I read the four articles with much interest and enthusiasm, and found them varying in almost every aspect. Ryba provides a short overview for the need for “culture turn” methodologies, and proposes that space is made for multiple sport psychologies. Lidor and Blumenstein describe their work in a professional soccer club in Israel; Kozuma does it with Japanese auto-racing drivers in Japan; and Campbell and Sonn describe the experiences faced by Indigenous players in the Australian AFL football. The articles as a whole were aimed at providing background and demonstrating new practices, which can be applied in the sport psychology domain to capture the nature of events in an authentic fashion. Forthcoming, I respond briefly to some main features of each article, but must admit that there is a mismatch between the theoretical views and the applied work outlined in three of the articles. It may well be that practitioners keep working using traditional scientific tools, and are less open to the views shared by the “culture turn” perspectives. On the other hand, it seems to me that practitioners are not acquainted with the cultural turn as a framework of better understanding issues within a social and cultural framework. Thus, cultural turn methodologies should address practical issues if this integration is of any value to advance the field. Below I raise some questions and concerns I faced when reading the articles; reflections meant to spur further discussion.

Tatiana Ryba

       Ryba looks for the meaning people and societies assign to sport events, such as social integration, nation-building-and peace diplomacy; issues which are typical for cultural studies; issues which cannot be captured by introspective measures and positivist methodologies in its full sense. From this perspective Ryba introduced the “etic” and ”emic” perspectives, which allow for generalizations and uniqueness to be drawn, respectively.

       Accordingly, there is no separation between people and contexts – these two facets co-exist in both integrated and interaction modes of existence. Accordingly, methodological issues are inseparable from ontological and epistemological assumptions while inquiring social-related issues. Accordingly, and relying on Reichenbach’s (1938, 1951) old ideas, positivist scientific methods are not concerned with questions of generating theoretical ideas but of theory and/or hypothesis testing. Is this contention valid? Can theories be developed without some experiences or interactions with the world? How exactly is a theory established? Is hard evidence necessary for theory building? Looking on cultures from an external perspective can have some advantages over looking at it from an internal-integrative perspective. Wouldn’t a theory be sounder and better if both perspectives were used? Is “objectivity” a “nasty term in scientific inquiry?

       Changes, which must be comprehended, occur in the world of sport: economic globalization, consumerism, technology, media, migration…all these affect individuals within their societies, thus motivations, aspirations and experiences must be studied in this multi-faceted context. Research problems acquire scientific significance within shifting systems of meaning that underlie academic discourse. Of course, there is NO ONE culture that can account for people’s behaviors, feelings, motivations, and cognitions. The context we each live in is crucial and unavoidable. Ontological tensions rise when methodologies are imposed on cultures with different sets of values. I was taught that the underlying assumptions of any inquiry must avoid as much as possible any biases which may hinder the truth from the researcher…the “musts” of internal and external validly. I now wonder where have all the flowers gone? Do we really need new methodologies to answer questions, which pertain to cultures? Is there something that we can call “culturally relevant? If yes, relevant to whom? Can a researcher from one culture with a given set of values and beliefs study another culture with different values and beliefs? Is language a barrier for such endeavors? Are descriptions and conclusions made in such circumstances valid, trustful, and accountable? Are these terms relevant? And finally, what should practitioners do and how should they apply such a framework and methodology in their professional lives?

Lidor and Blumentein

       The authors present their experiences in consulting soccer club in Israel. They term their experiences as “sport-specific,” and describe a unique experience with players of different origin, language, and religion, who share similar personal and team goals; as such it may be considered a “cultural experience,” and their report can be viewed within the framework of “cultural studies”.

       The psychological services the consultants provide to the team are based on a vast experience they gained with various athletes and settings. They prefer using a well-established pre-determined program, which consists of scientific and valid sport-related principles. In the first stage, meetings were held and lectures given to clarify issues, provide more information pertaining to sport psychology, develop rapport, and setting procedures for productive work. In personal meetings the consultant learned the unique cultural norms and behaviors of players coming from a diversity of cultures. The aim was to establish an atmosphere of respect to each other’s behaviors, dresses, music, religious obligations, and as such. The uniqueness has not affected the professional work using mental techniques to strengthen psychological skills using biofeedback incorporating the Wingate 5-step approach. Players were taken individually and in groups to the laboratory, given questionnaires, and introduced to the biofeedback technology and the mental techniques associated with it. Thus, cultural issues were separated from professional issues; a unique integration of “cultures within culture.” Several unique cases are brought to illustrate the issues, working culture, and productive solutions within a competitive diverse environment.

       The sport psychologists also worked with the head and assistant coaches. The sport scientists provided the coaching staff with important observations, and sought feedback and expectations. The third team the consultant worked with was comprised of the management representatives. The information given to the management members was aimed at making them acquainted with all the mental procedures involved with the club players. Its seems that all aspects of professional work with athletes have been taken care of, but I was left with some unresolved issues about the framework presented by Ryba. Can Lidor and Blumenstein’s practices be considered within the culture turn? Indeed, their work with athletes of different cultures is unique, and they describe it in detail. However, is this what a culture turn framework requires? Have Lidor and Blumenstein used any cultural frameworks to secure success among their athletes? How do these issues sit together?

Kozuma

       Kozuma presents his personal experiences with auto-racing drivers in Japan. Auto-racing drivers are trained using the traditional Japanese methods, which consist of traditional views and values. New methods are viewed as disrespectful to the culture and traditions. Cultural barriers are accompanied with personal barriers in the form of suspicion and curiosity as to the advantage, if any, of the new training methods over the traditional methods. In 2006 the author was asked to introduce the “modern method” of mental preparation to young Japanese cadets who were trained to be professional Formula Challenge drivers. Tests, written materials and an observation log were given to all the drivers. Observing the drivers in simulated races as well as interviewing them indicated they feel pressure, which they find hard to control before the start of the race.

       Another group of drivers were given a psychological inventory, which predicts potential expert drivers. Based on the diagnostic tool a psychological intervention is designed. A pre-season training consisted of a seminar, which introduced to the drivers all the mental skills necessary for their optimal functioning. The diagnostic profile was delivered individually to each driver. Then drivers were taught goal setting, relaxation and psyching up, visualization, concentration, positive thinking, and psychological preparation for competition.

       The psychological work then took place on-site. The mental techniques were then practiced prior to the race start. Techniques pertaining to errors during the race were also rehearsed using visualization. Event-analyses were conducted after the race using video footage. Drivers met with the psychologist to share their state of mind and discuss their performances. Additional seminars were aimed at better acquiring and using mental techniques. Post-race meeting were also aimed at discussing issues related to the car and its parts, team, physical and mental conditions, performance, and problem solving strategies.

       I must admit, reading Kozuma and Lidor and Blumenstein made me appreciate the fruits of globalization! In Israel players of all cultures and languages play together to achieve a common goal, and in Japan race drivers move outside of Japanese tradition and are provided with purely westernized methods! This brings me back to Ryba’s perspectives. Is what we read in Kozuma’s work part of a cultural turn? I assume that the culture turn is an open conceptual and practical framework, which describes any event people are involved in. However, does describing personal experiences such as Kozuma’s can be viewed within a cultural framework? Is any experience one describes and/or applies considered valid here?

Campbell and Sonn

       Campbell and Sonn explored the relocation and settlement experiences of 10 Indigenous Australian AFL football players using semi-structures interviews. Indigenous players exceed by far their numbers in the Australian population, thus more cases of relocation within cultures occur. The authors made a sincere attempt to close the gap in understanding social identities based on race, gender, and culture. They present research findings pertaining to relocation of minorities, and the difficulties they face as a consequence of clashes with a dominant culture. The authors conducted a study to further the scope of this phenomenon in Australian AFL.

       The study is based on principles pertaining to collaboration, competence, and reflexivity. The interviews revealed that themes of relocation of Indigenous AFL players in Australia were classified as either facilitative or debilitative (e.g., barriers). Barriers were issues of cultural shock (visibly, isolation, training, homesickness) and racism (homogenization and stereotyping). Topics pertaining to facilitation were mainly of social support (e.g., family, mentoring, and kindredness). The adjustment process is thus complex and requires special attention. The authors make parallels with other findings of minorities in different cultures. They offer some solutions regarding how players of the Aborigine community might better adjust into the white dominating AFL culture.

       Again, we witness a systematic approach of understanding a culture with another, yet dominant, culture. Issues were categorized and classified into higher-order issues. Makes sense to me; does it make sense to the Indigenous athletes? Is an interview a sufficient tool to come up with this conclusion? Would the recommendation solve a problem? Is integration between cultures a solution to personal frustrations, experiencing racism, and feeling homesickness? Should we only describe what we see and here, and rather not make any recommendation?

       I have raised just few of my thoughts when reading the four articles. I learned about new perspectives in studying and understanding social issues. I also learned how petitioners work with professional athletes in different locations worldwide. I guess I have some questions, which are unsolved in my mind, but at least I feel I learned something important.

You can purchase this issue of Athletic Insight which is available through our partnership with Nova Science Publishing. Yearly subscriptions to the journal are also available for purchase. We thank you for your continued patronage.