Training als Verflechtungsgeschehen

The contribution is based on praxeographic observations of volleyball team’s training processes. We suggest to reflect on the training processes as practices in which more knowledge is used than the practitioners themselves are aware of. It becomes clear in this perspective that the competencies to participate are developed by the participants mutually enabling each other to do so. Competencies are therefore to be understood as constitutively relational and cannot be ascribed to isolated individuals. Their training takes place in socio-material arrangements of successively complex exercises in which the structures characteristic of the game and the respective competencies are addressed and practiced in various, barely reflected techniques calling on dispositions generated before. In these arrangements, the players learn to deal with the urgency and possibilities of interaction. Through experience, they develop an embodied, preconscious sense for the game which enables them to adjust to complex gameplay as a team even under enormous time pressure. At the level of linguistic articulation and awareness, however, training is often rationalized by methodologically individualistic (action-theoretical) or holistic (structuralist) assumptions so that the implicit knowledge mobilized in the training practice remains largely unreflected and is instead reduced to explicit components in the respective reflective training procedures.     

Sportliches Handeln als Handlungsmodell

German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research - Die Ausführungen sind um folgende Thesen zentriert: (1) Sportunabhängig erarbeitete psychologische Methoden und Erkenntnisse haben...     

Der Sportwissenschaftler als Unternehmer im Wissensmarkt

Creative ideas are the driving force behind knowledge production, the producers of which are generally domesticated at universities for the purposes of ensuring the methodological credibility of the knowledge produced, in order to minimise the impact of chance in the creation of new knowledge. The status of producers is determined by indicators designed to simulate the demand for knowledge, precipitate a quantitative and qualitative comparison of elements which are not comparable, and establish legitimacy for the means of control used. Furthermore, incentives for competitive sport research and the symbolic recognition of scientists via sport practice play a particular role for knowledge production in sports science. In order to compensate for the practical world’s unwillingness to pay for sports science expertise relevant to competitive sport, the German Federal Institute of Sports Science (BISp) functions as a simulator of demand for knowledge generated by universities, while the Institute for Applied Training Science with its services exclusively available to umbrella organisations limits the range of incentives to produce (competitive) sporting knowledge. Sports scientists are thus faced with a market situation which favours routine research and standard methods, creates legitimacy at a central level, does not necessarily tackle actual issues faced by (competitive) athletes, stimulates demand for monitoring services, and all in all leaves monoculture-driven gaps which could most likely only be avoided by advocating and applying individual scope for action throughout the research ethos.