Research: the key to the future of recreational sport management.

As we forge ahead into the turn of a new century, recreational sport practitioners and academicians are afforded the unique opportunity to take a realistic assessment of our field and its impact upon recreation and leisure services. This is an ideal time to ask questions of ourselves as professionals, regarding our future and the role that our recreational sport programs will play in a changing and sophisticated society. These are exciting times for our field! We have witnessed tremendous growth in recreational sports over the past two decades. But will this growth continue? It will continue if we ask the right questions. For example, one question that helps to continue to direct growth is to ask whether we, as a profession, are positioning ourselves in an ever-changing market to continue to be recognized by our clientele as providing an important service. In pondering an answer to that question, one cannot help but wonder if there is more to recreational sports than what can be seen and touched in our individual programs. Is there something more important to our field than creating innovative programs or winning a budget battle for increased funding?

For a moment, if we as a group of sport management professionals look inward, perhaps there are different types of questions we should ask. Perhaps we should be asking what purpose do our programs really serve? Do we understand the roles and definitions of leisure, recreation and sport? Are the leisure needs of our clientele being met? Do we, as recreational sport professionals, feel comfortable providing solid, research-based answers to these "deeper" questions? Will knowing the answers to these questions help propel our field into providing a permanent societal function in the 21st century?

An area that can assist both the academician and the practitioner in recreational sport management to feel more comfortable in providing answers to this myriad of questions is through research. It is our intent not only to emphasize the importance and need for more research in our field, but to also suggest a possible starting point for both academicians and practitioners to become more involved in research.

Critical Issues

With all those questions in the previous section still lingering, we propose that one of the most pressing issues in the field of recreational sport may very well be the lack of research and scientific evidence to support the efficacy of recreational sport management (Glover & Lewis, 1987; Parkhouse & Ulrich, 1979; Ziegler, 1987). Applin (1986) noted that "sports management is in its embryonic state and almost entirely devoid of research content." Since then, much research has been published in the Journal of Sport Management. However, the continuing importance of research cannot be overemphasized, particularly in the field of recreational sport management. Mobley (1980) states, "While research is very important to every profession, it is absolutely essential and can be the very life blood of an emerging field" (p.41).

Even with the growth and prosperity that has been evident in recreational sport programming over the past couple of decades, lack of scientific-based research is a concern. This concern is rooted in two factors: (1) decreasing financial support and (2) time available for recreation. With shrinking state-appropriated funds, many public recreation departments must look to user fees as the primary source of revenue. Consequently, as users pay increasing amounts for services received, they become more selective in their decisions of how to spend their money. Recreational sport programs or activities, whose benefits are supported by research, are more likely to gain confidence, and therefore dollars, of potential participants.

In regard to time, there has been a notable decline in the amount of time devoted to leisure by the average American (Schor, 1992). "An accelerated pace of life, an increase in the number of time-saving devices purchased, increasing stress and role overload" are all symptoms of what Schor (p. 22) refers to as the "time squeeze." Instead of a shorter workweek, which was predicted in the 1970s for the 1990s, Americans find themselves working longer hours and reducing the time previously spent in leisure activities. This "time squeeze" is certain to affect the clientele of many recreation programs just as it has every other group in our society.

With the growing pressures that increased cost and decreased leisure time create, it could be that the entire recreational sport industry may be on the brink of having to prove its worth to maintain its current position with other leisure service providers. Additionally, as the demands for professional accountability become more critical, the pressure mounts for answers to questions concerning the benefits of participation. That pressure becomes apparent when the most prevalent questions among practitioners attending conferences, workshops, and seminars, "Why don't people participate in our programs?" or "What can we do to get more people participating in our programs?" Research is becoming increasingly important because of the need to provide this type of information, and utilization of such information could make a significant contribution to the overall success of an agency. "Research is an extremely vital rung of sport management" (Parkhouse, Ulrich and Soucie, 1982, p. 184).

Research Into Action: The Future of Sport Management

Introduction

There has been tremendous growth in recreational sports over the past two decades. Yet, if this component of our field is to become a permanent societal function in the 21st century, professionals - both academicians and practitioners - must assume a collaborative responsibility for quality research. This month's Research Update outlines the need and benefit of expanding a sport management research focus.

Impact of the Research

Without a strong theoretical and researched knowledge base, professionals in sport management may face decreasing financial support, an absence of professional accountability, and reduced success of their agencies.

Some rather straightforward recommendations are offered:

1. Develop collaborative partnerships for theory building and researching between sport management practitioners and academicians. These should be based on mutual:

a. Appreciation of the

important contribution to research

of both the academician and

the practitioner.

b: Interest in developing

theory and researched

knowledge.

c. Language and common

conceptual framework.

2. Build time and incentives for participating in research into the employment expectations of practitioners.

3. Ask research questions that are unique to sport management concerns.

4. Ask research questions that are of a higher order than practical how-to-knowledge.

5. Focus more of the sport management university curriculum on developing critical thinking and research-method skills.

For More Information

Miller, W.L. (1994). Common space: Creating a collaborative research conversation. In B.F. Crabtree, V.J. Gilchrist, & A. Kuzel (Eds)., Exploring Collaborative Research in Primary Care. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Theory Development

In response to these concerns, all professionals in the field must be challenged to assume a dynamic leadership role in the advancement of applied theoretical and practical knowledge in regard to recreational sport management. Recreational sports are a vital component of leisure services and play an essential role in the quality of life. As a group of leisure service providers, we serve an important function for the populations in the communities in which each of our institutions is located. However, it is important for us to also recognize recreational sport management as a part of the leisure sciences, as well as to understand the theoretical underpinnings. In order to promote growth and stability in the field, we must spend time in the development of theory "congruent with mainstream management theory and more closely aligned with the needs of practicing managers" (Slack, 1996, p. 101). Collaborative efforts between practitioners and academicians in sport management is one method of initiating theory development. Slack (1991) supports this concept by stating:

"If our area is to grow as a legitimate field of study, it will need to develop its own knowledge structures. That is, we must develop a body of knowledge that is sufficiently substantial and unique to merit recognition by other academic disciplines. These knowledge structures must be of a higher order than practical how-to knowledge, and they must have a theoretical foundation," (p. 95).

This inquiry process begins by asking informed questions, which, in turn, generate new knowledge. By generating knowledge unique to recreational sport management, practitioners and academicians can make a significant contribution to the theoretical foundation. Finally, through theory development, testing, and actual application of the research, the field of recreational sport management will be able to gain a higher level of purpose. Properly focused research and theory "will help solve problems, suggest directions and address real concerns," (Paton, 1987, p. 30) being expressed by practitioners.

Unfortunately, despite the many benefits of research to the profession, "there has been remarkably little enthusiasm among practitioners to participate in or use research" (Savell, Huston and Malkin, 1993). Schon (1983) observed that "practitioners and researchers tend increasingly to live in different worlds, pursue different enterprises, and have little to say to one another" (p. 308). Many practitioners do not become involved in research for a variety of reasons, including lack of time, lack of adequate training, lack of administrative support, cost of conducting research, and motivation. However, as professionals in sport management, practitioners should assume a shared responsibility with academicians to advance the body of knowledge about sport management; a firm foundation of theory, built not only on empirical and authoritarian sources, but upon methodological inquiry. Testing theories and examining general principles and ideas of a fundamental nature enhances our interpretation of knowledge, clarifies uncertainties and facilitates broader understanding of what we, as recreational sport management professionals, do. Not only is research the component that will save the recreational sport management field from early extinction, it is also the key to growth.

Implementing Critical Thinking in Curriculum Development

Related to the need for increased research for the field is the development of critical thinking skills. Many practitioners believe that the academicians need to focus more of their curricula upon research methodology in order for sport management graduates to be properly trained to conduct job-related research. Zakrajsek (1993) believes that academicians in sport management should establish a "curricular balance between practical and theoretical knowledge that will support the educational mission of education and still be responsive to the needs of the profession" (p. 5). There is a desperate need for entry-level professionals who can be good critical thinkers, and who can ask the questions that lead to fully understanding leisure services, while ultimately meeting the needs of the participant. With a constant influx of new professionals who know the value of research and possess adequate research skills, our profession would have the potential to become more involved in generating new knowledge. A confidence in research on the part of our entry-level colleagues must be encouraged, supported, and rewarded by administrators through means of incentives, the provision of time to conduct research, and access to the accumulated knowledge and experience in the field (Field and Johnson, 1983; Nogradi, 1992).

Collaborative Research -- A Key

Since researchers and practitioners are supposedly pursuing the same quest -- that is, acquiring knowledge that will improve the quality of the sport experience for the participant -- it seems natural that the two should work together. One means o forging this link between researchers and practitioners is through collaborative research. Collaborative research, different than cooperative research in which two or more individuals work separately towards reaching a goal, is an approach that capitalizes upon the shared abilities, ideas, knowledge and resources of both the recreational sport practitioner and the academician. Here, the technical or research-based knowledge of the researcher is joined with the practical, experiential knowledge of the practitioner (Schempp and Martinek, 1988). Sharing the work of the investigation in the collaborative research process greatly enhances the potential for a successful satisfying research relationship. Conducting joint research will produce outcomes that will eventually benefit the participant in our programs (Howe, 1994, '95). Collaboration across specialty areas within recreational sport management -- intramural sports, informal sports, club sports, youth sports, etc. -- can shed light on research questions that could not have been answered adequately by studying one specialty area.

For a collaborative research approach to work, the parties involved must follow several steps for optimal success. Initially, both the researcher and the practitioner must buy into the notion that each have significant contributions to make to the generation of new knowledge and to solving current problems. Secondly, in the development of a collaborative relationship, Miller (1994) proposes that collaboration begins with affirmative listening. In each of their respective areas of expertise, it is essential for all involved in the collaboration to feel listened to and to acknowledge and appreciate what each has to contribute. Third, both the researcher and the practitioner need to gain insight and a common understanding of the problem, as well as share a mutual interest in solving the problem (Driver, 1989). Without this factor, the collaborative relationship does not proceed smoothly. Another crucial step toward a successful collaborative relationship is when both the practitioner and researcher begin working effectively together. When both parties have acknowledged their differences and still desire to gain a better understanding of each other, a fourth step of the collaborative relationship is reached. Miller (1994) labels this step "declaring group process" (p. 268). Finally, when the parties involved in the group process are able to define a shared language and create a common conceptual framework, the collaboration is well on the road to a successful relationship.

Benefits of Collaborative Research

Collaborative research provides benefits to both the researcher and the practitioner. Each has sources through which new knowledge can be generated and both can learn from each other because the flow of information is not one-way. Driver (1989) discussed the benefits of collaborative research applied specifically to the researcher and the practitioner; they are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Benefits of Collaborative Research

BENEFITS TO THE RESEARCHER

1. The critiques and insights of the practitioner assist in the stimulation of new perspectives for the researcher.

2. By cooperating with the practitioner, the researcher gains access to data otherwise not available.

3. By collaborating with the practitioner, the researcher is able to gain real-world perspectives with opportunities for reality testing.

4. Through this process, the researcher is able to see that the practitioner faces problems that require multi-disciplinary skills to adequately solve. As a result, the researcher gains a better insight into the entire dimension of the practitioner's problems.

5. A collaborative research project helps to promote a more productive and meaningful relationship between the parties involved.

6. By collaborating with the practitioner, the researcher may find that the practitioner can provide funding for future research.

7. With collaboration, there are increased opportunities for travel, work in different environments, and recognition by outside agencies. (p. 600)

Other benefits would certainly include increased grant funding opportunities for conducting research and more pedagogical teaching and training techniques for the academician.

BENEFITS TO THE PRACTITIONER

1. Through collaborative research with the academician, the practitioner is not only able to solve real-life problems, but is also able to continue to get the job done.

2. Through interactions with the researcher, the practitioner is provided better opportunities to keep up with professional advancements, assisting in the expanding of mindsets.

3. The subtle increase in professional pride felt by the practitioner significantly increases when working collaboratively with the researcher and leads to a higher level of commitment and motivation.

4. Collaboration with academicians provides the practitioner with more options for problem solving.

5. This type of relationship provides the practitioner with the opportunity to be on the cutting edge of a rapidly changing field.

6. As with the academician, a collaborative arrangement provides the practitioner with increased opportunities for travel, work in different environments, and recognition by institutions for their work with research and their application of that research (p. 602).

Other benefits for the practitioner are personnel/program planning and development and decision-making alternatives in developing effective practices.

Conclusion

If the body of knowledge is to grow, and recreational sport is to be viewed as a permanent societal function in the 21st century, then professionals -- both academicians and practitioners -- must assume the responsibility for continued quality research. To be successful in building a body of professional knowledge, shared research must be an integral part of the process. Practitioners in recreational sport management must realize that research is important not just to the academician, but to the practicing professional's ability to provide quality leisure services for the participant.

A project ripe for collaborative research efforts would be a study to discover why some individuals participate and why others choose not to participate in recreational sport programs. Currently, understanding why individuals choose not to participate in a recreational sports program as opposed to other activities could be viewed as the missing piece to the puzzle of providing leisure activities for the masses. Why people do not participate is a perplexing problem that affects all recreational sport settings such as military, collegiate, municipal, and industrial. As mentioned earlier, discovering the motivation behind participation or non-participation in recreational sport programs could very well be the answer to solidifying the need for recreational sport programs in the 21st century. If practitioners and academicians were to engage in partnerships to collaborate in the development of a model of motivation for participation, then perhaps better insight would be gained into the motives of the non-participant

Finally, in order to focus research efforts on important topics like programming efficacy, we must narrow the gap between academic researchers and the practicing professional by finding better means of communication (Ewert, 1986; Mobley, 1980; Smyth, 1991). It is crucial that we bring together the knowledge base and experiences of both the researcher and the practitioner, and encourage collaboration in developing, completing and sharing research project results.

References

Applin, A. (1986). Sport management: Whose responsibility -- physical education or business? Presented at AAH-PERD Convention, Cincinnati, OH.

Driver, B. L. (1989). Applied leisure research: Benefits to scientists and practitioners and their respective roles. In E. L. Jackson and T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp. 597-609). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Ewert, A. (1986, March). What research doesn't tell the practitioner. Parks and Recreation, 46-49.

Field, D. R., and Johnson, D. R. (1983). The interactive process of applied research: A partnership between scientists and park and resource managers. Journal of Parks and Recreational, 1(4), 18-27.