical research to the real world of sport and its marketplace. Here there is an increased understanding that a wide range of topics concerning sports violence, sports broadcasting, athlete loyalty, and migration can be both social issues and have implications for sports business.
Future directions of the sociology of sport: On China and the Olympics
It has been noted that the Olympic Games remain a central research topic in China and inquiry is becoming increasingly sophisticated (Sun et al., 2000). When one compares research on the Olympics before and after the 2008 Beijing Olympics, it is clear that research has moved beyond historical perspectives to more innovative interdisciplinary research methods in recognition that that Olympics studies are no longer just about the “Olympics” per se, but about larger social, cultural, and economic issues.
Based on current trajectories, future Olympic research in China will likely demonstrate the following characteristics.
Modern Olympic studies will increasingly focus on practical applications. Olympic researchers will pay greater attention to questions of sport education, elite sport, and mass sport and translate their research on Olympic education, competition, and entertainment into guidance on professional practice.
Economic and business studies of the Olympics will gain greater momentum. The Chinese sports industry will need more successful business models in order to understand how to make a profit organizing sporting events. Sporting events used to be organized and funded by the government but increasingly commercial sporting events will need to operate independently and face financial challenges. The Olympics provide a good case study for this.
In summary, recent trends in Olympic studies in China reflect a turn from historical treatments to include a broader set of lenses from social and cultural inquiry to the more scientific concerns of biology, psychology, and physiology. A study by Wang and Zhou (2007) has described that since sports science, especially the Olympic science and technology program, has been closely linked with the Chinese government’s Olympic Gold Medal Plan, Olympic-related scientific research will likely have continued prominence. Still, Olympic research has been notable for engaging scholars from outside the field of sport and fueling interdisciplinary research. Sociology of sport can play an important role here as it can provide a link to understanding applications in the sport marketplace.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.