A Typology of Approaches to Comparative Analysis of Sports Policy

Abstract

This article provides a four-fold typology of comparative sports policy studies: Type 1, Seeking Similarities, is a nomothetic approach seeking law-like generalization; Type 2 is Describing Difference, an ideographic approach seeking to capture the specificity of policy systems; Type 3, Theorizing the Transnational, goes beyond the nation-state as the unit of analysis to fuse global and local levels of explanation; and Type 4, Defining Discourse, seeks to analyze ways in which policy discourse defines the reality of the policy problems it seeks to address. The authors underline the ontological and epistemological assumptions of such approaches that are often only implicit, and they employ selected examples to illustrate the contribution to knowledge of the different approaches.

Developing a Method for Comparing the Elite Sport Systems and Policies of Nations: A Mixed Research Methods Approach

“…Mixed research methods were used for several purposes and at several levels: a sequential exploratory research and as part of this, a triangulation method. These methods were also suggested by Henry et al (2005) to address in part the problems associated with cross-national research. The unique feature of this study is that in addition to measuring the easily quantifiable variables, it assesses processes by means of an elite sport climate survey (both objective and subjective data) with the main stakeholders in elite sport.…”

“…Henry et al (2005) identified four types of comparative analysis on sport policies, each accompanied with their specific weaknesses and core problems. The types of comparative analysis reveal difficulties related to operationalization, comparability, measurement, explanations of causality, validation, reliability, interpretation, moving beyond the descriptive, and balancing between global and local factors.…”

“…These studies have primarily focused on a description of the organizational context of elite sport and the sport policies in different nations. Analysis of this literature concludes that relatively few comparative studies have been conducted in sport (Henry, Amara, & Al-Tauqi, 2005;Henry, 2007;Houlihan, 1997;Bergsgard, Houlihan, Mangset, Nødland, & Rommetveldt, 2007) and some comparative descriptive research on elite sport policy development has only emerged over the past few years (e.g., Bergsgard et al, 2007;Digel, Burk, & Fahrner, 2006;M. Green, 2005;Green & Collins, 2008;Green & Houlihan, 2005;Houlihan & Green, 2008).…”

“…This deficiency in the literature is caused by the difficulty of comparing nations and sport systems on a directly comparable basis, due to cultural differences and the uniqueness of each sport system. Furthermore, Henry et al (2005) noted that there appears to be a lack of standardization in the research methods used to make comparisons, as well as limited publicly available and quantifiable data on sport policies. These constraints are indicative of the complexity of cross-national comparisons.…”

Embracing Cultural Contexts and Critical Reflexivity: (Re)presenting the Global Sports Industry in Research and Practice

“…Finally, researchers who place sport management within the material contexts of everyday life and multi-racial, economic and political democracy can, as Henry, Amara, Al-Tauqi, and Lee (2005) maintain, effectively address the imperatives of consumption; the dynamics of the marketplace; commercial space; the sweeping reach of neo-liberal ideology, power and influence; the production of knowledges and identities; nation-states; globalization; freedom; and community (Henry et al, 2005). They articulate the importance of international sports policy development and governance and the corresponding need for sustained comparative analysis.…”