ABSTRACT
In the previous chapter, we noted three core sets of difficulties which to some extent explain the decline in comparative policy studies generally and in relation to sport in particular. The first set of factors, that of globalisation and associated phenomena which cut across nation state and policy boundaries, was the subject of discussion in Chapter 1. In the commentary which follows, we focus on the second set of factors associated with the epistemological and ontological implications of the methodological pluralism which has been increasingly evident in the social sciences over the last two decades, in particular with the onset of post-modern critiques of traditional methods. The certainties of modernity - of rationality, progress, scientific method, universal knowledge and objective truth - have come under increasing attack from advocates of post-modern, relativist, locally specific, discourse-produced knowledge, the truth value of which is local, subjective and limited. Such a set of claims renders comparison problematic, even within cultures and at the local level, let alone comparison on a cross-national basis. However, while these methodological problems are real and significant for comparative policy analysis, little reference is made to such issues within the comparative sports policy literature.
