Search results

The history of Hungarian sociology of sport can be divided to two periods, which are different in terms of conditions but show similarities in many other ways. In the period between the mid-1960s and 1989, the intensive development of the discipline was hindered by the repression of sociology and the lack of interest in sport on the part of social scientists. However, the unique social functions of (elite) sport still created a demand for scientific inquiry. In the second period, from 1989 to the present day, the conditions of research freedom were established; yet, sport as an area for research failed to attract the attention of social scientists. In this respect, today’s scholars of sociology of sport face similar problems as the founders of the discipline, although the changing economic conditions in terms of research funding and institutionalization provide a more favorable environment for the scientific investigation of sport-related social issues. As a result, the number of sport sociological publications has steadily increased in the past decade and Hungarian scholars have the opportunity to participate in international conferences and research projects. This chapter reviews sociology of sport in Hungary, with a focus on historical heritage, institutionalization, the current situation, and barriers to development.

The sports field is in constant change and adaptation, which leads to a need to explore new strategies to achieve success. This is why interest in technology has increased in recent years. However, despite its undeniable importance, there is no quantitative data that provides a macroscopic view of the existing literature. Therefore, the objective of this study is to carry out a bibliometric analysis that provides structured information on the origin and academic evolution of technology in the sports field. To this end, a total of 170 articles published between 1977 and 2019 in the Web of Science (Core Collection) related to technology in sport have been analyzed. The 170 publications cover 396 authors, 134 journals, 37 countries and 261 institutions. In order to carry out the analyses, authors, journal, institution and country have been taken into account, as well as the co-authoring, co-citation and co-words networks. This information can provide an overview of the three thematic areas found: (i) technology in sport from an educational perspective, (ii) technology in sport from a medical-performance perspective, and (iii) technology in sport from a management perspective.

The chapter begins by examining the origins of sociology of sport in Spain, which dates back to the transition to democracy, during which period sport became transformed progressively from an object of social concern into an object of sociological study. It then goes on to analyse the main factors of activation in particular processes of university teaching staff accreditation which acted as catalysts for the set of processes that fostered the emergence of sociology of sport in Spain. Lastly, the principal study fields are analysed by grouping them into three areas: sport and society, social attitudes to sport and sport facilities and organisations. In the conclusion, an assessment is made of contributions made to the speciality as well as of sociology of sport’s progressive internationalisation, a rare phenomenon prior to 2005 which is now regarded as a major indicator of the maturity of the discipline.

Nowadays, several processes help organize scholarly work about sport and physical activities in France. These include professional development activities of sport and leisure organizations; cultural innovations within sports and physical activities, which involve new spaces with new technologies; questions of public health; and questions of inclusion for marginal groups such as handicapped persons. Questions of power are important to understand each sport situation and each sport sociocultural, economic, and ecologic system. Behind the political and institutional instrumentalization of sport, the reality of social and cultural changes is rarely clear. Strong social, cultural, and economic forces continue to govern sports and seem to be more and more prominent. When sport scandals emerge, the media reveal the case, notably but not exclusively in the context of commercial interests. The possibility for a caring and respectful physical education experience and to improve inclusion for all (Gardou, C. (2012). La société inclusive, parlons-en! Toulouse: Erès) seems like an uphill battle.

Sport entrepreneurship is one of the newer forms of entrepreneurship but is rapidly gaining popularity due to its ability to merge theory with practice. The main difference between sport entrepreneurship and other forms of entrepreneurship is the incorporation of an interdisciplinary perspective. This means unlike other forms of entrepreneurship that are either focused on financial or nonfinancial aspects, sport entrepreneurship offers a unique hybrid conceptualization of entrepreneurship that acknowledges the complexity of the global economic environment. This chapter addresses the need for more research on sport entrepreneurship to take a holistic approach to understanding its meaning and application in business studies.

Higher Education institutions are complex but optimal organizations for innovation and creativity to grow and flourish. To achieve this, teaching staff should stimulate students’ active engagement in their own learning processes leading to transformative student learning. This chapter focuses on an innovative pedagogical approach, which has been consistently implemented for the last three academic years in the 3rd year module “Sport, Leisure and Tourism” within Sports undergraduate degree at the University of Algarve (Portugal). The case study method and reflective portfolio were used to create an authentic, enriching, and transformative learning experience for all students. These teaching, learning, and assessment methods are, within the context of the module, underpinned by experiential learning theory. Meta-reflections of 92 students’ portfolios showed their views about the entire process and their perception of skills they gained: (i) scientific and academic; (ii) professional; and (iii) intrapersonal and interpersonal. The innovative pedagogy presented in this chapter aimed to impact on students’ ability to understand and navigate through complexity – both in a teaching and learning environment and in a real organization.