ABSTRACT

There is ongoing discussion led by scholars in the quest to clarify sport management (SM) as a discipline with its own body of knowledge, vocabulary, and methodology (Balduck et al., 2004; Boucher, 1998; Chadwick, 2009, 2011; Chalip, 2006; Chelladurai, 2013; Doherty, 2012, 2013; Frisby, 2005; Olafson, 1990, 1995; Paton, 1987; Pitts, 2001; Rudd et al., 2010; Skinner and Edwards, 2005; Slack, 1991, 1996; Soucie and Doherty, 1996; Zeigler, 1987). Assessing the whole range of theoretical topics, which have been identified in different studies (Ciomaga, 2013; Kim, 2012; Parkhouse et al., 1982; Pitts and Danylchuk, 2007; Pitts and Pedersen, 2005; Soucie and Doherty, 1996), we could state that the body of knowledge generated so far in SM is organized in clusters around marketing and organizational theory. There has been also remarkable progress in the number and diversity of scholarly opinions regarding research topics and methodologies in the field of SM (Balduck et al., 2004; Boucher, 1998; Chadwick, 2009, 2011; Chalip, 2006; Chelladurai, 2013; Doherty, 2012, 2013; Frisby, 2005; Naumovski et al., 2013; Olafson, 1990, 1995; Paton, 1987; Pitts, 2001; Rudd et al., 2010; Skinner and Edwards, 2005; Slack, 1991, 1996; Soucie and Doherty, 1996; Zeigler, 2007). Slack and Parent (2007) in their book offered an overview of SM research development in two key areas of SM: organization theory (OT) and finance/economics. Byers et al. (2012) and Baker and Esherick (2013) examined the key principles and concepts in SM. The literature regarding the development of SM discipline is extensive but to be able to justify its scientific status this overview needs to be reassessed in the light of the representative philosophical approaches respected by the scientific community, which are used for the validation of scientific knowledge with the purpose of demarcating what the science is and what is not. To capture the complexity of research achievements in SM, the disciplinary approach described by Renson (1989), and also suggestions for research synthesis in SM proposed by Weed (2005), can be applied. Nová (2014a) offers a thorough analysis of how the most representative approaches from

the philosophy of science can be used as an instrument for conducting insight and judgement as to whether SM could be considered a science. All these attempts, namely inductivism (Chalmers, 1994); falsification (Popper, 1992); paradigm (Kuhn, 1962); and relativism (Feyerabend, 1993) with regard to the science of SM have their drawbacks, particularly related to the vague definition of significant terms, namely paradigms in the scientific context of SM. Therefore, for further justification of the uniqueness and moreover applicability of research in SM, methodology of the research programs suggested by Lakatos (1978) can be utilized. This is in tune with the nature of sport management science and its position in an Integrated paradigm for the study of human movement (Renson, 1989). According to this paradigm, SM is an applied discipline whose concepts are derived from the underlying fields of behavioural sciences, economics, and management sciences and many others. It is a discipline with heterogeneous focus and in terms of its stage of development it could be stated that it is in pre-paradigmatic stage (Kuhn, 1962). Bearing in mind the results of the discussion of Popper and Lakatos in economic methodology led by Hands (1993), Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programs seems to be the most appropriate to assess satisfactorily the scientific development of SM with regard to the empirical and theoretical advances in the field.