Dr. Sc. Philos., Professor Y.V. Larin^1
1Tyumen State University, Tyumen

Keywords: sport, philosophy, sportology, sport philosophy, sport theory, sport phenomenology, sport history

Background. Presently sport science faces a variety of hardly solvable problems due to the newly emerged and instituted research disciplines that address sports as complex, multisided and intrinsically contradictory reality [9, 12-14] with its processes and phenomena analyzable in a wide range of aspects and from many viewpoints.

It is still questionable, for instance, whether or not many of the ongoing sports-related studies can be classified as ‘interdisciplinary’ as far as their scientific statuses are concerned [6, 10-18]? Or, if this knowledge field is reduced to ‘sport philosophy’, shall it be ranked ‘beyond the existing sciences’ [4, 92-93]? Shall it be considered in such case as one of ‘philosophical sub-disciplines’ [10, 149-150] or firmly positioned as a ‘sub-discipline of sport science’ [5, 299]? Does it make sense to acknowledge it as a ‘separate discipline within the frame of special philosophical knowledge’ although still completely refute every attempt to interpret it as the single legitimate cognitive model applicable to the modern sport reality [2, 66-72]; or, even more, the trend to associate it with the relevant accumulated knowledgebase on the whole [7, 124-128]? Is it really feasible to expect that ‘integrated sports science’ [1, 97-99] must be created one day as a ‘system of interdependent constituent’ disciplines with each of the latter specific in terms of the subject research fields and research methodologies [11, 143-146]; or shall we proceed from the assumption that ‘sport means the certain autonomous, closed self-developing cultural domain evolving as dictated by its own logics’ to believe that modern ‘sports neither give rise nor require a new methodological perspective’ and, hence, the ‘sport processes shall be analyzed by the relevant sociocultural sciences rather than special sport methods’ [13, 167]? What heuristic resource in this context is provided by modern ‘sportology’ as the term and meaning increasingly popular among modern foreign researchers in reference to the ‘essence of new integrated sport science’ [16]?

Objective of the study was to outline the range of issues of methodological importance for each of the issues being duly addressed and developed.

Study results and discussion Having analyzed in the general outlines the above views and positions, we may make the conclusion that the world-outlooks and methodological grounds they are based on – shall be seriously revised albeit it should be recognized that each of them offers certain constructive ideas and concepts. We believe that a special priority in analysing these and other relevant issues [8, 39-45] shall be given to the following considerations.

1. As provided by V.S. Stepin, D. Shapir and K. Hooker, modern scientific knowledge in some subject field may be structured as a hierarchy of the following three (not two as it has been believed recently) levels: ‘The top level includes a ‘coherent array of conceptual categories’ to identify the core field of metaphysics/ ontology subject to the studies. It is associated with a few knowledge fields like the theory of methods, cognitive psychology etc. Going next is the level of theories as such; and, finally, comes the level of experiments and findings’ [12, 14]. If we accept the above, the internal structure of sportology interpreted as the integrated system of sport sciences may be viewed as composed of at least the following three disciplines:

– ‘Meta-theoretical sportology’ as the philosophy of sports geared to develop the world outlooks and methodological basics for the sport reality being perceived;

– ‘Theoretical sportology’ or the sport theory designed to identify and analyze the essence and structure of the sport reality with its emergence, functionality and development logics; and

– ‘Empirical sportology’ or the sport phenomenology designed to study the sport reality in its specific temporal and spatial forms and locations and practical incarnations via the fact-finding studies and empirical generalizations to accumulate grounds for the relevant theoretical and philosophical conceptions.

2. In view of the above, we do not need any more to oppose or equate the sportology, sport philosophy and sport theory. The latter two may be interpreted as the core disciplines within the frame of sportology referred to as integrated sport science. A clear distinction shall be made, however, between the ‘purely philosophical sport contemplations’ and ‘sport philosophy’ due to the fact that subject to ‘pure’ philosophy is the existence as such perceived in its general substantial aspects. Such visions may apparently be considered in the multiple variety of the forms including sports, albeit each of the forms is only ‘one of…’ and ‘additional to…’. In contrast to the above, the subject field to the modern sport philosophy is the sports as such with their concrete specifics and with the relevant world outlooks and cognitive methodologies, whilst the existence as such with its forms and constituents is considered only to the extent required for the comparative analyses. To put it in other words, the former focuses on own ideas produced, and the latter focuses on the concepts derived from the ideas and applied to design, on the theoretical level, specific scientific theories for the subject field.

3. The theoretical level as such, in its turn, is also quite complexly structured [15, 77-101]. It includes at least two core sublevels with their specific cognitive goals, practical procedures and notions, with the first level considering the ‘most abstract ideal object’ and the second dealing with the ‘certain derivatives of the ideal object to construct models of specific real phenomena’ [3, 114]. This means that the theoretical sportology may be classified as follows: (1) fundamental/ general sport theory designed to develop a basic/ frame model; and (2) the array of interrelated and associated special/ specific theories geared to offer specific models to describe the relevant concrete forms, processes, phenomena, statuses etc.

4. As far as the sport history is concerned that is known to study the sport reality in its historical domain, it would be counterproductive to rank this research discipline within the frame of the ‘sub-disciplinary’ notions and meanings in the context of historical sciences. As provided by N.G. Chernishevskiy, ‘neither theory of an object can exist without the object history; albeit no idea of history may emerge unless duly unsupported by an object theory since the latter provides notions of the object and identifies its importance and frame’. He further rightfully believed that a basis for the object theory shall be formed by the object history on the one hand; with the theory as such, on the other hand, helping address the object history on a more comprehensive and inclusive basis. The ‘deeper insight into history facilitates further improvement of the theory and so on and so forth goes on the process with the interconnection being mutually beneficial for the theory and history’ [14, 265-267]. It may mean among other things that, if we now want our sport research being ‘sportologic’ enough, it shall be designed so as to secure own theory and history being duly harmonized, with the sport history being logically considered (1) as an exactly sportologic discipline with (2) due consideration to the known paradox of ‘theoretical burden of a fact’ i.e. so as to ensure the theoretical and empirical knowledge being duly balanced; and (3) as a transitional stage between the sport theory and sport phenomenology naturally connecting them both.

Conclusion. The study analyses the key basics for the systemic and integrated presentation of the internal structure of the modern sport sciences with their subjects and methodologies being outlined. Apart of the purely academic implications, the considerations and analysis may be helpful for the specialist training process design in the disciplines related to the physical culture and sports theory and practice.

References

1. Baranov V.A. Filosofiya sporta: teorii, kontseptsii, paradigmy [Sports philosophy: theory, concept, paradigm]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2016, no. 4, pp. 97-99.
2. Vizitey N.N., Ibragimov M.M., Andreeva E.V. Filosofiya sporta: dialogi ob ontologicheskikh osnovaniyakh i smyslovoy tselesoobraznosti [Sports philosophy: dialogues about ontological grounds and semantic expediency]. AktualnI problemi fIzichnoYi kulturi I sportu, 2013, no.. 26 (1), pp. 66-72.
3. Devyatova S.V., Kuptsov V.I. Struktura nauchnogo znaniya. Filosofiya i metodologiya nauki. Ch. 1 [Structure of scientific knowledge. Philosophy and methodology of science. Part 1], Moscow: SvR-Argus publ., 1994, pp. 112-129.
4. Ibragimov M.M. «Filosofiya sporta»: predmet, struktura i problemy metodologii ["Sports philosophy": subject, structure and problems of methodology]. AktualnI problemi fIzichnoi kulturi I sportu, 2010, no. 3 (19), pp. 91-100.
5. Kildyushov O.V. Novy kurs po sotsiologii sporta [New sports sociology course]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, 2015, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 299-304.
6. Kylasov A.V. Sport kak sotsiokulturny fenomen epokhi globalizatsii. Avtoref. dis. kand. kulturologii [Sport as socio-cultural phenomenon of the era of globalization. PhD diss. abstract]. Moscow, 2010, 31 p.
7. Kylasov A.V., Petrova T.N. Filosofskoe osmyslenie sporta [Philosophical interpretation of sports]. Vestnik Chuvashskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. I.Ya. Yakovleva, 2013, no. 1 (77), vol. 1, pp. 124 – 128.
8. Larin Y.V. Cultural studies v poiske distsiplinarnosti [Cultural studies in search of discipline]. Vestnik Ishimskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta im. P.P. Ershova, 2014, no. 3 (15), pp. 39-45.
9. Lubysheva L.I. Sovremenny sport: problemy i resheniya [Modern sport: problems and solutions]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Uralskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Obrazovanie, zdravookhranenie, fizicheskaya kultura, 2014, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 12-14.
10. Morgan U. Filosofiya sporta: istoricheskiy i kontseptualny obzor i otsenka ee buduschego [Philosophy of sports: historical and conceptual review and assessment of its future]. Transl. by A. Smirnova. Logos, 2006, no. 3 (54), pp.147-159.
11. Parygina E.A. Rossiyskaya nauka o fizicheskoy kulture i sporte: problemy sistemnogo podkhoda [Russian science of physical culture and sports: problems of system approach]. Omskiy nauchny vestnik, 2009, no. 6 (82), pp. 143-146.
12. Stepin V.S. Teoreticheskoe znanie [Theoretical knowledge]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya publ., 2000, 744 p.
13. Khaydarova G.D. Ob aktualnosti filosofii i kulturologii sporta [On relevance of sports philosophy and culturology]. Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta FSKN Rossii, 2012, no. 1 (10)., pp. 167-170.
14. Chernyshevskiy N.G. O poezii [About poetry]. Complete works in XV vol., vol. II. Moscow: Goslitizdat publ., 1949, pp. 263-288.
15. Yarkova E.N. Istoriya i metodologiya nauki [History and methodology of science]. Tyumen. TSU publ., 2007, 320 p.
16. Bachvarov M. Sportology & sportological analysis. NSA PRESS SOFIA, 2005, 28 p.

Corresponding author: jvlarin@mail.ru

Abstract

The study considers different viewpoints and concepts on how sport sciences shall be further designed and developed. Many of them are widely different and, being ranked on the same scale, naturally may not be equally fairly addressed although at the same time neither of them may be qualified absolutely wrong. Moreover, each of them may be assumed to bear a sort of ‘grain of truth’ that may be identified, analysed and retained as a reasonable and valuable asset. Objective of the study was to outline the range of issues of methodological importance for each of them being duly addressed and developed. The study applied the following methods: structuring and systemic approach; and the theoretical reflexion method. The study findings are the following: based on the modern developments in the science history and methodology, we offer a set of primary provisions for integrated conceptions of the sport sciences being developed. Special efforts in the study were made to outline the subjects and methodologies of modern philosophy, sportology, sport philosophy, sport theory, sport phenomenology and sport history in their interactions and interrelations.