The Scholar Practitioner in Sport, Education, and Physical Culture

Dear Colleagues,

The scholar–practitioner has long been identified and discussed by academics working in disciplines that have strong practical and vocational crossovers. Disciplines with literature addressing the scholar–partitioner thus range widely and include conflict resolution (Kelman, 2000), counselling (Holloway, 1994) Social Work (Smith, 2006), nursing (Forsythe, 2017), complementary medicine (Birch, 2015), organizational studies (Coghlan, 2021), management (Tkachenko, 2016), leadership (Hampton 2010) education and special education (Linn and Hemmer, 2011), minority education (Covington, 2017), religious and spirituality studies (Gross, 2001; Wellman, 2006), international relations (Bertucci et al., 2014), human resources (Hughes, 2016), and yoga studies (Singleton and Larios, 2020). It is also worth noting that a plethora of generic articles and texts on the scholar–practitioner (see, for example, Hynes, 2021) inform the topic. However, with very few notable exceptions (in particular, Van Rheenen and DeOrnellas’ 2018 edited collection on scholars–practitioners in the US context), interrogations of the scholar–practitioner within sport and physical culture remain limited and underdeveloped in spite of a growing importance being placed on the increasingly close relationships between higher education institutions and these fields. As higher education becomes increasingly industry-facing, vocationally oriented, and focused on growing their civic missions, the scholar–practitioner becomes an important point of interface or suture between the knowledge and practice of these different worlds, having much to offer both. However, one of our concerns in this Special Edition is examining how we might move beyond the binaries of theory and practice. The practices and identities associated with scholars and practitioners are often lived, experienced, and represented as binaries. How can we evolve the scholar–practitioner relationship in constructive ways, and what might the implications of evolution be? Therefore, the purpose of the Special Edition is both to revisit and advance the concept of the scholar–practitioner by exploring a range of relationships and issues related to moving beyond the scholar–practitioner as a binary. Contributions can be in the form of a research article, a conceptual paper, or a review).  We are especially interested in the following subtopics as they connect to the issue of binary relationships, but submissions can address other topics as well:

• Revisiting the value of the ‘sociological imagination’ for everyday life in a lived sense;
• Reflexivity as a mode of living engagement;
• Closing the space between (or integrating) theory and practice (and vice versa);
• Positioning the scholar–practitioner as a ‘way of knowing’ (as one involved in enlightened critical practice);
• Dismantling traditional boundaries within academic and practical thought;
• Making theory live (through a critical consciousness of its use);
• The challenges of being a scholar–practitioner.

References

Bertucci, E. Borges-Herrero, E., & Fuentes-Julio, C. (2014) Toward “best practices” in scholar–practitioner relations: insights from the field of inter-American affairs. International Studies Perspectives, 15(1), 54–72.

Birch, S. (2015) Understanding Qi in Clinical Practice--Perspectives from an Acupuncture Scholar-Practitioner. Journal of Chinese Medicine, (107).

Coghlan, D. (2021) Schein, Edgar H.: The Scholar-Practitioner as Clinical Researcher. Springer Books, 1527–1539.

Covington, M., Chavis, T., & Perry, A. (2017) A scholar-practitioner perspective to promoting minority success in STEM. Journal for Multicultural Education,11 (2), 149–159.

Forsythe, L. (2017) Doctor of Nursing Projects Versus Research: Developing the Clinical Scholar Practitioner. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1): 14–14.

Gross, R. M. (2001) Passion and peril: transgressing boundaries as a feminist scholar-practitioner. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 13(2), 224–241.

Hampton, K. (2010) Transforming school and society: Examining the theoretical foundations of scholar-practitioner leadership. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4(2), 185–193.

Holloway, E. L. (1994) A bridge of knowing: The scholar-practitioner of supervision. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 7(1), 3–15.

Hughes, C. (Ed.). (2016) Bridging the Scholar-Practitioner Gap in Human Resources Development. IGI Global.

Hynes, G. (2021) Coghlan, David: The World of the Scholar Practitioner and Practical Knowing. Springer Books, 407–426.

Linn, D., & Hemmer, L. (2011) English language learner disproportionality in special education: Implications for the scholar-practitioner. Journal of Educational Research & Practice, 1(1), 70–80.

Kelman, H. C. (2000) The role of the scholar-practitioner in international conflict resolution. International Studies Perspectives, 1(3), 273–287.

Smith, K. K. (2006) On Becoming a Scholar-Practitioner. In Cnaan, R. A., Dichter, M. E., & Draine, J. (Eds.). (2008) A Century of Social Work and Social Welfare at Penn. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Singleton, M., & Larios, B. (2020) The scholar-practitioner of yoga in the western academy. In Routledge Handbook of Yoga and Meditation Studies. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

Tkachenko, O., Hahn, H. J., & Peterson, S. (2016) Theorizing the research-practice gap in the field of management: A review of key frameworks and models. In C. Hughes, (Ed.). Bridging the Scholar-Practitioner Gap in Human Resources Development, (101–119). IGI Global.

Van Rheenen, D., & DeOrnellas, J. M. (Eds.). (2018) Envisioning Scholar-practitioner Collaborations: Communities of Practice in Education and Sport. IAP.

Prof. Dr. David Brown
Prof. Dr. Robyn Jones
Topic Editors