From Sport Policy to National Federation Sport Policy: An Integrative Literature Review and Conceptualisation Attempt
Seungmin Kang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Hello
I hope you are in good health
This article is very good and useful.
It is better to use newer sources and strengthen the references.
In the introduction, it is better to discuss the importance and necessity of the research so that the purpose of the research and the problems in this field are clear so that the audience understands the reason for conducting this research.
The data collection method is well introduced, so it is better to give more explanation for the data analysis method.
According to the findings of the research, it is recommended to use objective and understandable suggestions for the federations so that the officials of the federations can use them.
Good luck
Author Response
Hello
I hope you are in good health
This article is very good and useful.
We thank you for your positive feedback.
It is better to use newer sources and strengthen the references.
The review was conducted until October 2022 and the references were extracted from the process described in the methodology section.
However, we acknowledge that there was only one reference from 2022 in our initial version.
Although we have not extended the review itself, we have now added some references from 2022 and 2023 outside the review (i.e., outside the findings) in the paper (and the reference list), i.e., in introduction lines 24-25 page 1 (Ibsen et al., 2022; Volf et al., 2022; Ouyang et al., 2023) and in the last paragraph of the discussion / conclusion page 26 (Cury et al., 2023; Lachance & Parent, 2023; Ricour et al., 2023).
In the introduction, it is better to discuss the importance and necessity of the research so that the purpose of the research and the problems in this field are clear so that the audience understands the reason for conducting this research.
This is now further discussed with the following additions:
These two key roles of NSFs highlight the importance of having a clear understanding of their sport policy. (lines 59-60 page 2)
This is likely to jeopardise the success of the NSF sport policy, hence underlining the importance of better understanding it. (lines 66-67 page 2)
The data collection method is well introduced, so it is better to give more explanation for the data analysis method.
More explanation is now provided for the data analysis method lines 197-207 page 5:
Both streams were then split into three different approaches, i.e., conceptual (attempting to conceptualise what sport policy is), descriptive (describing the sport policy in a country or a sport organisation) and analytical (attempting to understand the relationships between actors, processes and/or effects of a sport policy). The third level of analysis was the research topic covered in the publications analysed. Last, the fourth level was about the issues to be considered as identified in the research reviewed.
Table 1 summarises this data analysis process. There are common issues to be considered between the two fields of study within each stream, explaining why these issues are grouped together at the stream level for the fourth level of analysis rather than distinguished between fields of study as done for the second and third levels of analysis.
According to the findings of the research, it is recommended to use objective and understandable suggestions for the federations so that the officials of the federations can use them.
We believe suggestions were already present in our initial draft, however we acknowledge we should have made the fact that they are suggestions more explicit.
This is now done at the start of the last but one paragraph page 25:
there are a number of suggestions that can be made to practitioners.
Good luck
Again, we thank you for your positive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Research on sport policy definitely requires attention from scholars to advance the field. However, this work fails to make academic and practical contributions to the area of sport policy.
Overall, the manuscript reads as if it was written for a summary of literature touching ANY aspects of sport organizations, policy, and any related issues. Although the author(s) mentioned the purpose of this study (conceptualization of sport policy and the development of a conceptual model), the work fails to address the purpose. I am not really sure what conceptualization was made from this work, which result in the creation of a conceptual framework as well.
Data analysis: The author(s) stated the number of articles they found and analyzed for the study. I suggest you to indicate how many manuscripts were written in English and French for readers.
In the data evaluation section, could you please clarify the difference between conceptual and descriptive approaches in governmental sport policy for readers? In that way, readers can clearly understand what the author(s) stated.
Page 6-21: Most of the sections of your findings read like a literature review discussing all over the places rather than an in-depth analysis of current literature to come up with new knowledge as well as to suggest new directions. The entire section sounds like storytelling touching ANYTHING.
Author Response
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. Research on sport policy definitely requires attention from scholars to advance the field.
We thank you for taking the time to read our paper.
We agree that research on sport policy definitely requires attention from scholars to advance the field, hence our attempt to contribute to such advancement.
However, this work fails to make academic and practical contributions to the area of sport policy.
Overall, the manuscript reads as if it was written for a summary of literature touching ANY aspects of sport organizations, policy, and any related issues. Although the author(s) mentioned the purpose of this study (conceptualization of sport policy and the development of a conceptual model), the work fails to address the purpose.
We are sorry to read that you do not feel our paper addresses the aim/purpose of the study.
Our aim/purpose is not the conceptualisation of sport policy in general, but the conceptualisation of sport policy adapted to national sport federations (NSFs).
We have attempted to make our rationale and research objectives clearer in the introduction.
For the rationale, we have revised/added the following elements lines 112-125, page 2:
we conducted an integrative literature review of publications that have revolved around the notions of sport policy, sport organisations and NSF. The rationale for the scope of the review going beyond NSF sport policy is two-fold. First, there is a need to clearly define an NSF as opposed to other sport organisations, which also need to be covered for the purpose of better identifying the specificities of an NSF, its link with other sport organisations and potential common issues. Second, although our focus is not specifically on governmental sport policy which is the most covered in the literature, we acknowledge the need to review the literature on governmental sport policy for at least two main reasons: the literature on governmental sport policy can inform the sport policy dimensions to be considered in the context of NSFs, based on the assumption that different (levels of) sport policies (governmental, NSFs, etc.) have similarities due to their common focus on sport; the sport policy applied by an NSF is likely to depend on the governmental sport policy if the NSF needs governmental funding to sustain its existence and/or the NSF aims to obtain governmental funding to generate more revenue, meaning the NSF sport policy needs to align (at least to some extent) with the objectives set by the government / in the governmental sport policy.
For the research objectives, we have revised/added the following elements lines 127-145, pages 2-3:
The main objective is to review these elements [the elements developed for our rationale] and see to what extent they can be adapted to sports federations. More specifically, the research objectives are:
- to review the literature on governmental sport policy to derive some findings relevant to NSF sport policy;
- to review the literature on sport policy in the context of sport organisations other than NSFs to identify some issues relevant to NSF sport policy;
- to review the literature on NSFs, both on their specificities to clearly define them and also more specifically on sport policy;
- to integrate the knowledge from the first three research objectives to derive a conceptual model to better understand an NSF sport policy.
We hope that these revisions/additions better justify the broad scope of our review and the subsequent conceptualisation.
I am not really sure what conceptualization was made from this work, which result in the creation of a conceptual framework as well.
We have attempted to make more explicit the link between the seven overarching elements identified as key in the literature (summarised pages 18-19 and the subsequent conceptualisation attempt, i.e., Figure 1 (page 20).
More precisely, we have added the following elements:
In particular, its ability to adapt to local realities can be evaluated and further improved. (lines 1332-1333, page 19, consistent with step 4 / intermediate level (meso) in Figure 1)
e.g., in helping give meaning to actions (lines 1338-1339 page 19, consistent with step 4 / local level (micro) in Figure 4)
transformative for objectives in Figure 4, consistent the overarching element developed lines 1275-1278 and 1292-1295 page 18.
Data analysis: The author(s) stated the number of articles they found and analyzed for the study. I suggest you to indicate how many manuscripts were written in English and French for readers.
This information has now been added as a footnote line 229 page 4: we found and analysed seven publications written in French (four articles and three books).
In the data evaluation section, could you please clarify the difference between conceptual and descriptive approaches in governmental sport policy for readers? In that way, readers can clearly understand what the author(s) stated.
We have now clarified the difference between conceptual, descriptive and analytical approaches in sport policy (governmental and non-governmental):
Both streams were then split into three different approaches, i.e., conceptual (attempting to conceptualise what sport policy is), descriptive (describing the sport policy in a country or a sport organisation) and analytical (attempting to understand the relationships between actors, processes and/or effects of a sport policy). (lines 248-253 page 4)
Page 6-21: Most of the sections of your findings read like a literature review discussing all over the places rather than an in-depth analysis of current literature to come up with new knowledge as well as to suggest new directions. The entire section sounds like storytelling touching ANYTHING.
We hope that the revisions/additions made in introduction described above clarify the rationale for our review.
It was not aimed at analysing in-depth current literature to come up with new knowledge as well as to suggest new directions.
Instead, it was aimed at analysing previous and current literature and integrating it to derive a conceptual model to better understand an NSF sport policy.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic From sport policy to national federation sport policy: an integrative literature review and conceptualization attempt is up-to-date, as it touches on the problem of trying to present the policies of individual countries and sports organizations during sports events, e.g. during the organization of the last World Cup in Football.
The research methodology is well described and raises no objections.
While researchers have attempted to define the concept of politics, they have not done so with the concept of sport. And there is the concept of sport, sport for all, elite sport, Olympic sport and sport for the disabled.
The researchers presented their own conceptualization attempt of an NSF sport policy (Fig. 1), while critically referring to the results of their own research.
Recommendation. Acceptance for publishing after minor additions: defining the term sport and in the technical aspect: removing the underlining in the titles of tables and removing colons after the numbers of tables and figures (e.g. Table 1: Date (…) to Table 1. Date (…); presenting all titles tables and charts with a capital letter, adding the source under each table and chart.
I congratulate the researchers on presenting interesting research results and putting a lot of work into their development.
Author Response
The topic From sport policy to national federation sport policy: an integrative literature review and conceptualization attempt is up-to-date, as it touches on the problem of trying to present the policies of individual countries and sports organizations during sports events, e.g. during the organization of the last World Cup in Football.
The research methodology is well described and raises no objections.
While researchers have attempted to define the concept of politics, they have not done so with the concept of sport. And there is the concept of sport, sport for all, elite sport, Olympic sport and sport for the disabled.
The researchers presented their own conceptualization attempt of an NSF sport policy (Fig. 1), while critically referring to the results of their own research.
We thank you for your positive feedback.
Recommendation. Acceptance for publishing after minor additions: defining the term sport and in the technical aspect: removing the underlining in the titles of tables and removing colons after the numbers of tables and figures (e.g. Table 1: Date (…) to Table 1. Date (…); presenting all titles tables and charts with a capital letter, adding the source under each table and chart.
We now define the term sport at the very start of the paper:
Sport is a broad term that comprises different dimensions such as sport for all, elite sport, professional sport, Olympic sport, youth sport and sport for the disabled. (lines 25-27 page 1)
The technical aspects have now been solved.
I congratulate the researchers on presenting interesting research results and putting a lot of work into their development.
Again, we thank you for your positive feedback.
Reviewer 4 Report
I believe that the paper achieves what it sets out to do very thoroughly while recognising its limitations. I think the paper will become a good starting point for people new to this field. For example, I could see this paper being added to the reading lists on sports governance and sports policy modules in postgraduate courses.
To the extent that this is new ground, the paper makes an original contribution by reviewing the literature thoroughly.
My only suggestion as to improvement is there could have been an attempt to have applied the conceptal structure developed in the final section of the paper to help illustrate this further. For example, I could readily see its connection to anti-doping. Indeed, this might have been useful to attempt to demarcate the space between goverment policy and the policy of NSFs and other governing bodies.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your efforts during the revision process. I see the progress of this work overall. Looking forward to seeing this published soon.
