Developing a method for comparing the elite sport systems and policies of nations: a mixed research methods approach

Publication date

2010

Authors

De Bosscher, VeerleISNI 0000000039029127
Shibli, Simon
van Bottenburg, MaartenORCID 0000-0001-5764-2459ISNI 0000000081842314
de Knop, P.
Truyens, Jasper

Editors

Advisors

Supervisors

Document Type

Article
Open Access logo

License

Abstract

This article aims to make a contribution to comparative sport research and details a method for comparing nations’ elite sport systems less descriptively by measuring and comparing determinants of national competitiveness quantitatively. A mixed methods exploratory sequential design is used, consisting of two distinct phases. After qualitative exploration, a conceptual model was developed, revealing that there are nine sport policy dimensions or ’pillars’ that are important for international sporting success. This article focuses on a second quantitative phase, where the model was tested in a pilot study with six sample nations to develop a scoring system. Data from each nation were collected through an overall sport policy questionnaire completed in each country, and through a survey with the main stakeholders in elite sport, namely athletes (n = 1090), coaches (n = 253), and performance directors (n= 71). Reflecting recognized principles of economic competitiveness measurement, this article demonstrates how 103 critical success factors containing quantitative and qualitative data can be aggregated into a final percentage score for the sample nations on each pillar. The findings suggest that the method is a useful way for objective comparison of nations, but it should not be isolated from qualitative descriptions and from a broader understanding of elite sport systems.

Keywords

International (English)

Citation

de Bosscher, V, Shibli, S, van Bottenburg, M, de Knop, P & Truyens, J 2010, 'Developing a method for comparing the elite sport systems and policies of nations: a mixed research methods approach', Journal of Sport Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 567-600. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.24.5.567