INTRODUCTION
For many sport students, the importance of theory within a research project can be a difficult issue, yet it is one of the most important con- siderations, and in many cases underpins the entire research project.
Unfortunately there is a tendency for many students, once they have identified a research question, to get carried away and go straight into the data collection stage of the research, arguing that the data alone is key to answering the question. What is required, however, is an appropriate theoretical framework within which such data can be analysed, inter- preted and explained. This chapter introduces some of the issues related to choosing your theoretical framework, and relating this theoretical
■ Introduce the role and importance of theory within your research project.
■ Describe how you should be able to relate your question to existing disciplines in sport.
■ Describe how to develop a conceptual framework for your study.
■ Introduce and define the concepts of reliability and validity, describe the relationship between the two, and outline their importance within a quantitative research project.
■ Discuss the terms reliability, credibility, trustworthiness and rigour, and discuss their importance within a qualitative research project.
In this chapter we will:
framework to your study. Theories are constructed from concepts, and a key process here is to identify exactly what concepts are involved, their relationships to each other, and how they are to be investigated, so that your data can be related to your choice of theoretical framework. This is the process of developing your conceptual framework, and this will also be outlined. Finally, the issues related to the reliability and validity of your study will be described, that is the extent to which your research actually measures the concepts under investigation.
THEORIES AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
Theories are, simply, explanations of why things occur. If you drop a basketball, it will fall to the ground at a particular speed. If you repeat the experiment, the result will be the same. All your results show is that a basketball will fall to the ground at the same rate each time, and no more.
This is, therefore, an example of very basic descriptive research. To explain why this is the case an appropriate theory is required. In this instance, the theory of gravity can explain your findings, that is to say why the basketballs all dropped at the same rate. The same theory could also be used to predict that any further basketballs dropped would also fall at the same rate. Thus the data itself is of limited value (other than to confirm the theory). Only when the data is related to existing theory can we explain the findings, and take our understanding beyond the basic descriptive level. It is therefore important that your research has a theoretical grounding if you want your research to be more than simply descriptive, and this will come from the theory that you choose to underpin your research project. At an early stage, you should be thinking carefully about your theoretical underpinning. As Yiannakis (1992, p.8) suggests:
Research that is not theoretically informed, not grounded in the existing body of knowledge, or of the ‘shotgun’ variety that fails to raise and investigate conceptually grounded questions, is likely to generate findings of a narrow and ungeneralisable value.
This importance of theory is significant to your research, and it can be demonstrated using a relatively simple example. Imagine that you have come up with the following research question: ‘Do sports fans identify more strongly with their favourite team when the team are winning?’ It would be relatively easy to make the appropriate measurements (whether
the team are winning and how strongly a sports fan identifies with his or her team) and collect data accordingly. The answer to the research question is likely to be ‘yes’, in that a sports fan is likely to identify strongly with their team when they are winning (we shall assume for the sake of simplicity that there are no other factors affecting this relationship). That, however, is the only conclusion that can be drawn from such research without a theoretical framework. You would be unable to explain this finding, that is to say why it had happened. Neither would you be able to predict the same finding in the future with any confidence. Thus, you would need to place your findings within an appropriate theoretical framework. In this instance it would be appropriate to use a theory such as social identity theory to make sense of the findings. One of the tenets of this theory is that we prefer to identify with groups that positively enhance our self-esteem, that is groups that are seen positively by others.
With this theory, we could reasonably hypothesise that people would identify with their team (i.e. be a member of that particular group) if they are seen positively (i.e. by being successful). Using an appropriate theory, therefore, has allowed us to explain the findings. We could also use this theory to try to predict future behaviour in this context. Unfortunately, many research projects are examples of what Phillips and Pugh (1994) refer to as ‘intelligence gathering’. This refers to the gathering and presentation of data, with no reference to any such theoretical framework.
Essentially this is descriptive research, and simply describes data. For example, it would be relatively easy to collect data to answer the question
‘what was the proportion of male to female participants at the 2000 Olympics?’ By using an appropriate theory, you may be able to propose a plausible explanation of why there were such differences. As we noted in Chapter 3, this use of theory may be through a deductive approach, that is where you select your theory beforehand, create a hypothesis, and test this hypothesis through the collection of data. Alternatively you may consider an inductive approach, whereby theory is developed from the data that is collected, and used to explain your findings.
CONSIDERING YOUR APPROACH
Sport, as a whole, can be seen to be an interdisciplinary subject. This means that there is no single academic subject that we can refer to as ‘sports studies’, but rather that there are a number of different ways of approach- ing sport academically. Thus sport can be studied from a sociological
perspective, a psychological perspective, a geographical perspective, an economic perspective, and so on (the United Kingdom Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), for example, notes twenty-nine different subject areas related to the study of sport).
Within each of these broad disciplines, there are a number of more specific fields, or more specific components of the overall area. Thus, sociologists may be interested in the field of socialisation into sport, or the relationship between sport and religion, for example. Each field itself will consist of a number of theories, for example the field of socialisation into sport will include theories such as Donnelly and Young’s (1988) model of group socialisation. Thus, in this particular instance we can see our broad disciplinary framework as follows:
Discipline Field Theory
Sociology Socialisation into sport Donnelly and Young’s (1988) model of group socialisation At this stage, you need to start thinking about your theoretical orientation, and to try to locate your ideas within this type of framework. Although this is something that you may develop as you read around your topic, it is important to be aware at an early stage whether you intend to approach your research sociologically, or using an economic approach, for example.
If you are a keen hockey player then you may consider a proposal along the lines of ‘I want to research whether the size of the crowd has an effect on the outcome of hockey matches’. If this is the case then you need to identify your disciplinary approach, in this case sport psychology. Through reading around the sport psychology literature you can then identify your field.
You can also, if possible at this stage, identify your specific theory. For example, in the above case the researcher may adopt social facilitation theory (Zajonc 1965). From our experience, a lack of theoretical awareness is a major cause of poor research. You should identify your theoretical orientation, and then apply it to the situation, for example:
Discipline Field Theory Application
Psychology Crowd effects Zajonc’s (1965) Crowd effect on on performance theory of social hockey matches
facilitation
It is important to clarify the role of theory in your research. Thus, rather than undertaking a piece of research into football, start thinking about the theory that you will be using in your research project. This can then be applied to the appropriate context. When you are developing this table (what Jankowicz (2000) calls a ‘provenance table’) you can work either left to right or right to left, or a combination of both at the same time using this approach. Thus you can start off intending to undertake a piece of research based on your own sport preferences, such as hockey. This is perfectly acceptable provided that you can complete the rest of the provenance table. You may consider that you would like to do a piece of research from a psychological perspective, as you may feel you have the appropriate interest and expertise. All that then remains is to identify – most probably after you have begun reading around the subject – your theoretical grounding, such as social facilitation theory. Alternatively, start with a theory that you are interested in, and then try to complete the rest of the provenance table.
The above approach leans very strongly towards a deductive (and thus positivistic) approach to research. It can still be a good idea to consider your theoretical approach if you are considering an inductive study.
Alternatively, you may wish not to choose your theoretical approach beforehand, and adopt a strictly inductive approach (for example if you are undertaking an exploratory study). In this case, you should develop your use of theory throughout, as well as at the end of the data collection
DISCIPLINE
A discipline refers to a particular approach to the study of an aspect of sport, and the approaches, techniques and theories used to study and explain that particular aspect. Thus, sociologists are interested in the relationship between sport and society, and have developed particular sociological theories to explain sports behaviour. The discipline of psychology, however, is more interested in intrinsic influences upon sports behaviour. Each discipline will have a number of sub-disciplines, so sociology, for example, would encom- pass feminist sociology, cultural studies and so on.
KEY TERM
phase. It is important, however, that you ensure that you do provide some theoretical grounding to your research even if this is the case.
HOW DO I KNOW WHICH THEORY TO USE?
At an early stage, it is likely that you may find it difficult finding appropriate theories, or deciding which theory is best for you. If you are undertaking a deductive study, you will need to have a clear idea of your theoretical framework at the outset. Even if you are undertaking an inductive approach, it is useful to have an idea of some of the appropriate theories that may be able to inform your study, without necessarily restricting yourself to any specific theories. There is no easy answer at this stage. It is generally a case of reading around the subject, and trying to identify which theories have been used in past studies. Your review of literature should alert you to the theoretical approaches adopted by other researchers in the past.
Alternatively, you may want to read around some of the broader, non- sports-related literature and identify theories from these sources. As always, don’t restrict yourself if possible, and be prepared to search through the wider sociological, geographical, management-based literature and so on.
Alternatively, you can always discuss this issue with your research supervisor or tutor, who may be able to put you on the right track.
CONCEPTS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS
As we suggested earlier, theories are explanations with which we make sense of our findings. These explanations are built up using concepts. A concept is often easier to identify than it is to define. We would suggest that a concept is a representation of an object, a property, or behaviour.
Examples of concepts are age, intelligence, anxiety, self-confidence and so on. Having a shared understanding of what concepts actually are is important so that researchers may be able to understand or replicate others’
work. Thus, when one researcher discusses a particular concept, such as
‘intelligence’, others will know exactly what he or she is referring to. The conceptual framework describes and explains the concepts to be used in the study, their relationships with each other, and how they are to be measured. By having a shared understanding of the appropriate concepts and conceptual framework this is possible. As Miles and Huberman (1994, p.18) describe:
Categories such as ‘sociocultural climate’, ‘cultural scene’, and
‘role conflict’ are the labels we put on ‘intellectual bins’ containing many discrete events and behaviours. Any researcher, no matter how inductive in approach, knows which bins are likely to be in play in the study, and what is likely to be in them. Bins come from theory and experience and (often) from the general objectives of the study envisioned. Setting out the bins, naming them and getting clearer about their interrelationships lead you to a conceptual framework.
Developing your conceptual framework requires five main steps:
1 Identifying the relevant concepts.
2 Defining these concepts.
3 Operationalising the concepts.
4 Identifying any moderating or intervening variables.
5 Identifying the relationship between variables.
We can illustrate the process with reference to a hypothetical research proposal based upon Chelladurai’s (1990) work on leadership styles in sport. Say, for example, that you are interested in whether there is any relationship between the leadership style of sports coaches, and the consequent success of the teams that they coach. Thus, the research proposal was based on the following question:
‘How does the leadership style of a sports coach affect the performance of their team?’
The first step is to identify your concepts, or ‘building blocks’ within the statement.
In this instance, these are:
■ Leadership style.
■ Sports coach.
■ Performance.
■ Team.
Secondly, you must be able to define these concepts. This will help you clarify exactly what you are investigating. These definitions should, if at all possible, come from existing literature, and use commonly accepted
definitions, so that your research can easily be compared to both existing theory and the findings of others. Here, leadership style could refer to whether the coach displays autocratic or democratic leadership behaviour.
Sports coach could be defined as the individual with overall responsibility for the strategy, tactics and training of the team. Performance could be defined as the team’s win/loss record. The concept of ‘team’ would not have to be defined in this instance. Instead, it would be important, and more useful to the researcher, to identify the specific criteria under which teams would be included; for example, professional rather than amateur teams and so on.
At this stage, if there is sufficient evidence within the existing literature, you may want to suggest a hypothesis rather than a research question. As we noted in Chapter 3, a hypothesis is a suggested relationship between concepts to be tested empirically. A hypothesis generally requires four things:
1 It must be adequate. A hypothesis must be able to explain findings or relationships that are determined by subsequent data collection.
2 It must be testable. Unless a hypothesis can actually be tested empiri- cally, then it has little value.
3 It should require relatively few assumptions, for example a hypothesis should not only be valid if a considerable number of conditions have to be met.
4 A good hypothesis must be better than other possible or rival hypothe- ses, that is it should have better explanatory power than alternative hypotheses that could be considered.
Whether you decide upon a hypothesis or a research question, the next step in developing your conceptual framework is that of operationalising your concepts. Operationalising a concept means deciding how that concept is to be measured. Being able to produce an outstanding piece of theoretical work as the background to your research is of little use if you are unable to subsequently test your theories empirically, or if your measurements of the concepts do not actually reflect what you think they do.
The term ‘measurement’ may suggest a purely quantitative approach. Even if you are undertaking a qualitative study, however, it is important to have a clear idea as to how you are going to ‘measure’ your concepts. If you were going to undertake a qualitative approach on the effects of leadership
style, trying to explain why the coaching style had a certain effect on performance, then how would you identify and evaluate the qualitative data provided by the players of that sports team? Often, within a qualitative study, this is a more emergent process, and you will develop your understanding of the appropriate concepts throughout the data collection and analysis process (see Chapter 13 for a more in-depth account of qualitative analysis). This is obviously closely related to your epistemo- logical assumptions, as outlined in Chapter 3), that is what you perceive to be valid knowledge.
As is the case with defining your concepts, try to use generally accepted measures of a concept (you should be able to identify these when you are reviewing the literature). There are two reasons for this. First, it will allow you to compare your findings with existing literature more effectively, and second, it will give you confidence that your measures are actually valid and reliable (we will explain these terms later on in this chapter).
Using the above example, leadership styles can be operationalised by using Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) Leadership Scale for Sport, a forty-item scale that can assess the coach’s leadership style. Operationalising the concepts of sports coach and team is not appropriate here, as the clear definitions provided at the first step should be sufficient. We simply need to know whether they are a coach, and of which team they are a coach.
Operationalising ‘performance’, however, leads us into a problem of how such a concept can be accurately measured. We defined performance earlier in terms of win/loss record. This is an obvious way of measuring performance, yet is it a valid measure of performance? There are a number of factors that are of concern here, for example the obvious point that a team may perform well and yet still lose. Conversely, a team may play badly and defeat inferior opposition. Thus, the concept of performance is likely to be a problematic one in this research project and will need to be reconsidered.
EMPIRICAL
Often you will see reference to good research as being ‘empirical’ in nature. This simply means that the conclusions drawn are based upon evidence (or data) rather than simply conjecture or speculation.