Ontokinesiological approach as priority progress avenue for modern sport science

Dr.Hab., Associate Professor A.A. Peredelsky1
Postgraduate A.A. Shlyakhtov1
Postgraduate O.Z. Ipatieva1
1Russian State University of Physical Education, Sports, Youth and Tourism (SCOLIPE), Moscow

Keywords: strategic plan, sportization concept, ontokinesiological approach, biologization, theory of dynamic systems.

Background. The history of the global sport science gives multiple records of the great individual accomplishments being acknowledged with time, and this holds particularly true for the research findings in the marginal/ intersection areas of different scientific fields and for applications of the basic disciplinary theories and practices in specific social areas.

It should be mentioned that V.K. Bal’sevich enjoyed a well-deserved recognition in the scientific world, and many appreciated his significant (and leading in many cases) personal contributions to the sports science and sport management system that evolved into an independent scientific school in Russia.

Objective of the study was to provide practical grounds for the ontokinesiological approach to be given a special priority in the modern sport theory.

Results and discussion. Regretfully the integrative role of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s findings has been underestimated so far, and particularly underestimated are their benefits of the modern sport theory development strategies in the following two domains. The first domain may be described as the methodology of theoretical and empirical studies of the relationship between the two forms of motion or two levels of material organization, i.e. the domain still underdeveloped in the global sociology in the theoretical and practical aspects. And the second domain of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s creative heritage (and probably the most important one) is the physical education service sportization field.

The key provisions of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach are the following.

1. ‘Kinesiology is an integrative area of scientific knowledge of human motor activity with the relevant morphological, functional, biomechanical systems and methods for its progress and excellence’.

Ontokinesiology is expected to evolve into a part of kinesiology or even “an independent knowledge field” focused on the “staged progress of a holistic system of individual motor activity in the personality evolution process’; “on acceptable and unacceptable forms of stimulated progress of motor function and physical activity culture”; and “on the potential losses as a result of the physical activity limitations due to, among other things, a limited access to modern kinesiological resource mobilizing technologies for major population groups” [1, p. 243].

The integrative physical education theory and practice, as provided by V.K. Bal’sevich, is ineffective in the above efforts due to ‘differentiated trends’.

2. Physical activity as the core ontokinesiological notion ‘refers to a very specific physical education service and, above all, the individual progress agenda in this area’ [1, p. 7], with the notion having its specific kinesiological and ontokinesiological meanings.

3. The notion of ‘human physical activity needs to be clarified basically due to the fact that it, as provided by V.K. Bal’sevich, “it mostly refers to the socially motivated changes in the modern individual attitudes to PE in the context of the individual progress agenda’ [1, p. 8].

By the way, the notion of ‘kinesiological potential’, as provided by V.K. Balsevich, may be specified or even expanded by adding the ‘psychophysiological’ component of human motor activity to the ‘physical’ one [1, p. 8].

V.K. Bal’sevich substantiates the ontokinesiological approach by the findings of his 30-years-long studies of postnatal ontogenesis (birth-to-death bodily evolution), and by the experimental tests (run in 1976 to 1999) of the innovative physical education and sport training technologies created on their basis and later on referred to as the physical education sportization ones.

So, the ontokinesiological approach assumes that a physical activity is the socio-biological phenomenon that integrates endogenous and exogenous objects with their social and biological determinants [1, p. 7] with a special emphasis on the social aspects and role of the physical education and sport service; that is, on the physical education and sport application for the personality socialization purposes unlimited by the purely biological, biomechanical and biochemical aspects of the physical education and sport service. It should be mentioned that in the 1920ies the foreign sport science (with its focus on mostly the empirical research) prioritized the biological reductionism with a critical attitude to the interdisciplinary integrations in the applied theory of dynamic systems, sports biotechnology, genetic and biomechanical research in sports – i.e. innovations to the systematic management of biological objects in sports [2]. Thus the theory of dynamic systems may be interpreted as the ‘startup to remove the borderlines between different areas of sports science: physiology, biomechanics, psychology, phenomenology and sociology’ to open up the ‘window of opportunity to reconsider the athletic training systems on a comprehensive interdisciplinary basis’ [3].

Therefore, we have found that the V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach and the critical approach to the interdisciplinary sporting applications of theory of dynamic systems are in serious conflict in fact as they exclude one another. If we assume that the critical approach is fair, then we should expect the findings of the relevant studies better matching with the sport practices, although we see the opposite. It is important that the proponents of the critical approach to the interdisciplinary sporting applications of theory of dynamic systems admit that this approach is evolutionary rather than revolutionary i.e. quite traditional, non-innovative – and this is the first contradiction.

We read further: “Neural networks used in biology are also used to design tactical models in football and other team sports with the relevant toolkits for individual contributions to the teamwork” [3, p. 10]. The arguments here are reduced to a sort of the "logical absurdity": on the one hand, we are talking about interdisciplinary combinations to secure due quality at every level; and on the other hand, we deal with the purely quantitative contribution that is beyond the tactical models – that provide only qualitative patterns or, as exclusion, partially qualitative-quantitative ones, not to mention the qualitatively different game roles.

Our analysis of the grant projects of the Ministry of Sports of the Russia Federation for the last five years clearly shows that the ontokinesiological approach is still beyond the budgetary priorities of the Ministry. Based on the above reasoning, we would offer our project ‘The health sports education modeling in the physical education service sportization programs’.

It is common knowledge that the ongoing crisis of the national physical education sector requires new solutions being offered, particularly in the school physical education and sport domain with its traditional physical education programs. As demonstrated by the world practices, the sportization projects designed to mechanically apply sports-prioritizing training and competitive models have failed to solve this problem in Russia and abroad. This failure is no surprise since the modern sports and physical education services are fairly close in some aspects albeit still incompatible in the others. Modern sports are no more centered on the comprehensive and harmonized psychophysical progress. On the contrary, they are rather selective and narrowly specialized to secure outstanding and often superhuman accomplishments in specific sport disciplines. It should be confessed, however, that the sports-related solutions have no alternatives in the attempts to cope with the crisis of the physical education service sector.

The above contradiction may be addressed by the following two methods: (1) new sport disciplines; and (2) health-prioritizing physical education service models with rather specific selected athletic training tools: see Table 1 hereunder. We would note that the both methods fully comply with the physical education service sportization policies.

Table 1. Psychophysical activity improvement and excellence physical education service tools and methods

Physical activity methods

Physical activity tools

Physical activity components

Physical (conditioning) activity to maintain prolonged static excitation/ tension of the nervous system, muscles and ligaments, free of physical fatigue

Postural controls, with static (re)positioning of body parts

Sitting/ standing/ prone rests; stands on 1/2/3/4 points

Body balancing practices in the movement sequences

Body balancing in horizontal/ provisionally vertical/ combined movements

Space orienteering practices to improve the movement pacing/ timing qualities under external impacts

Avoidance, interception skills training with objects

Object handling practices

Throwing, movement control etc. elements

Flexibility/ speed/ strength intensive motor skills training and body control prioritizing practices

Traditional (walking, racing, jumping, crawling, mountaineering, rolling, swimming etc.) and sport-specific elements

Mental conditioning to improve the neuro-physiological functions and thinking in physical trainings, to prevent injuries and nervous disorders

Focused and selective mental performance improvement practices

Mental (cognitive, sensational, imaginative, attentive, memorizing, verbalizing, emotional, volitional, decision-making etc.) processes; mental qualities (strong sides, temperament, predispositions etc.)

Neuro-physiological activity to form and improve the general and special programmable motor responses

Fast and accurate mental responses to external and internal impacts; movement analyzer to design the movement sequences; motor intelligence to find the situation-specific optimal movement patterns

As demonstrated by above Table 1, there is a promising field for the project even in some of the fields all the more that much has been done mostly by the studies taking advantage of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s research heritage systematized in the relevant ontokinesiological tables.

Conclusion. Summarizing the analytical data, we would emphasize benefits of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach for the modern physical education and sport service concept since the ontokinesiological approach resources are still largely untapped and only lately have been recognized by the sport science progress analyses and forecasts.

References

  1. Bal'sevich V.K. Ontokineziologiya cheloveka [Human Onkinesiology]. M.: Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2000. 275 p.
  2. Koryagina Yu.V., Nopin S.V. Analiz sovremennogo sostoyaniya innovatsiy, poluchennykh na osnove rezultatov raboty nauchnykh laboratoriy zarubezhnykh stran, dlya vozmozhnogo ispolzovaniya v podgotovke sbornykh komand Rossii [Analysis of current state of innovation, obtained on basis of scientific laboratory results in foreign countries for possible use in training of Russian national teams]. Guidelines. Omsk: SibSUPC publ., 2016.122 p.
  3. Balagué N. Sport science integration: An evolutionary synthesis. N.... European Journal of Sport Science. 2016. pp. 1–12.

Corresponding author: alexperedelskiya@mail.ru

Abstract

History of the global sport science gives multiple records of the great individual accomplishments being acknowledged with time. The article analyzes the V.K. Bal’sevich’s research heritage in the context of the national and global sport science progress trends. The analysis demonstrates the promises, proved logics and benefits of the ontokinesiological approach in the physical education and sports research domain as developed by V.K. Bal’sevich; and shows that the modern critical approach to the interdisciplinary theory of dynamic systems comes in conflict with the V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach. Proponents of the critical approach still acknowledge that the ontokinesiological approach prioritizes evolutionary rather than revolutionary tools in a fairly traditional manner. It is important to underline in this context that the ontokinesiological approach considers physical activity as the socio-biological phenomenon that integrates endogenous and exogenous objects with their social and biological determinants with an emphasis on their social effects and physical education and sports role. Summarizing the analytical data, we would emphasize benefits of the V.K. Bal’sevich’s ontokinesiological approach for the modern physical education and sports service concept since the ontokinesiological approach resources are still largely untapped and only lately have been recognized by the sport science progress analyses and forecasts.