Assessing the sociology of sport: On sport organizations and neoliberal discourses

Reflections on the trajectory of studies of (non-profit) sport organizations

Since the 1960s, scholarship on the sociology of sport has gone through formidable development regarding the scope and diversity of theories, methods, and topics with which it engages (Coakley and Dunning, 2000). Studies on sport organizations were scarce until the end of the 1980s, but since then this research field has flourished and developed towards becoming one of the most central in the sociology of sport (Slack, 1997). Today studies on sport organizations represent several trajectories rooted in different approaches and paradigms, offering different lines of research with respect to how organizational processes, practices, and activities can be mapped, identified, and understood.

Accordingly, my reflections and assessments in this paper will be both selective and narrow. I will briefly describe a few of the dominant paradigms and how these represent a discursive diversity, but also a contested terrain of hegemonic struggles within contemporary research on sport organizations. The emphasis will be on a few ideological tensions which characterize the field today and their potential impact on future research agendas. The point of departure focuses on intersectional concerns connected to two dominant discourses, where I argue for how and why a potential dominance of neoliberal management discourses may contribute to weakening critical and sociological concerns. My own scholarly contributions to the field (e.g. Hovden, 2000a, 2000b, 2006, 2010) are studies of voluntary and democratic sport organizations with a focus on how organizational practices and policies reflect and reproduce contemporary gender politics. These assumptions will further shape my outline, reflections, and suggestions.

As in the sociology of sport in general, the first significant trajectory of studies of sport organizations was rooted in a structural functionalist paradigm (Slack, 1997). These studies were premised on assumptions concerning the unitary and orderly nature of sport organizations and emphasized consensus and coherence rather than conflict, as well as how power operates in organizational processes (Coakley, 2007). One of the key concepts is that of the organization as a “system”—organizations are seen as functionally effective if they achieve explicit goals formally defined through rational decision-making (Clegg and Hardy, 1998; Henry and Theodoraki, 2000). This trajectory follows a positivist science model expressed through a formal research design and quantitative approaches, building empirically generated knowledge, often embedded in a limited number of theoretical assumptions. Over time this paradigm has gradually been contested by several alternative paradigms, particularly different kinds of critical paradigms (e.g. Marxist, neo-Marxist, cultural studies, feminist paradigms). In this research field as in others, these emerged as a result of contemporary political and epistemological changes in society and science during the 1970s (Coakley and Dunning, 2000). From the end of the 1980s onwards, critical paradigms have seriously challenged the supremacy of the functionalist paradigm and gradually marked a distinct trajectory in studies of sport organizations. Even though critical paradigms often derive from different epistemological and theoretical assumptions, their concerns are in most respects directed towards power structures in organizations (Kvande, 2007; Slack, 1997). Sport organizations are seen as political systems and thus as potential instruments of domination which benefit the interests of privileged groups (e.g.; Henry and Theodoraki, 2000; Hovden, 2000a). Thus, critical scholars tend to examine how hegemonic power is coupled to class, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender (e.g. Gruneau, 1983; Hargreaves, 1994; Kvande, 2007).

While studies using Marxist, neo-Marxist and figurational paradigms have been relatively scarce in analyses of sport organizations, critical feminist paradigms have formed a distinct trajectory (Slack, 1997). The main foci have been directed towards how organizational processes and practices construct gender and shape the gendering of leadership and organizational policies (e.g. Claringbould and Knoppers, 2007; Hovden, 2000b, 2010; Shaw and Penney, 2003). These studies, among others, also exemplify how the influence of neoliberal ideology has transformed democratic organizational structures into more professional and “business-like” forms. Henry and Theodoraki (2000) indicate how this development is nurtured by (neoliberal) sport management scholarships, which today represent a significant trajectory shaping the sociology of sport regarding both scope and funding. Indeed, the current influence of (neoliberal) sport management studies may have prompted concerns that this trajectory is about to move the center of gravity of organizational studies towards concerns of economic efficiency, new public management, and new managerialism (Henry and Theodoraki, 2000; Nauright and Pope, 2009; Sørhaug, 2004). Conversely, in the future it may be worth examining whether the mandate of non-profit organizations and their capacity to promote equal opportunities, social needs, and democratic thinking are weakening. At present there appears to be an increased emphasis on sport management issues revealing the revival of new forms of functionalist (systems) theory and evidence-based quantitative research designs (e.g. Silk et al., 2010, 2014).

Assessing the challenges of the sociology of sport related to studies of organizations

First, it is important to note that the field of organizational studies still has several trajectories, which exist side by side. Because these are rooted in different, often contradictory, and mutually exclusive paradigms, they produce diversity as well as controversies and tensions. Thus, they offer representations of sport organizations as diverse, complex, and paradoxical. A crucial question for the future is, however, whether the increasing scope of management studies seeping into the sociology of sport may represent a threat to this diversity and complexity. In some ways, this can obviously be the case (Silk et al., 2010, 2014). For example, sport management studies that explicitly or implicitly fail to question the power structures in which they exist represent a threat to the political and critical potentialities of the sociology of sport. In contrast to critical trajectories, they generally ignore issues of power and justice and tend to facilitate organizational policies that (re)produce the status quo (Hovden, 2000b, 2011; Kvande, 2007).

Another challenge stimulated by the relative increase of (neoliberal) management approaches into the sociology of sport community is the growth of quantitative methodologies and evidence-based research designs (Silk et al., 2014). These approaches may lead to less methodological diversity and result in the dominance of a positivistic logic. Silk et al. (2010) thus claim that countless iterations within conference presentations and journal articles produce a creeping evidence-based epistemological orthodoxy. Strategies to counter this development can, in line with the latter statement, include taking steps toward presenting papers and articles dealing with neoliberal sport management approaches at sociology of sport conferences as well as in journals meant to address sociological issues and paradigms. This might require greater scrutiny of which approaches and perspectives belong to the field of sociology of sport, versus the field of sport management. Such strategies may offer more diversity and hold potential to revitalize and strengthen critical sociological perspectives in studies on organizations.

Future directions for the sociology of sport

Based on the previous considerations, it is most likely that future studies of non-profit sport organizations will have a greater emphasis on management perspectives. We may expect a future research agenda regarding organizational behavior that emphasizes performance and capability with reference to efficiency, profitability, and managerialism (Henry and Theodoraki, 2000; Hovden et al., 2011). According to Kvande (2007), organization and leadership theorists always enjoy a close relationship with the groups of people who lead and control society. If this is true, then the most dominant theoretical framework will likely be organizational theory (macro-analyses, e.g. based on system theory) and perspectives related to organizational behaviors (microanalyses, i.e. leadership styles, motivation, new public management issues). This framework mainly consists of theories, models, and perspectives of work and business organizations and is implicitly and explicitly linked to outside market demands (Hovden et al., 2011; Sørhaug, 2004). Studies of neoliberal leadership discourses (e.g. Hovden, 2010;) portray, for example, a picture of organizations as rational and action-oriented systems controlled by individuals, where an ethos of competiveness, dedication, and entrepreneurialism dominates. Thus we are likely to witness an emergence of frameworks underpinned by new managerialism. On the other hand, sport management studies have always had and will still have a distinct trajectory critical of (neoliberal) mainstream approaches, for example studies focusing on sport organizations as political systems (e.g. Hoye et al., 2012; Nauright and Pope, 2009; Slack, 1997). This critical trajectory will most likely remain a prominent feature of future sport management scholarships.

Scholarship in organizational studies deriving from critical paradigms (e.g. cultural studies, critical feminist, neo-colonial, and post-structuralist paradigms) will need to fight to hold their position in future research agendas. Accordingly, they might seek to develop an alternative form of knowledge production contributing to transformations towards more democratic and community-based sport organizations. Similar to today, they will make use of a diversity of theories, research designs, and methodologies rooted in different critical paradigms. In these studies the direction of future research will tend to represent a counterbalance to mainstream sport management perspectives by demystifying neoliberal ideologies. The topical, theoretical, and empirical center of gravity is likely to be processes, practices, and discourses in organizations that (re-)produce power differences, exclusion, and inequalities. Moreover, it will be a framework that provides an understanding of how power and inequalities are interwoven into perspectives of whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, and class bonding as constructed through organizational processes and practices (Hovden et al., 2011). However, which dimensions, perspectives, and practices are most essential to examine will vary according to different local, regional, and national research agendas. This future direction envisions knowledge production based on a diverse range of participation opportunities available to all members and challenging those who use their wealth and power to maintain their own interests, needs, and privileges.

The future trajectories in the field of organization studies will surely represent more complexity and diversity in their research agendas than is assumed here. My focus has mainly been on intersectional concerns connected to how and why a potential dominance of (neoliberal) management discourses may contribute to weaken critical and sociological scholarship. I have also elaborated how these discourses are epistemologically contradictory and, in the future, will most likely contest the definition of what sociology of sport can be and should be. Resisting today’s uncritical adaptation to mainstream (neoliberal) management discourses in the future within both universities and sport demands critical sociologists who employ critical research paradigms. We need, first and foremost, approaches which are self-reflexive and can represent important sites for critical conversations about democracy, institutional power, and conditions for social change.