English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

How best to summarise the professional work of sport scientists? What if we were to view them as artisans? As enskiled crafts-persons who think  through  and  with  their materials? What implications would this idea have for how we take up with research and ensuing scientific methods? Here, we explore these philosophical questions – of applied relevance – through Ingold’s process of making. From this perspective, skilled artisans like potters, basket-makers and sport scientists,  think through making and doing , as opposed to  make and do through thinking . Where the latter imposes form onto matter by way of conceptualisation, the former goes along with materials in active participation, corresponding with what such things have to say with a skilled attentiveness and selective responsiveness. We argue that the implications of these propositions for research in sport science are profound; encouraging a progression from the traditional hypothetico-deductive theory of scientific method ( make and do through thinking ), towards an art of inquiry ( think through making and doing ). In the former, phenomena are studied  about , (re)producing categorical (sub-)disciplinary knowledge by way of vertical integration, while in the latter, phenomena are studied  with , growing storied knowledge  of  by way of correspondence. These arguments are not to be construed as a call for more ‘qualitative research’ within the sport sciences, but rather to underline the value of situating  participant observation  at the core of one’s inquiry. Through a prologue and epilogue, we exemplify our arguments in the very process of this paper’s becoming – detailing the careful attentiveness and selective responsiveness to the various invitations to write, emergent while  thinking through making and doing .

Thinking through making and doing: sport science as an art of inquiry