Theory in sport tourism: some critical reflections

Since the call for more theoretically situated studies in the field of sport tourism (Gibson, 2004; Weed, 2005), the past decade has seen a concerted effort within the academic community to incorporate and apply a range of quite diverse theories from an equally diverse assortment of disciplines (see Gibson, this issue). Studies published within this journal, and many other closely related periodicals, have undoubtedly helped formulate a better idea of what sport tourism is, what it does, as well as how it is experienced, and how it effects/impacts upon the experiences of others. Yet, a better idea is not ideal, as it draws attention to the fact that we are still very much in the ‘work in progress’ stage. Having been invited to consider the ‘BIG’ questions, the aim of this special edition was to attract thought-provoking papers that focused on the adoption and adaptation of theories and theoretical frameworks within the continued advancement of sport tourism scholarship. Although we feel that sport tourism has moved beyond Weed’s (2005) ‘bricks on the pile’ metaphor and built several robust pillars of knowledge, this field still has not necessarily developed its own theoretical underpinnings, nor has it necessarily meaningfully engaged scholars from other fields and disciplines. The idea of ‘why’ sport tourism has not necessarily theoretically progressed, and what can be done about it, is perhaps the discussion that this special issue might provoke. Although asking questions of ‘why’, and not ‘what’ or ‘how’ are often viewed through the lenses of business and organisational development (see Sinek, 2009), they are also pertinent for fields of inquiry including sport tourism. On this occasion our ‘Why? ’ relates to the failure to have made bigger strides in forming a clearer body of theory to help inform us of what is or is not considered to be sport tourism. In other words, along with many others, we have found ourselves celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Journal of Sport and Tourism (JS&T) by looking back at the bigger picture and questioning ‘why’, despite a substantial increase in the sport tourism body of knowledge, the subject still appears to be standing at the same crossroads encountered by Gibson in 2005 (over a decade ago) The answers to any ‘why? ’ question are undoubtedly many, varied and open to further debate. Furthermore, they can rarely be answered at the first attempt, or in one outing. In our eyes, however, the answer to the question above is likely to live within one or more of the following three areas. First, it could be argued that the field of sport tourism remains at the pre-paradigmatic phase of its development. Henry (1964), Echtner and Jamal (1997), McCartney (2005), Chalip (2006) and Stebbins (2011) have all shared similar misgivings relating to their own fields of study (e.g. physical education, tourism, event management, sport management and leisure studies). Each case has led to their own identity issues and crises of representation, surrounding whether they could, would or should, ever be accepted as a distinct discipline in their own right. Whilst such a debate is thankfully, at present, of less vital concern for those working and researching in sport tourism, it does relate to the notable omission in the theoretically framed studies mentioned elsewhere in this issue (see Van Rheenen, Cernaianu & Sobry; Gibson, this issue). Whilst inter-disciplinarity is a key feature of sport, tourism and sport tourism research, what is lacking is any significant evidence of theoretical reciprocity from those situated within business schools (e.g. economist, marketing and management scholars), the humanities