Foundations of Scientific Research in the Sport and Exercise Sciences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.366Keywords:
research methods, philosophy, philosophy of scienceAbstract
This is a preprint of a chapter forthcoming in the following edited textbook: Eimear Dolan & James Steele (Eds.). Research Methods in Sport and Exercise Science: An Open Access Primer. Society for Transparency, Openness, and Replication in Kinesiology. This is the opening chapter of the textbook which introduces foundational philosophical concepts important to the sport and exercise sciences including: ontology, epistemology, axiology, logic, reasoning, and inference.
Metrics
References
Massengale, J. D. The History of Exercise and Sport Science. (Human Kinetics, 1997).
Gleason, B. H. et al. Defining the Sport Scientist. Strength Cond. J. 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000760 (2022) doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000760.
Gleason, B. H. et al. Defining the Sport Scientist: Common Specialties and Subspecialties. Strength Cond. J. 10.1519/SSC.0000000000000788 (2022) doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000788.
Ryall, E. The notion of a science of sport: some conceptual considerations. in Exercise, Sport, and Health 171–176 (University of Technology, 2011).
Foster, C. et al. Scientific discovery and its role in sports science. Kinesiology 48, (2016).
Pisk, J. Sport Science: Ontological and Methodological Considerations. Phys. Cult. Sport Stud. Res. 61, 5–14 (2014).
Massimo Pigliucci. Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy. Scientia Salon https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/ (2014).
Parry, J. Must scientists think philosophically about science? in Philosophy and the Sciences of Exercise, Health and Sport: Critical Perspectives on Research Methods 20–31 (Routledge, 2005).
Plumer, G. Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments. Argumentation 31, 469–484 (2017).
Weinberg, A. M. Views: The Axiology of Science: The urgent question of scientific priorities has helped to promote a growing concern with value in science. Am. Sci. 58, 612–617 (1970).
Meehl, P. E. Philosophy of Science: Help or Hindrance? Psychol. Rep. 72, 707–733 (1993).
Laplane, L. et al. Why science needs philosophy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116, 3948–3952 (2019).
Popper, K. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. (Routledge, 1995).
Grix, J. Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research. Politics 22, 175–186 (2002).
Fryer, T. A short guide to ontology and epistemology: why everyone should be a critical realist. Tom Fryer https://tfryer.com/ontology-guide/ (2020).
Forscher, P. S. et al. The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 18, 607–623 (2023).
Hay, C. Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction | SpringerLink. (Springer, 2002).
Caws, P. The Philosophy of Science: A Systematic Account. (Van Nostrand, 1965).
Schwartz, B. The creation and destruction of value. Am. Psychol. 45, 7–15 (1990).
Yucel, R. Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism. Sci. Educ. 27, 407–433 (2018).
Bhaskar, R. A Realist Theory of Science. (Verso Books, 2020).
Levers, M.-J. D. Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence. SAGE Open 3, 2158244013517243 (2013).
Westbrook, R. The Pragmatist Family Romance. in The Oxford Handbook of American Philosophy (ed. Misak, C.) 0 (Oxford University Press, 2008). doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219315.003.0010.
Edmonds, D. The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. (Princeton University Press, 2020).
Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth, and Logic. (Courier Corporation, 1952).
Blumberg, A. E. & Feigl, H. Logical Positivism. J. Philos. 28, 281–296 (1931).
Hacking, I. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. (Cambridge University Press, 1983). doi:10.1017/CBO9780511814563.
Friedrich Waismann - Causality and Logical Positivism. vol. 15 (Springer Netherlands, 2011).
Bridgman, P. The Logic of Modern Physics. (Arno Press, 1927).
Glasersfeld, E. von. Key Works in Radical Constructivism: (edited by Marie Larochelle). in Key Works in Radical Constructivism (Brill, 2007).
John Dewey Between Pragmatism and Constructivism. (Fordham University Press, 2009).
Torres Irribarra, D. A Pragmatic Perspective of Measurement. (Springer International Publishing, 2021). doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74025-2.
Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (University of Chicago Press, 2012).
Canales, J. The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time. (Princeton University Press, 2015).
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. (Psychology Press, 2002).
Dennett, D. C. Real Patterns. J. Philos. 88, 27–51 (1991).
Hofstadter, D. R. I Am a Strange Loop. (Hachette UK, 2007).
Nenu, T. Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödelian Philosophy of Mind. J. Artif. Intell. Conscious. 09, 241–266 (2022).
Roberts, M. D. et al. Mechanisms of mechanical overload-induced skeletal muscle hypertrophy: current understanding and future directions. Physiol. Rev. (2023) doi:10.1152/physrev.00039.2022.
Michie, S., West, R., Campbell, R., Brown, J. & Gainforth, H. ABC of Behaviour Change Theories Book - An Essential Resource for Researchers, Policy Makers and Practitioners. (Silverback Publishing, 2014).
Stamenkovic, P. Facts and objectivity in science. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 0, 1–22 (2022).
Schneider, C. E. The Censor’s Hand: The Misregulation of Human-Subject Research. (The MIT Press, 2015). doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262028912.001.0001.
Longino, H. E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. (Princeton University Press, 1990).
Reiss, J. & Sprenger, J. Scientific Objectivity. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2020).
Merton, R. K. The sociology of science: theoretical and empirical investigations. (University of Chicago Press, 1973).
Schwartz, B. Science, scholarship, and intellectual virtues: A guide to what higher education should be like. J. Moral Educ. 51, 61–72 (2022).
Berger, R. Now I see it, now I don’t: researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 15, 219–234 (2015).
Holmes, A. G. D. Researcher Positionality -- A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research -- A New Researcher Guide. Shanlax Int. J. Educ. 8, 1–10 (2020).
Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H. & Pownall, M. Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 17, e12735 (2023).
Thorgaard-Rasmussen, K. et al. Reflexivity in quantitative research – A Master of Global Health class perspective - BMJ Global Health blog. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjgh/2022/02/25/reflexivity-in-quantitative-research-a-master-of-global-health-class-perspective/ (2022).
Savolainen, J., Casey, P. J., McBrayer, J. P. & Schwerdtle, P. N. Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17456916221144988 (2023) doi:10.1177/17456916221144988.
Jacobson, D. & Mustafa, N. Social Identity Map: A Reflexivity Tool for Practicing Explicit Positionality in Critical Qualitative Research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 18, 1609406919870075 (2019).
Hempel, C. G. Philosophy of Natural Science. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 18, 70–72 (1967).
Carnap, R. Logical Foundations of Probability. (University of Chicago Press, 1967).
Jeffreys, H. Scientific Inference. (Cambridge University Press, 1973).
Keynes, J. M. A Treatise on Probability. (Courier Corporation, 2004).
Reichenbach, H. The Theory of Probability. (University of California Press, 1971).
Bunge, M. The Place of Induction in Science. Philos. Sci. 27, 262–270 (1960).
Thagard, P. Computational Philosophy of Science. (MIT Press, 1988).
Steele, J., Fisher, J., Loenneke, J. & Buckner, S. The Myth of ‘Periodisation’. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.51224/SRXIV.323 (2023).
Lipton, P. Inference to the Best Explanation. (Routledge, 2003).
Maier, M., Van Dongen, N. & Borsboom, D. Comparing theories with the Ising model of explanatory coherence. Psychol. Methods (2023) doi:10.1037/met0000543.
Breenfeldt Andersen, A. et al. An Abductive Inference Approach to Assess the Performance-Enhancing Effects of Drugs Included on the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List. Sports Med. 51, 1353–1376 (2021).
Mukumbang, F. C. Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods Research. J. Mix. Methods Res. 17, 93–114 (2023).
Hansson, S. O. Science and Pseudo-Science. in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. Zalta, E. N.) (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021).
Feyerabend, P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. (Verso Books, 2020).
Downloads
Posted
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 James Steele (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
