The present discussion regarding the tension between paradigms within sport and exercise psychology, their influences on the readiness of practitioners, and the usefulness of generated knowledge resonates strongly with my own experiences as a neophyte practitioner. My own progress through the BPS QSEP qualification resulted in a great deal of soul
searching in which I better understood and developed my professional philosophy and railed against the positivist paradigm I had initially been trained in during my undergraduate and postgraduate experiences. The challenges I faced are summarised by Collins and McCann (2015), but my own struggles with philosophy were broadly limited to professional practice rather than research. These struggles have continued during this PhD journey during which I have attempted to reflect on how my professional philosophy fits within the dominant paradigms in our discipline. The outcome of this reflection is a desire to be clear about philosophical assumptions underpinning my research so as to better allow others to
contextualise the methodology adopted and be critical about the contribution this thesis may make.
3.8. Dominant Research Paradigms in Contemporary Sport and Exercise Psychology
In their thought-provoking discussion of the role of research philosophy within contemporary sport and exercise psychology and practice, Hassmen et al. (2016) considered the paradigms which dominate discourse in the discipline. Hassmen et al. (2016) considered each of these philosophical views of science about sport and exercise psychology research and identified that some of the most prominent contemporary theories may reflect Kuhnian paradigms and limit the expansion of knowledge in the field. Armed with an understanding of the philosophy of science and research, the following section will consider the implications
of the research paradigms that have come to dominate sport and exercise psychology research and practice. This discussion will then frame and justify the philosophical approach being adopted for the current thesis.
To establish the focus of their discussion, Hassmen el al. (2016) contacted the editorial boards of the most prominent sport and exercise psychology journals to review the preceding 5 years of published output to identify, a) the most frequently considered
phenomenon of interest, b) the most frequently applied theory used within published articles, and c) the most common methodological approach applied within the articles published within these journals. The most prominent phenomenon of interest was motivation, the most frequently applied theory being SDT, and regression analysis (including correlation studies) the most frequently applied methodology employed.
3.8.1. Self-Determination Theory.
As the preceding chapter demonstrated, the dominant theories relating to motivation in sport and exercise psychology are SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and AGT (Nicholls, 1984), with each being applied in various contexts and to explain different motivation-related phenomena. Adopting appropriate methods of systematic reviews, Hassmen et al. (2016) conducted a brief review of regression studies investigating SDT in sport and exercise from 2010 to 2015, specifically addressing a) the role of theory within each article, and b) the reporting of about theory. Hassmen et al., (2016) concluded that the studies they reviewed represented SDT being applied in a manner similar to a Kuhnian paradigm, in that SDT guided the research question and the tools for researchers to answer these questions.
Furthermore, researchers did not test the theories but rather tried to apply the theory to new population groups, anomalous results with ad hoc assertions (e.g., cultural differences) or through methodological inconsistencies or inaccuracies. Hassmen et al., (2016) also
categorised SDT literature as reflecting a Lakatosian degenerative research programme due to a) the lack of competing theories; b) the lack of new predictions (rather than applying
theories to new populations or situations); and c) removing focus from results that are inconsistent with theory with post hoc hypotheses.
Despite Hassmen et al.’s (2016) review of SDT literature, considering SDT research in sport and exercise psychology as a Kuhnian paradigm should not come as a surprise. In their recent text summarising the key tenets of, and evidence for, SDT, the theory’s
cofounders Ryan and Deci (2017) stated in the first sentence of the text that they “…began
the project of developing self-determination theory…with a particular paradigmatic concern in mind” (p.vii). They go on to state in the preface that “The publication of this volume represents…a further touchstone in providing a general paradigm for researchers and practitioners who are interested in active functioning and wellness” (p.vii). The researchers
responsible for the development of SDT as a meta-theory of human motivation always intended it to have the role of a research paradigm rather than simply a theory, and this is not an unknown fact. In the same volume, Deci and Ryan (2017) spend considerable time
providing a (non-exhaustive) list of contemporary researchers who have contributed to the SDT paradigm. Furthermore, Deci and Ryan (2002) called for researchers to “extend and
refine the tenets of SDT…applying the concept to new domains” (pp. 432-433), suggesting
that researchers applying the theory to other settings are doing what they are supposed to within this paradigm.
Despite SDT being considered by its creators as a paradigm as Kuhn (1962) defined the term, the concern is that researchers using or applying this paradigm have not been explicitly aware that they are working within this paradigm. In the previously mentioned review of recent SDT research conducted by Hassmen et al.’s (2016), it was noted that researchers either referred to SDT as a framework to be used to conduct research, or as a theory from which hypotheses can be developed and tested. Researchers were not
consistently explicit in which of these approaches (if any) they were taking with their
research, suggesting that in some cases they might be naïvely working within this paradigm. From a Kuhnian perspective this approach reflects ‘normal science’ and expanding theories in such a small way could be considered progress. On the other hand, this approach does not align with scientific progress as judged by Popperian and Lakatosian standards. Kuhn (1962) would argue that the predominant paradigm (e.g., SDT) will continue to make progress until such a time that anomalies confound one another and reach crisis (Hassmen et al. 2016). The challenge with this approach is that Kuhn (1962) did not clearly set out the process by which such a crisis point is reached, and implicit (and, to an extent, explicit) adoption of a paradigm reduces the likelihood that anomalies (e.g., unexpected results) are viewed as such.
3.8.2. Achievement Goal Theory.
As the other dominant theory of motivation within contemporary sport and exercise psychology research and practice, AGT is open to the same level of scrutiny when
considering the process of knowledge generation. Much of the criticisms of SDT –
paradigmatic approaches involving theory verification rather than testing, ad hoc hypotheses for unexpected results – can also be considered within the context of AGT research. Harwood et al. (2015) conducted a systematic review of studies which investigated the intrapersonal correlates of perceptions of motivational climates. The results of this systematic review suggested a tendency within AGT literature to a) produce more articles than are required to demonstrate a relationship between variables theorised within AGT (i.e., correlational studies), and not enough studies exploring causality relationships; b) an overreliance on subjective measures (e.g., questionnaires) rather than objective ones (e.g., performance indicators); c) too little investigation of social agents other than coaches; d) too little investigation of the concurrent or interactive influences of multiple social agents; e) an overreliance on school- or college-aged participants; f) an overreliance on team sport athletes; and g) a tendency by researchers to make suggestions for practice based on correlational findings. Harwood et al. (2015) summarised the literature they reviewed as focussing on verifying or expanding AGT theory rather than testing it, which may reflect Kuhn’s (1962) normal science or Lakatos’ (1970) degenerating research programme.
Further evidence that AGT research may be considered a Kuhnian paradigm is the idea that AGT theorists and researchers have consistently railed against alternative theories or modifications of the central tenets of AGT. For instance, Hassmen et al. (2016) discuss the process by which researchers investigating AGT in sport and other disciplines have proposed expansions of the original AGT dichotomous framework (discussed in the preceding
chapter). The conceptualisation of the achievement context as being a 2x2 framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2002; Pintrich, 2000), and more recently a 2x3 framework (Martin, 2006) have been dismissed by prominent AGT theorists and researchers purely due to the risk to
parsimony (e.g., Roberts, 2012). Defence of theories on the grounds of parsimony in favour of greater explanatory power reflects Kuhnian paradigms. In addition, this approach
contradicts the view that parsimony is only one of many measures of theory robustness and applicability within science rather than the only principle to adhere to (Courtney & Courtney, 2008; Hassmen et al., 2016).