ABSTRACT
It is unhelpful to Ward’s case that he fails to mention which historians and publications do not meet his standards. He states: ‘the quality of some sport history in academic journals and edited collections is not high’. Since his essay is aimed squarely, provocatively at sports historians, written in one of their flagship journals, one would expect Ward to name names, but sadly this does not happen. Who are ‘the best historians of sport’ that do not meet the basic standards of the mainstream? This is surely crucial towards developing a methodological and theoretical framework by which Ward can critique the discipline, and he should not pull his punches were his analysis to have any substantive value to other historians. Without further specifics (which he will hopefully provide when he expands upon this essay), Ward is essentially attacking sports history as an abstract concept. It is, in his mind, something ‘other’ than the ‘mainstream’. (‘Mainstream’ might be a term also used by sports historians, including Johnes and Cronin, but it is still a highly ambiguous one. What, if any sub-discipline of history, can be called ‘mainstream’?4)
It is possible, however, that Ward mistakes a more interdisciplinary enquiry that incorporates more than standard historical theory for poor practice. The major sports history journals, including the International Journal of the History of Sport, Sport in History and the Journal of Sport History, have an audience beyond ‘mainstream’ history: they also aim towards people working within the broad field of sports studies, including sociologists, psychologists, other sports scientists and even heritage practitioners. The interdisciplinary readership and editorial discretion of these journals reflect years of debate regarding the lines of demarcation between history, sociology, sports studies, cultural studies and other disciplines, particularly with regard to the integration of postmodern theory into sports history.5 A careful reading of the journals – Sport in History, for example – displays a continually vigorous debate regarding historical and sociological theory.6 Amid the admittedly sombre tone of articles discussing the ‘postmodern challenge’ of traditional social-historical approaches to sport, and despite Johnes’s concerns regarding the health of sports history, I would submit that such debate is a sign of health, rather than weakness. After all, these are internal arguments: ones that are brought into sharper relief in the era of austerity and research assessments, but are nevertheless consumed by a desire for sports history to remain relevant across various disciplines, including history.
