Journal of Sport & Tourism Vol. 12, No. 2, May 2007, pp.

115 141

Involved-Detachment: A Balance of Passion and Reason in Feminisms and Gender-related Research in Sport, Tourism and Sports Tourism
Louise Manseld
This paper discusses the contribution of Norbert Eliass theory of involvement-detachment for feminist research and gender-related studies in the elds of sport, tourism and sports tourism. A brief overview of scholarly work on gender in studies of sport, tourism and sports tourism is presented. The paper outlines the key features of feminist criticisms about conventional methods of acquiring and establishing knowledge in the sciences and considers the ways that feminists approach issues of epistemology. The signicance of passionate scholarship in feminist theorizing is discussed. The theory of involvementdetachment is introduced as part of Eliass perspective on the advancement of knowledge about social life. Problems and issues of involvement-detachment are explored in terms of some of the gender-related literature about sport, tourism and sports tourism. What I refer to as involved-detachment1 is presented as a way of explaining, understanding and working with ever-changing balances of passion and reason in scholarship about the gendered character of activities in the sporting sphere. This discussion represents a contribution to debates about the nature and assumptions of the knowledge produced by social scientists theorizing about gender and sporting activities. In doing so, it brings perspectives traditionally associated with the sociology of sport to sociological inquires about tourism and sports tourism. Keywords: Feminisms; Gender; Research Methods; Involvement-detachment; Sport, Tourism and Sports Tourism Introduction This paper discusses the contribution of Norbert Eliass theory of involvementdetachment for feminist research and gender-related studies of sport, tourism and
Dr Louise Manseld is Senior Lecturer in the Sociology of Sport in the Department of Sport Science, Tourism and Leisure, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Kent, UK. Email: louise.manseld@canterbury.ac.uk ISSN 1477-5085 (print)/ISSN 1029-5399 (online) # 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14775080701654762

116

Louise Manseld

sports tourism. The main aim is to consider the potential of a feminist interpretation of Eliass ideas about involvement-detachment for conducting research about the gendered character of sport, tourism and sports tourism. One of the central principles of the form of sociological inquiry argued for by Elias emphasizes that sociological thinking is characterized by a balance and blend of emotional involvement in and detachment from topics of research. In Eliass terms issues of involvement-detachment are central to the advancement of knowledge in the social sciences. Since the 1970s at least, feminists have also been concerned with issues of knowledge acquisition and research methods in the sciences. The development of ideas about feminisms and epistemology is characterized by ongoing debates about the adequacy of the male/masculine dominated arena of research for understanding gender and in particular the production and reproduction of ideas about objectivity and subjectivity that serve to reinforce the former as the universal legitimate (masculinist) basis for research. In the sport eld, feminist scholars have made a signicant contribution to advancing our knowledge and understanding of gender relations (Birrell, 1988, 2000; Caudwell, 1999; Cole, 1993, 2002; Hall, 1996; Hargreaves, 1994, 2000; Manseld, 2002, 2008 forthcoming; Markula, 1995, 2003; Scraton, 1992; Scraton & Flintoff, 2002; Theberge, 1985, 2002). Sport has also been a key eld for the development of sociological perspectives drawing on the work of Norbert Elias and such Eliasian perspectives have been used by some scholars in contributing to the developing body of knowledge about gender and sport (Dunning, 1986, 1992, 1999; Dunning & Maguire, 1996; Liston, 2006a, 2006b; Maguire, 1986; Maguire & Manseld, 1998; Manseld & Maguire, 1999; Sheard & Dunning, 1973). However, the principles of Eliass gurational/process sociological approach to understanding social life have not, as yet, featured in studies of tourism or of sports tourism. Furthermore, the study of gender has a shorter history in tourism, with Aitchison (2005) pointing to research published in the mid-1990s (e.g. Kinnaird & Hall, 1994; Swain, 1995; Sinclair, 1997) as the rst critical engagement of tourism scholars with gender-related research, and identifying the turn of the new century as heralding the introduction of greater conceptual rigor to the embryonic project of advancing feminist and gender studies in tourism (Aitchison, 2005, p. 207). Against the chronological development of a critical engagement with gender research in sport and in tourism, the study of sports tourism, perhaps reecting its deeper roots within tourism management and studies has not yet moved beyond a relatively descriptive engagement with gender-related research. The discussions within this paper seek to contribute to debates about the nature and assumptions of the knowledge produced by social scientists theorizing about gender, sport, tourism and sports tourism activities. In doing so, it aims to contribute to the development of sports tourism knowledge by attempting to supplement embryonic feminist and gender studies in tourism with perspectives traditionally associated with the sociology of sport, and to suggest how these might be brought to bear in gender-related research in sports tourism. The paper presents a brief overview of scholarly work on gender in studies of sport, tourism and sports tourism. It outlines the key features of feminist criticisms about

Journal of Sport & Tourism

117

conventional methods of acquiring and establishing knowledge in the sciences and considers the ways that feminists approach issues of epistemology. The signicance of passionate scholarship in feminist theorizing is discussed. The theory of involvement-detachment is introduced as part of Eliass perspective on the advancement of knowledge about social life. Problems and issues of involvement-detachment are explored in terms of some of the gender-related literature about sport, tourism and sports tourism. There is no space in a single journal paper to consider in detail the relationships between feminist perspectives and the gurational/process sociological perspective of Norbert Elias for understanding gender, sport and sport-related activities. This I do in other work (Manseld, 2002, 2005, 2008 forthcoming). Wider discussions about the adequacy of Eliass work in understanding gender and sport, and the potential of blending feminist and gurational perspectives on sport and gender can also be found in the extant literature (see e.g. Dunning, 1992, 1999; Colwell, 1999; Hargreaves, 1992, 1994; Liston, 2007; Manseld, 2002, 2005, 2008 forthcoming). In this paper, what I refer to as involved-detachment is presented as a way of explaining, understanding and working with ever-changing balances of passion and reason in scholarship about the gendered character of activities in the sport, tourism and sports tourism spheres (Manseld, 2008, forthcoming). Feminisms, Sport, Tourism and Sports Tourism: Questions About Gender Feminisms are not represented by a single discrete theory or methodological approach. In Whelehans (1995, p. 20) words, to lay claim to the title feminist is not to adhere to a certain orthodoxy. Since the late 1960s a diversity of feminist theories and methods has developed out of efforts to challenge the hegemony of a variety of male cultures. The hallmark of sports feminism is a commitment to an explicitly theoretical approach to the interpretation of sport as a gendered activity (Birrell, 2000, p. 61). Depending on the theoretical and methodological position of the researcher, different questions about, and accounts of, gender and sport prevail. Debates surrounding the gendered character of sporting practices have changed with increasing awareness of feminist theories and a more sophisticated use of these theories. Initial feminist research was concerned with raising public awareness about women in sport and the need for increased opportunities for girls and women. Much initial feminist work about sport and social life produced a corpus of largely a-theoretical work on women in sport founded upon a liberal feminist consciousness about sport as a male preserve. Such work highlighted inequities between males and females in terms of participation rates, personality variables and physical capacities but did not explicitly deal with how the prevailing organization of sports privileged the physical experiences of boys and men (Lenskyj, 1991; Greendorfer, 1983). The focus on differences between males and females generally supported traditional claims about the biological inferiority of females and the legitimacy of efforts to control womens sports participation. Similarly, the initial engagement of tourism researchers with feminist research was within a liberal feminist framework. As with the early feminist sport research, the focus was on inequalities between

118

Louise Manseld

males and females in, for example, tourism employment (Kinnaird & Hall, 1994; Sinclair, 1997). Aitchison (2005, pp. 211 212) notes that such feminist empiricism focused on descriptive statistics that answer questions of what, where, and when, but that such research, while important in illuminating and enumerating womens position in tourism, tells us little about how and why such patterns exist or the gender-power relationships inherent in the construction of such patterns. In sports tourism research understandings of social inequality are not well developed (Gibson, 1998). With very few exceptions (see e.g. Green & Chalip, 1998) the type of research that concerns gender and sports tourism is characterized by somewhat descriptive analyses about participation patterns, activity preferences, motivational differences and drop-out rates (Hudson, 2000, Williams & Lattey, 1994; Williams & Fidgeon, 2000; Zalatan, 1998; McGhee et al., 1996; McGhee et al., 2003). Williams & Lattey (1994), for example, use survey data to identify participation constraints to alpine skiing for female non-skiers. Their ndings indicate that the main skiing constraints for women are feelings of being excluded due to an inability to ski, concerns that skiing was beyond their physical capacity, time and cost barriers, and risk and hassle factors. But claims such as competitive situations are generally in conict with the ethic of caring and web of interconnectedness predispositions of females tend to reinforce universalistic conceptions of women as physically inferior to men and ideas that women are shackled to domestic work and child care (Williams & Lattey, 1994, p. 22). The focus on measurement of attitudes and behaviors through survey methods appears to provide supercial statistics about gender and sports tourism and leaves a critical analysis of gender at the margins of research. While it is identied that women and men choose different sports tourism activities, experience travel differently and express preferences based upon traditional gender roles such research is relatively silent on the historically situated organizational and structural issues that contribute to gender inequalities as well as saying little about the interplay of bio-psychological and socio-cultural variables that are connected to unequal gender relations. Since the 1980s, in the sociology of sport, emerging theoretical diversity and sophistication has characterized feminist research. The focus of the eld is now on the extent to which sports are oppressive and liberating for women and men and the ways in which such enabling and constraining features are culturally and temporally specic and related to the political and economic conditions in which people live out their lives (see e.g. Birrell, 1988, 1989, 1990; Dunning & Maguire, 1996; Hargreaves, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 2000; Messner & Sabo, 1990; Scraton & Flintoff, 2002). While the most recent strand of feminisms in the sociology of sport has tended to harness post-structural theories in understanding gender power and difference, feminist theorizing and politics about sport is heterogeneous and reects the activities of a diverse set of interests. Within feminisms, the nature and character of different female and male positions in society is contested and there are overlaps and conicts in relation to a feminist political agenda. Nevertheless feminist theorists embrace a political commitment, or sometimes an ethical commitment, to identifying and challenging social injustices founded upon issues of gender. Different feminists

Journal of Sport & Tourism

119

give primacy to a variety of issues and increasingly the complexities of gender are being examined in terms of womens relationships with men and with other women, and mens relationships with men. This does not necessarily mean that all work concerned with gender advocates a feminist perspective. Nevertheless, the complexities of gender relations in the sociology of sport have been brought to the fore by feminists using different theoretical positions to consider women and men, and masculinities and femininities, in relational terms and by articulating, for example, the connections between gender and sex, race-ethnicity, social class and disability (see e.g. Birrell, 1988, 2000; Caudwell, 1999; Cole, 1993; Hargreaves, 1994, 2000; Scraton & Flintoff, 2002). In tourism research, Aitchison (2005) notes that the turn of the new century has heralded both a cultural turn and a critical turn in gender studies of tourism, which has resulted in a more clearly dened differentiation between tourism studies and tourism management. In the latter area there has been an exponential growth in research underpinned by materialist analyses of business economics (p. 208). Such research, when it considers gender relations, has adhered to a descriptive liberal feminist empiricism in analyzing economic and management issues (e.g. Adkins, 1994; Bagguley, 1990; Jordan, 1997). In tourism studies, which draws much of its heritage from the broader eld of leisure studies, the engagement with approaches derived from cultural theory and critical social science has contributed to the development of a eld once described in the mid-1990s as lacking theoretical sophistication (Apostolopoulos et al., 1996) into one embracing critical theory and method (Aitchison, 2005). In this respect, a central theme in gender studies of tourism in the past 5 7 years has been post-structural feminist research investigating the role of language, media and mediated images, in creating, maintaining and reproducing power (Aitchison, 2005, p. 215). In Aitchisons (2005) view, emerging poststructuralist feminist accounts of gender and tourism have emphasized the ways in which knowledge is produced and legitimated by those who have more authority and control to dene what counts in terms of the tourism experience. Moreover, such feminist work illustrates the potential of tourism as a site for the contestation of experience of tourism practices. Whilst not explicitly post-structural, Jeffreys (1999, 2003) work on sex tourism and women is feminist work that emphasizes the importance of examining power relations at work in the normalization of the global sex industry. For Jeffreys (2003, p. 223), understanding gender and sex tourism requires consideration of the power relations, context, meanings as well as the effects of male and female sex tourist behavior. There is other work on sex tourism that does not take a feminist perspective but examines tourism behavior through a gendered lens. Clift & Carter (2000), Ryan & Hall (2001) and Urry (1990) have published such analyses. Urry (1990, p. 141), for example, in discussing the development of sex tourism in South-East Asia, explains that gender and ethnic subordination serve to produce, reproduce and reinforce dominant ideals of very young Asian women as objects of a tourist/sexual gaze for male tourists from visiting countries. His work makes a contribution to more theoretically informed accounts of gender and tourism by exploring the ways that gender,

120

Louise Manseld

ethnicity, class and generation intersect in the construction and reconstruction of tourism preferences. In Pritchards (2001, p. 90) paper on gender and tourism a brief reference is made to post-structuralist ideas in an attempt to explore the processes which structure the male gaze by highlighting how power and gender collide in tourism representation. Pritchard (2001) concludes that tourism representations are dominated by white, able-bodied and heterosexual ideals and the images and language of tourism promotion remain restricted to those which reinforce stereotypical roles of men and women. Established gender power relations, then, characterize tourism imagery. Johnstons (2000) work embraces feminist and critical social theory on embodiment in understanding gay pride parades in New Zealand and Australia. She explores gendered/sexed and sexualized bodies in a paper that seeks to disrupt what Johnston (2000, p. 183) refers to as the gendered nature of the mind/body dualism within tourism studies. In doing so, her work presents a challenge to established masculine-focused, disembodied and positivist accounts of tourism. Johnston (2000) illustrates the power relations at work between and within groups of tourists and host participants at gay pride parades and reconceptualizes traditional dichotomous ways of thinking about tourists and hosts as separate and different. Rather, in terms of gay pride events, hosts and tourists represent and experience a complexity of sexualized, gendered, racialized and (dis)abled bodies. It has already been noted that a more theoretically informed analysis of gender relations is largely absent from research on sports tourism. As such, Gibson (2004) and Gibson & Pennington-Gray (2005) argue for research that moves beyond the proling of types of sports tourists to a critical analysis of socio-psychological inuences on sports tourism behavior. One rare example of sports tourism research that achieves such a critical analysis of gendered sports tourism behavior is Green & Chalips (1998) insightful understanding of the intersections between femininitysexuality and sport and tourism. In their ethnographic study of a womens ag football tournament they examine ideas about identication, gender and sport. Green & Chalip (1998, p. 286) observe that the Key West tournament is central to the construction and reconstruction of community identity founded upon opportunities for the transgression of feminine stereotypes, and by the humour injected through performances planned and executed by participants. Counter to dominant conceptions of womens football (American) as lesbian-dominated, Green & Chalip (1998, p. 281) explain that there is a rejection of constrained female sex roles which allows easy access and shared play by women regardless of their sexual preferences. From a feminist perspective, what is principally at issue in advancing knowledge and understanding about gender and sports tourism is the employment of theoretical perspectives that allow for a consideration of relations of power which inuence provision, participation and control of sports tourism practices, and the ways that gender intersects with such variables as class, ethnicity, age and disability. Furthermore, accounts about gender and sports tourism need theoretical and methodological frameworks that bring to the fore an understanding of the historically located,

Journal of Sport & Tourism

121

economic, political and ideological arrangements which affect personal preferences and choices about sports tourism activities. Theoretical developments in feminisms have occurred alongside a systematic and critical examination of gender values in scientic research and specically the way that research methods have come to be dominated by traditional masculinist values. Next, I map out these feminist concerns about knowledge, experience and values in the research process. Feminist Research: Questions About Knowledge, Experience and Values One of the central debates in feminisms is connected to the conduct of research. In Westkotts (1990, p. 59) terms, the fundamental feminist critique about content and method in the social sciences centers on the invisibility or distortion of women as objects of knowledge, and upon conventional modes of establishing knowledge. Since the 1980s, feminists have argued that the established and legitimated epistemological basis of scientic research is founded upon universal, essentialist, rational and objective conceptions of human beings that reect a male/masculine position (Cook & Fonow, 1990; Fonow & Cook, 1991; Westcott, 1990). There are now over 35 years of feminist scholarship in the sociology of sport that represent a challenge to the development of knowledge and theory about sport that is based on male views and male standards. Such work has not only critiqued the male preserve of sport, the male-dominated academic study of sport and the legitimacy of objectivist approaches but has explored the contribution of feminisms in bringing the experiences of women to the fore in the advancement of knowledge about sport (see the work of Birrell, Cole and Hargreaves already cited and also Hall, 1988, 1996). Tourism research, as noted earlier, has a shorter history of feminist scholarship. However, according to Aitchison (2005, p. 208), the recent development of feminist approaches has been part of a wider turn to culture in tourism studies that has served to alter the course of the knowledge production process . . . and to challenge the previously dominant paradigm of materialist tourism management. In sports tourism research, Weed (2006a, p. 19) identies a positivist hegemony that reects a lack of heterogeneity in the conduct of research, and which is also connected to the production and publication of a-theoretical and conceptually weak writings that do not appear to make a signicant contribution to the advancement of knowledge in sports tourism. This is one reason why understandings of social inequality in sports tourism are extremely limited. It has also been argued that research in tourism has tended to focus on traditional, positivist approaches to knowledge acquisition and has thus neglected accounts of marginalized groups such as women, people from ethnic minorities and those with physical and mental disabilities (Humberstone, 2004). One exception is Phillimore & Goodsons (2004) edited collection of work that recognizes the centrality of involvement, reexivity and bringing the voices of the researched to the fore in understanding tourism. Weed (2006a) argues for sports tourism research to diversify in terms of methodological and epistemological approaches. As this paper hopes to show, feminist and gurational/process

122

Louise Manseld

approaches may offer opportunities for such diversication by emphasizing that understanding gender in sports tourism requires the development of perspectives that recognize that womens and mens experiences occur within relations of power. Moreover, understanding how and why the personal biographies of people involved in sports tourism intersect with specic social structures and historical conditions is central to the advancement of knowledge about gender, tourism and sporting pursuits. The centrality of experience for feminist theorizing is one of the key tenets in the development of feminist epistemology. While characterized by long-term, ongoing debate and competing positions, feminist epistemology is primarily concerned with the way in which gender values enter into the production of knowledge (Cook & Fonow, 1990; Stanley & Wise, 1983, 1990). Initially feminist epistemology reected claims for a feminist standpoint perspective that argued for the importance of embracing the standpoint of women; a position in which the social world can and should be explored and interpreted through the lives and experiences of women (Harding, 1986, 1991; Smith, 1979). Hardings (1986, 1991) approach to feminist epistemology calls for the perspective of the oppressed (women) to become central in furthering an understanding of the marginalization of women. Since Harding rst referred to standpoint theory there have been several critical appraisals and developments such that feminist standpoint theory is currently a category embracing diverse and competing approaches (Naples, 2006). Haraway (1991) is critical of a position that tends to homogenize the standpoint of women and silence different standpoints founded upon the interplay of gender with class, ethnicity and sexuality for example. Haraways (1991) concept of situated knowledge emphasizes that people see the world from many different standpoints, some of which are competing and some of which are complementary. Thus, in terms of the production of feminist understandings about gender, there are shifting coalitions and allegiances that, if subject to critical reection, can provide a foundation for understanding knowledge production. Collins (1991) also emphasizes that the individual experiences of women are multifaceted and, for her, understanding and advancing knowledge about gender requires consideration of the intersection of gender with other forms of inequality such as ethnicity, social class, age, environment and sexuality. Feminist standpoint theory, then, can be thought of as a general approach to feminist epistemology which refers to diverse perspectives on the importance of situating knowledge in womens experiences and raising important questions about the way power inuences knowledge and concomitantly political action (Naples, 2006, p. 1711). Du Bois (1983) contends that feminist theorists can offer and develop necessary opportunities and methods that enable researchers to depart from established androcentric science. For her, feminist science-making is passionate scholarship which is rooted in, animated by and expressive of our values and empowered by community (Du Bois, 1983, p. 112). Passionate scholarship provides a vital framework for threatening the hegemonic masculine order in science in which feminists can develop concepts and methods, and ways of seeing and thinking about womens lives that emerge from womens experiences. Her position takes the standpoint of women and she is well aware that such a position will be charged with bias, advocacy, subjectivity,

Journal of Sport & Tourism

123

ideologizing and so on (ibid.). If feminist research were not a direct challenge to the established order of science it would not provide an adequate framework for developing understandings of women. Indeed, sensitivity to bias is a vital part of furthering our knowledge about the social world. As Du Bois (1983, p. 103) points out, Science is not value free; it cannot be. Taking a particular point of view does not necessarily equate with bad science. In Du Boiss (1983, p. 113) analysis, the task for feminists is to engage in critical reections about their personal knowledge because passionate scholarship demands rigor, precision and responsibility in the highest degree. Passionate scholarship encourages relationships between values, methods and modes of knowing and represents an integration of subjectivity with objectivity, substance with process, passion with responsibility and the knower with the known (ibid.). What is principally at issue in debates about the generation and status of knowledge is the value-orientation of sociologists. Taking Eliass perspective on values, science and knowledge, Dunning (1992, p. 255) explains that what unites all sociologists is our view that our primary concern as sociologists should be to contribute to knowledge in the hope that it will facilitate an improvement in the efcacy of political action by changing the balance between its knowledge-based and ideological contents in favour of the former. In Eliass terms, debates about the advancement of knowledge in the social sciences are characterized by problems of involvement-detachment. I now turn to an overview of Eliass theory of involvement-detachment prior to considering the signicance of his ideas for feminisms and gender-related research in sport, tourism and sports tourism.

Ever-changing Balances of Involvement-Detachment in Understanding Social Life The theory of involvement-detachment is central to Eliass position on the subject of science and values. Traditionally, discussions of the relationship between scientic knowledge and values have centered on the abstract dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity. Proponents from each side of the polarity argue either that sociologists should be value-free (objective), or that it is inevitable that sociological researchers will be value-laden (subjective). The problem that Elias was addressing in his ideas about involvement-detachment concerned the general issue of how to achieve valid knowledge of society whilst investigating it from within (Kilminster, 2004, p. 26). It was a contribution to the debate about achieving value-freedom in the sciences. It was a way of challenging still enduring conceptions of human beings as homo clauses; as singular persons, individual subjects of knowledge, locked into ways of thinking and acting that are somehow isolated from others. Eliass (1978, 1987) starting point was to think of human beings as interdependent, homines aperti (open people) bonded in various ways and degrees. The theory of involvement-detachment developed as a way of dissolving dichotomies such as free will/ determinism (agency/ structure) and individual/society. As Kilminster (2004, p. 26) explains:

124

Louise Manseld
It provided him with the simple but powerful means by which to show that many conventionally posed epistemological problems, such as How do I know what I know?, How do we perceive social patterns when all we experience is individual action? Or is my action free or determined? embodied individualistic, homo clauses assumptions.

According to Elias there are degrees of objectivity and value-bias in all aspects of human social life. Elias introduced the terms involvement and detachment so as to avoid the assumption inherent in terms such as objectivity and subjectivity, or rational and irrational, or passion and reason, that the psychological and social characters of human beings are separate. For Elias, human social life involves people with specic assumptions or values. Interpreting and giving meaning to the world requires an involvement with culture but as Rojek (1986, p. 587) explains it, such involvement provides a particular and partial perspective on social life which can generate fateful oppositions in social orientations and human relations. This should not be taken to mean that Elias presents a relativist argument about knowledge. On the contrary his emphasis on the cultural and historical specicity of knowledge does not make any claim that variations in interpretations are equally valid (Rojek, 1986). Eliass ideas about detachment are central to this argument. Detachment is a disciplined, qualied exercise in self-distancing(Rojek, 1986, p. 256). Human beings have a capacity for greater or lesser detachment and involvement. A key point concerning issues of involvement-detachment is that Elias did not claim to be neutral, objective and have the ability to escape from personal ideals and commitments. All human behavior varies on a continuum of involvement-detachment and it is normally the case that people do not become so absolutely involved in social life that they abandon their feelings completely, nor do they remain wholly unmoved by events and relationships of which they are a part. Mennell (1992, p. 161) highlights: the balance of involvement and detachment seen in normal adult behaviour varies between different groups. Within those groups, it varies from one situation to another. It may vary greatly between different individuals in similar situations. On this basis one can say that involvement-detachment balances vary in type and, furthermore, issues of involvement-detachment may be the foundation for differing degrees and blends of conict and consensus. There are links here with doing ethnographic research about sport, tourism and sports tourism. Central to ethnography is the demand for intimacy with a culture (Sands, 2002). Involvement is a necessary requirement if ethnographers are to be able to understand the realities and identities of the members of different sports groups, to make that which seems strange become familiar. Cultural immersion characterizes my own work in the tness eld where I participate, observe and converse to explore the cultural meaning of tness (Maguire & Manseld, 1998; Manseld & Maguire, 1999; Manseld, 2002, 2005, 2008 forthcoming; Maguire et al., 2008 forthcoming). The meaning of sports culture is explored and discovered by the involvement of other researchers, for example, in body building (Bolin, 1992; Klein, 1993; Monaghan, 2000), baseball (Fine, 1987; Klein, 1993), tennis (Thompson, 1999) and rugby (Howe, 2004). Similarly, ethnographers in tourism have utilized cultural immersion

Journal of Sport & Tourism

125

to understand, inter alia, ight attendants (Hochschild, 1983), waiters (Mars & Nicod, 1984), budget travelers (Riley, 1988), and the tourism preferences and experiences of Caribbean communities in the UK (Stephenson, 2002). One or two sports tourism ethnographies exist, with Green & Chalips (1998) investigation of womens ag football (American) being most clearly located within the sports tourism eld, whilst Weed (2006b) locates his study of pub football (soccer) spectating within a framework that considers the nature of proximity and virtual travel. Other sports ethnographies, such as those of windsurng (Wheaton, 2000, 2004) and football (soccer) (Giulianotti, 2000; Sugden & Tomlinson, 1998, 1999; Williams et al., 1984) also have clear relevancy to the sports tourism eld as they each study activities including a travel element or place experience. While not explored in Eliass terms, issues of involvement-detachment characterize such work. As I will show later in the paper, ethnographers in sport, tourism and sports tourism have to come to terms with processes of involvement-detachment connected to areas such as cultural immersion, experience, culture shock, establishing rapport, interpretation of experience, analyzing culture and understanding ethics. The eld of ethnography has not escaped debates about scientic objectivity versus subjectivity, the dominance of scientic voice versus the subordination of subject voice, and local versus scientic knowledge (Sands, 2002). However, the traditional frameworks of empirical positivism no longer characterize ethnography. Rather, the underlying focus of what ethnography represents now turns on the role of the ethnographer as observer, participant and interpreter. No longer detached, the ethnographer becomes part of the equation (Sands, 2002, p. 83). Maguire & Young comment that the difculty faced by all sociological researchers is how to blend the roles of inquirer and participant. In their words, the sociologist-as-participant must employ the capacity to become the sociologist-as-observer-and-interpreter (Maguire & Young, 2002, p. 16). The theory of involvement-detachment provides a sensitizing framework for blending the roles of inquirer and participant. While it is not my intention to provide a detailed account of Eliass extensive works, his arguments about detachment and the growth of scientic knowledge are connected to a central feature of his theory on civilizing processes; that over very long periods of time increasing standards of detachment are only possible with increasing standards of self-control. In Dunnings (1992, p. 249) account: one of the preconditions for the growth of modern science, he [Elias] suggested, was an increase in specic (but later widening) groups in the socially instilled capacity of their members to exercise self-distanciation and self-restraint. For Elias (1987, pp. 34 35), in the natural sciences, the dominance of autonomous evaluations, ones which embody questions about fact and order of events which are institutionalized as part of a set of professional standards, represent a relatively high level of detachment compared to the social sciences in which heteronomous evaluations prevail. Heteronomous evaluation refers to the intrusion of values related to personal wishes and interests from outside, from positions taken up within conicts of society at large (Elias, 1987, p. 34). This should not be taken to mean that autonomy and heteronomy are absolutes. Autonomy-heteronomy is a balance. Furthermore, the autonomy-heteronomy

126

Louise Manseld

balance does not just relate to the character of research paradigms. Involvementdetachment issues come to the fore at every level of research. Elias (1978) stresses that the value-orientation of sociologists and the societies they form should be examined if sociological researchers are to develop larger funds of relatively adequate or, in other words, reality congruent knowledge (Elias, 1978; Dunning, 1999; Maguire & Young, 2002). He asserts that sociologists should strive to free themselves from the idea that there might be any necessary correspondence between the social context under investigation, and their own social beliefs, their wishes and hopes, their moral predilections or their conceptions of what is just and humane (Elias, 1978, p. 153). The sociological problem in research is to determine the continuum of evaluation and attempt to employ an appropriate degree of involvement-detachment in the evaluative process. Striving for an adequate involvement-detachment balance in research is referred to by gurational/process sociologists as a detour via detachment (Elias, 1987, p. 6). The practicalities of detour behavior remain difcult and complex and only a few writers have discussed the practicalities of Eliass theory of involvement-detachment (Bloyce, 2004; Dunning, 1992; Maguire, 1988, 1995; Maguire & Pearton, 1986; Maguire & Young, 2002; Manseld, 2008 forthcoming). In practice, the theory behind being a destroyer of myths via detour behaviour is not without its problems (Elias, 1978, p. 50). As Van Krieken (1998, p. 81) expresses it:
the production of de-mythologizing knowledge is itself a political exercise myths are not merely mistakes or even the accompaniments of earlier forms of social life, they are located within very specic relations of power and play a role within those power relations concerning the legitimate representation of the social world.

Van Krieken (1998, p. 82) also argues that Eliass focus on value-freedom and detachment does not provide an adequate insight into the rough and tumble of sociological enquiry, or the effect of sociological practices on social life itself. In addition, Rojek (1986, p. 591) argues that Elias did not provide any guidelines, mechanisms or drill for achieving relative degrees of detachment. I agree with Bloyce (2004) that the research process is messy. In practice, research involves multiple detours via detachment. In other words there are many different types and degrees of detour behavior the purpose of which is to avoid, as far as possible, a position based solely and uncritically on emotional evaluations and personal interests. Striving for an appropriate involvement-detachment balance includes a capacity for reexivity, an ability to critically examine ones own passions and personal interests throughout the research process. Involvement-detachment should be thought of as an ever-changing balance of emotional involvement-detachment with topics, theories and methods of research. Working with involved-detachment represents my feminist interpretation of Eliass theory of involvement-detachment which may provide a sensitizing concept for feminist researchers reecting on the role of values in studies of gender, sport, tourism and sports tourism. Involved-detachment is a balance signaling a feminist passion or motivation to investigate gender relations in sport, tourism or sports tourism from an inside perspective; a requirement to be involved, but recognizing

Journal of Sport & Tourism

127

and examining the feminist assumptions of the research endeavor and working towards an appropriate degree of involvement-detachment from those feminist values in the advancement of knowledge about gender. Kilminsters (2004) discussion of Eliass theory of involvement-detachment has something to add here to my own feminist interpretation. In Kilminsters (2004, p. 31) account involvement-detachment does not represent two separate classes of objects. Nor is the relationship a dichotomy between two mutually exclusive opposites. Nor is involvement-detachment a zero-sumrelationship implying that as involvement increases, so detachment decreases (Kilminster, 2004, p. 31). Rather, the involvement-detachment balance is conceived of as a changing equilibria between sets of mental activities which in mans [sic] relations with men [sic], with non-human objects and with himself (whatever their other functions may be) have the function to involve and to detach (Elias 1956, p. 227). Detachment is always inextricably blended with involvement and does not relate only to men but to all human relationships. In terms of the establishment of selfperpetuating greater detachment in scientic enquiry, passion plays a part. One of the consequences of shifts towards autonomous evaluations in any science is that researchers experience a gradual re-involvement with feelings of pleasure and excitement, or in feminist terms passion and commitment, associated with the activity of discovery. For Kilminster (2004, p. 35), sociologists: come to experience pleasure and excitement in relation to activities such as discovery in which they are habitually applying a standard of detachment and an orientation to factual research, thereby developing a very strong, emotionally reinforced commitment to the science concerned. He uses the term secondary involvement to explain that sociologists embracing greater detachment in their inquiries take pleasure from the comprehensive understanding made possible by the standpoint and relish its potentialities (Kilminster, 2004, pp. 33 34). The sets of mental activities that characterize involvement-detachment are what Elias (1987) refers to as self steering mechanisms and involve a dynamic tension balance between emotions and behaviors. One might think of the more involved aspects of self-steering mechanisms in feminist terms as passion or motivation or commitment. One might also think of the more detached consequences of self-steering activities as rational conduct and reason, which in feminist terms are linked to processes of reection. As previously highlighted, Elias referred to a shifting towards detachment in research as a detour via detachment (Elias, 1987, p. 6). The aim of detour behavior is to maximize the degree to which the ndings of investigations correspond to the objects of study and this means avoiding, as far as possible, the encroachment of emotional evaluations, personal fantasies and the short-term interests of individuals or groups (Dunning, 1992). In the social sciences, what is required, in Eliass reference to the autonomous-heteronomous balance, is a tilting towards greater degrees of detachment or relative autonomy and this requires greater control over, and an ability to critically reect upon, strong personal values and political commitments in research. In the sciences, the capacity for detachment is signicant in the growth of human knowledge. In Mennells (1992, p. 164) words:

128

Louise Manseld
if it proves possible for people to observe the relations of elements in the process with a measure of detachment, relatively unimpeded by emotional fantasies and in a realistic manner, they may be able to form a symbolic representation a theory, a model of their situation and, by means of actions based on that representation, change the situation.

Mennells (1992) comments seem to me to provide a framework for the development of feminist theories. His reference to the possibility of changing situations resonates with a central principle of feminisms; a commitment to changing gender inequality. The gurational/process approach emphasizes that political action and possible social change need to be founded upon relatively high degrees of adequate knowledge produced with an appropriate measure of involvement-detachment. There is a connection here with Kerrs (2006, p. 1682) claim that the type of critical reection that is central to feminisms requires strong objectivity so that feminists are able to judge the adequacy of the knowledge they produce. Elias was opposed to ideologically-based understandings of the sociological world because he questioned the efcacy of understandings based solely on short-term interests or the interests of particular groups. But, his emphasis on the advancement of relatively non-ideological knowledge did not discount the inclusion of political commitment. Kilminster (2004, p. 35) speaks of Eliass own passionate commitment to sociology; a commitment so strong that it may have caused some people to regard (wrongly) Eliass work as politically and ideologically biased. As previously noted, such criticisms of bias, ideologizing, over-involvement and subjectivity are levied at feminist researchers. However, passionate advocacy and scientic detachment are not mutually exclusive (Kilminster, 2004, p. 35). Elias (1987) recognized that sociologists cannot and should not avoid their political concerns. It was his contention, with regard to sociological scientists, that their own involvement is itself one of the conditions for understanding the problems that they seek to resolve (Elias, 1987, p. 16). As Elias (ibid.) puts it: in order to understand the functioning of human groups one needs to know, as it were, from the inside how human beings experience their own and other groups, and one cannot know without active participation and involvement. This position directly corresponds with some feminist principles of research. In Reinharzs (1992, p. 263) words, the most satisfactory position for feminist researchers is one that acknowledges the researchers position right up front, and that does not think of objectivity and subjectivity as warring with each other, but rather serving each other. Eliass ideas about involvement should not be taken to mean that he sought to privilege an insider perspective. The theory sensitizes the researcher to problems of involvement-detachment, and the need to strive for an appropriate balance of involvement-detachment. The examples in the next section draw on a range of gender-related studies and are intended to illustrate that problems of involvement-detachment characterize all research as well as highlighting examples of working with involved-detachment in feminist and gender-related research in sport, tourism and sports tourism.

Journal of Sport & Tourism

129

Involved-Detachment: A Balance of Passion and Reason in Gender-related Studies of Sport, Tourism and Sports Tourism Some of the most interesting and informative gender-related studies of sport, tourism and sports tourism have emerged through the involvement of researchers. For example, Wheaton (2000, 2004) actively participated in windsurng with women and men, Klein (1993) and Monaghan (2000) lived the male body-building experience in a variety of gym settings and Bolin (1992) was a part of the world of female body builders. Hochschild (1983) experienced the exploitation of females whilst working as a ight attendant, whilst Nicod worked as a waiter and experienced the gender-based power relationships between waiters and waitresses (Mars & Nicod, 1984). Howe (2004) took on various roles including massage therapist and water boy to get close to male rugby players during practice and matches whilst Fine (1987) blended the role of leader, supervisor, observer and friend in participant observations of boys who played Little League Baseball. Stephenson (2002), a white male academic, spent two years gaining the trust of the Caribbean community in Moss Side, Manchester (UK), before he could fully experience their culture and learn of the importance of gender roles in their travel and tourism preferences and behaviors. Giulianotti (2000), Sugden & Tomlinson (1998, 1999) and Williams et al. (1984) were immersed in the male-centered world of football (soccer); Weed (2006b) spent many evenings watching football in the male culture of pubs; and Greens recruitment into a team provided the practical context for interpreting the Key West Womens Football Tournament (Green & Chalip, 1998). Arguing for a return to investigative modes of inquiry in the sociology of sport, Sugden & Tomlinson (1999, p. 386) advocate a mix of investigative, gonzo journalistic, historiographic, ethnographic, comparative and critical methods that get at deep, insider information about sport. Their investigations of the structures and ideologies of the world governing body of football (FIFA) illustrate that getting involved meant taking opportunities and sometimes risks that would give them access to powerful FIFA personnel. Although Sugden & Tomlinsons study has been widely regarded as a sport ethnography, much of what is described relates to the study of an internationally traveling group of self-perpetuating sports administrators. As such, one potential factor in understanding their behaviors is their desire to continue to be part of a jetsetting elite. Furthermore, Sugdens more recent populist ethnography of footballs underground economy (Sugden, 2002) features football as an excuse for males to travel to become involved in a range of activities that they would not want their wives or partners to discover. Sugden (2002, pp. 11 12) characterizes this as middle-aged men behaving badly. . .[exploiting] the connections between football, drugs and the sex industry. In each of these cases, travel and tourism plays a central role in understanding the nature of the phenomenon being studied and so they are of clear relevance to sports tourism scholars. Some researcher involvement is facilitated by personal abilities, expertise or cultural capital. For example, I instructed aerobics classes and regularly worked out at gyms long before I saw tness as a eld of research. Fairs (1999) account of the modern

130

Louise Manseld

history of weight lifting in part reects his involvement as a competitor and coach of powerlifting, a national referee and a Mr America judge. Nicods interest in waiters was stimulated by his own employment history (Mars & Nicod, 1984), whilst Rileys (1988) travel experiences led to her research interest in the budget traveler. Monaghan (2000) accessed body builders via his own body-building efforts and Wheaton (2000, 2004) is a skilled female windsurfer. Explaining Williams involvement in research on football hooligans, Williams et al. (1984, p. xiii) also point to the importance of physical and mental ability by stating that He [Williams] is young enough and sufciently street wise and interested in football to pass himself off as an ordinary English football fan. I would add here that being male was central to accessing the world of the football hooligan in the 1980s. But getting and being involved in sport, leisure and tourism cultures is not without its problems for the sociologist. Delamonts (2005) study of capoeira (the Brazilian dance and martial art form) identies potential physical and mental barriers to her involvement. While being a woman per se was not a barrier to her research, her apparent lack of capacity for physical activity may be connected to the development of her female physicality. In her words, studying capoeira is an absurd project for me based on the fact that I have the wrong body, because I am 58, fat and dreadfully unt, and I never could turn a somersault, do a cartwheel, or walk on my hands: and I am much too lazy and frightened to try and learn now (Delamont, 2005, p. 308). Despite Delamonts selfconfessed physical ineptitudes, her insights into capoeira come from a level of involvement founded upon her knowledge, understanding and teaching about Brazil that enabled her access to classes around the UK. Similarly, Stephenson (2002) is the most unlikely of researchers to become involved in Black Caribbean culture in Moss Side, Manchester. As mentioned earlier, Stephenson was a white academic seeking to understand the Caribbean communitys perspectives and experiences and their relationship with their ancestral homeland, including the role of gender relations within this relationship. This outsider approach was not lost on Stephensons main research confederate, Junior, in their initial meetings:
Junior was initially suspicious of the nature of the research programme, questioning why white people always want to research black peoples business. Yet after several weeks of negotiating with Junior the importance of understanding other peoples perspectives and experiences through a natural involvement in community life, Junior was prepared to adopt a more pro-active role in the study (Stephenson, 2002, p. 384).

In fact, Junior became a key part of Stephensons study, facilitating his access to what would otherwise have been an inaccessible community for him:
He often presented his opinions on unfolding topics, facilitated the researcher in accessing particular places and venues, and also introduced him to various members of the community. The researcher worked with Junior on a voluntary basis at his Youth Centre and often accompanied him on evenings out, day trips and weekend breaks. Junior also invited the researcher to participate in various community events (e.g. cricket and dance festivals) and celebrations (e.g. birthdays, weddings and wakes). Given that the researcher was of a different ethnic background to the study group and was not initially familiar with the

Journal of Sport & Tourism

geographical area or culture studied, Juniors involvement in the study was crucial (Stephenson, 2001, p. 384).

131

Fine (1987) got involved in the world of Little League Baseball to examine the American male pre-adolescent. But for him, ethnographic type research with children is marked by problems of involvement connected to the research role, ethical responsibilities of the adult researcher, achieving rapport, and the impact of the adult on childrens interpretations of the social world. Fine (1987, p. 223) took on the role of friend in his research to foster a trusting and positive relationship with minimal authority. To an extent he became highly involved with the boys in his research both during games and in their leisure time. He was given a nickname, presented with a signed baseball and duly thrown into a swimming pool as a prank during his research. However, his involvement was limited. In his words despite the attempt to establish a relatively equal status relationship with the players, my adult role never totally disappeared and, thus, he did not observe the boys engaging in aggressive leisure activities where he might have felt the need to intervene or at boy-girl parties which might have involved observing behavior that he, as an adult, felt was inappropriate for boys such as drinking alcohol and sexual activity (Fine, 1987, p. 224). Fines (1987) research also illustrates problems of over-involvement. At times, for example, he could not take notes or contemplate his researcher role because he was coaching or engrossed in the competition. He points out that self involvement is a natural outgrowth of identication with participants in sport but that over-involvement must be guarded against to ensure it does not interfere with data collection (Fine, 1987, p. 228). Not only may over-involvement interfere with the collection of evidence but also it will impact on the interpretation of substantive material. The problems of overinvolvement are ones connected to critiques of feminist standpoint epistemology already alluded to in this paper and which can be summarized in terms of: perspectives failing to recognize that questions of gender are not simply questions about women but are also about men, and the relations between the two; presentations of women as a homogeneous group and equally oppressed, regardless of cultural differences and similarities; assumptions that experience directly corresponds with truth (Abbott & Wallace, 1997) such that all knowledge and, thus, claims to truth are localized, equally valid and can be reduced to the social characteristics of specic (female) groups (Ward, 1997, p. 774). To take such a culturally relative position removes the interpretive role of the sociologist and, thus, leaves no space to critically explore power relations and identity politics (Maguire & Young, 2002; Sugden & Tomlinson, 1999, 2002). In Sugden & Tomlinsons (1999, p. 390) view, eldwork strategies need to center upon being a part of the cultural scene which is being investigated but at the same time be semi-detached from that experience in order to employ the interpretive position of the sociologist and understand the relationships between individual realties and the broader social and political milieu. In their study of sports tourism as the celebration of subculture, Green & Chalip (1998, p. 275) adopted a practical solution to retaining the researchers interpretive position. Taking advantage of being able to

132

Louise Manseld

work as a research team, they used a debrieng technique that I would refer to as working with involved-detachment:
The rst author participated as a player. . . She attended games and social events, and interviewed players, ofcials and organizers. The other author attended practices and interviewed participants, but was never directly involved with any team or the tournament. He debriefed his co-author and sought to provide an outsiders perspective . . . . Together, they endeavoured to obtain the elaborated perspective of an active participant and the detached objectivity of an outside observer (Green & Chalip, 1998, p. 277).

At the same time as recognizing the need for involvement in interpreting culture, Elias urges sociological researchers to reect upon and challenge their personal ideals so that the ndings and conclusions of research correspond to the evidence produced rather than reect how particular theorists would wish things to be (Elias, 1978, 1987). Reection, or reexivity, then, is part of working with involved-detachment and can be thought of as detour behavior. My own sporting biography and involvement in tness reects some bias in my research projects, research questions and methods. My personal involvement is as a white, Western, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied sports woman. My research is also marked by my feminist sensibilities concerning the examination of the position of women in society, and a political commitment to identifying and challenging social injustices faced by women. But, as I am learning all the time, my views about what counts as social injustice as well as womens perceptions and orientations towards tness and health are both similar and different to other women. I point out in another article that when Neena, a 73-year-old Asian woman, commented: I emigrated from Uganda in my twenties. I came to England as a wife and mother. That was my priority. I didnt try and do it all like you young women. Now I have time to relax and enjoy things like exercise, I realized that I would have to put my own feminist assumptions and political ideals about the position of women in sport and society as one connected to opportunity, participation and empowerment to one side to fully understand the nature of tness culture and the involvement of women of different cultural backgrounds, ages and physical capacities (Manseld, 2008 forthcoming). In her studies of solo women travelers, Jordan (2004) was similarly concerned about giving voice to the 39 women in her research. Jordan describes the womens feelings of both constraint and empowerment in traveling alone, but in doing so remains acutely aware of her role as an active interpretive agent (Charmaz, 2000) in presenting partial views from over 200,000 words of interview transcripts. Like many researchers, her solution is to recognize and lay open her role:
Having a researcher interpret the stories of the researched implies a power relationship that can create the researcher as more powerful through their selection and interpretation of the data. On the other hand, as Jackson and Jones (1998) point out, even in everyday life we constantly interpret and endeavour to make sense of our own experiences and those of people around us. Our responsibility as researchers then is to make this process visible in the way we write up our research (Jordan, 2004, p. 77).

Journal of Sport & Tourism

133

To an extent, Eliass ideas about involvement-detachment resonate with some feminist scholars concerning what constitutes proper research. Reecting on the nature and assumptions of the knowledge produced by feminist researchers, Ribbens & Edwards (1988, p. 4) state that While we may wish to attain the status of detached and objective observer, producing expert and superior forms of knowledge, such claims are open to doubt. An alternative relativist position is also not advocated by such feminists. Rather Ribbens & Edwards (ibid.) support a perspectival view of knowledge that recognizes that who you are and where you are situated, does make a difference to the knowledge produced. Exploring the theme of the position of the researcher in terms of Black women in academic settings Collins (1991, p. 35) argues that an outsider-within position provides a standpoint on: (1) Black womens self-denition and self-valuation; (2) the interlocking character of oppression; and (3) the importance of Afro-American womens culture. An outsider-within position indicates that despite being involved in academic spheres of life, Black women remain outsiders. Stressing the importance of historical perspectives and power dynamics underpinning these insider-outsider relationships, Collins (1991, p. 53) points out that Black womens experiences highlight the tension experienced by any group of less powerful outsiders encountering the paradigmatic thought of a more powerful insider community. Hargreaves (1992, pp. 166 167) introduced the idea of working with passionateobjectivity in feminist research about sport as a way of producing high-quality and committed research in which the theorist works from the viewpoint of the oppressed. She does not develop a detailed account of passionate-objectivity but in 2000 she explained that, in her work, passionate-objectivity means that: womens personal biographies are placed within a framework of specic social structures and historical circumstances in an effort to understand the ways in which gender relations in sport cohere with cultural, economic, ideological, political and religious patterns specic to the totality of social relations (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 10). Locating her research historically and in the wider system of social relations, Hargreaves (1994, 2000) avoids the retreat to the present that Elias (1978, 1987) is critical of in sociological accounts. Similarly, Aitchison (2005) argues that the cultural turn in tourism also facilitates an embedded historical perspective, claiming that post-structural theory allows the historic specicity of relationships to be fore-fronted in feminist research in exploring the contested workings and re-workings of gender-power relations (p. 221) in tourism research contexts. In her work, Hargreavess (2000) reections on the role of the researcher highlight a tension between her position as part of a privileged (white, European, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied) female group and acting as a voice for women of different cultural backgrounds. Yet, she contends that being a part of a privileged group of women comes with an obligation to support and facilitate those from minority groups (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 11). Her research integrates the voices of the women with whom she has spoken as well as draws on the female researchers who are a part of the groups of women in her studies. Working with passionate-objectivity, Hargreaves (1994, 2000) has signicantly contributed to our understanding of women and sport by providing insights into

134

Louise Manseld

the long-term processes of change that impact on the gendered development of sport and by exploring the complexities of gender in terms of shifting power relations. The centrality of long-term developments and diverse and dynamic relations of power are two principles of Eliass approach to understanding social life. By my reading, Hargreaves (1992, 2000) is suggesting that passionate-objectivity is a balance between being involved with the women in her research and at the same time confronting existing and historical structures of gender inequality and sex discrimination and, thus, her ideas appear to have some overlaps with Du-Boiss (1983) ideas about passionate scholarship as well as Eliass theory of involvement-detachment. In Brackenridges (1999) account of managing her position as a white, middle-class, lesbian researcher investigating sexual abuse in sport, reexivity is central to understanding the power dynamics of research relationships and the role and impact of the researcher on the research. Delamonts (2005) considerations of eldwork on capoeira teaching also emphasize the importance of self-critical reection in ethnographic research. Using the language of capoeira, Delamont (2005, p. 310) explains reection as a ruthless, relentless and continuous process and an escape (esquiva) from the problems of research via a positive attack (attaque) on those problems; in Eliasian terms a detour via detachment. For Brackenridge (1999, p. 403), reexivity and managing herself/selves has been part of a process of coming to terms with a range of stressors developed out of being involved in such sensitive research. For example, she has received personal insults, blackmail, threats of legal action, hate mail, funding cuts, professional and personal rejection, and media harassment. Despite such crises of involvement, Brackenridge (1999, p. 407) explains, managing myself has been how to maintain focus in the face of internal doubts and external pressures. On a less severe level, Weed (2006b) comments on the reaction of his colleagues to his ethnography of pub football spectating. As a relatively young male researching male culture, many believed that it was an excuse for indulgence, and as a result, the pressure was on:
I also wondered what my colleagues would say when I told them that my major research project for the summer would be to go to the pub and watch football! As I expected, many were incredulous. I had to go to great pains to explain that the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan was the ideal opportunity to study the social and cultural importance of the pub as a sports spectator venue . . . This did little to temper their responses, and so I faced some pressure to ensure that there was some worthwhile outcome of my summer in the pub (Weed, 2006b, p. 81).

The process of managing self-involvement is connected, in Brackenridges (1999, p. 407) view, to doing good science through the painstaking accumulation of evidence and the tortuous process of theory development. Relating ones work to an existing body of knowledge is central to Eliass (1987) view on advancing social funds of knowledge. In his words it is characteristic of . . . .scientic . . . .forms of solving problems that . . . questions emerge and are solved as a result of an uninterrupted two-way trafc between two layers of knowledge; that of general ideas, theories or models and that of observations and perceptions of specic events (Elias, 1987, p. 20). In feminist terms, it appears that working with passionate-objectivity

Journal of Sport & Tourism

135

(Hargreaves, 1992, p. 166), or a framework for self-management (Brackenridge, 1999, p. 399), or a perspectival view of knowledge (Ribbens & Edwards, 1988, p. 4), or an outsider-within position (Collins, 1991, p. 35) are characterized by involvementdetachment balances and Eliass ideas, thus, have the potential to contribute to feminist advances in understanding gender, sport, tourism and sports tourism. Conclusion Research about gender and sports tourism is dominated by approaches which are a-theoretical or which do not have a clearly articulated theoretical foundation. Moreover, gender studies in sports tourism tend to embrace a positivist epistemology focusing on analysis of quantitative data concerning proles, behaviors and motivations. As some authors in the sports tourism eld have pointed out, such positivist, a-theoretical approaches produce largely descriptive research about what sports tourists do which does not adequately contribute to an understanding of why the sports tourist behaves in particular ways (Weed, 2005, 2006a; Gibson, 2004). Researchers in the eld of sports tourism could draw on the experiences and knowledge of those in the sociology of sport who are part of a long and developing tradition of theoretical sophistication and methodological diversity amongst researchers seeking to understand gender and sport by examining the connections between experiences of individuals and the wider social forces that frame them. To an extent, the emerging eld of feminist inquiry that focuses on understanding the intersections of personal experience with broader social and political structures about gender and tourism may also provide some lessons for sports tourism researchers interested in questions about gender. In Eliass terms understanding the connections between personal experiences and values and broader social structures and forces is characterized by problems and issues of involvement-detachment. The task for researchers seeking further knowledge and understanding of gender sport, tourism and sports tourism is to determine and understand the role of involvement with the research process and ways in which an involved perspective can be balanced with a more detached perspective of inquiry and interpretation. Over at least the past 35 years feminist sociologists and other researchers keen to understand the gendered character of sport have examined problems and issues of involvement-detachment in terms of research questions, methods and analysis of evidence. In terms of advancing knowledge about gender in sport, tourism and sports tourism there is a need for social scientists to examine the role of values and evaluation in the research process. Over-involvement in terms of value-orientation or practical engagement with research participants often leads to a partial and limited knowledge that does not contribute adequately to understanding, challenging and changing social inequality. On the other hand, a grossly detached perspective that seeks to measure gender in a descriptive and uncritical way produces research that is supercial and inadequate for understanding the complexities of gender relations. One of the key principles of Eliass approach to sociology is that: sociological thought moves constantly between a position of social and emotional involvement

136

Louise Manseld

in the topics of study, and one of detachment from them (Van Krieken, 1998, p. 6) and as I have argued elsewhere (Manseld, 2002, 2005, 2008 forthcoming) there is potential in developing a feminist interpretation of this tenet. Working with what I have dened as involved-detachment, feminist researchers could use their feminist involvements as a source of motivation and insider knowledge, while, at the same time striving to maximize a degree of theoretical, methodological and practical detachment by critical self-reection of personal commitments, examination of medium and longterm processes of change in gendered social relations, and continuing to explore the interwoven character of theories about gender and evidence from the research eld. Engaging with a critical evaluation of the assumptions and commitments that suffuse the sociological endeavor is not just a matter for feminist researchers but for all social scientists examining issues of social inequality. Working with involved-detachment may help in recognizing and understanding the particular biases of involvement in the research process as well as identifying research that is overly detached. Involveddetachment, then, offers a sensitizing concept for feminist researchers and others who wish to further an understanding of gender, sport, tourism and sports tourism. Acknowledgements The author would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and colleagues at Carterbury Christ Church University for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Note
[1] I use the term involved-detachment to embrace a feminist emphasis on the importance of being and becoming involved with women in order to see and think about their experiences, but at the same time recognizing the need for critical reections about personal knowledge and values so that involvement is tempered with appropriate degrees of detachment through precision and rigor in the research process.

References
Abbott, P. & Wallace, C. (Eds.) (1997). An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist Perspectives. London: Routledge. Adkins, L. (1994). Gendered Work: Sexuality, Family and the Labour Market. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Aitchison, C. (2005). Feminist and gender perspectives in tourism studies: The socio-cultural nexus of critical and cultural theories. Tourism Studies, 5, 207 224. Apostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S. & Yiannakis, A. (1996). The Sociology of Tourism: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. London: Routledge. Bagguley, P. (1990). Gender and labour exibility in hotel and catering. Service Industries Journal, 10, 737 747. Birrell, S. (1988). Discourses on the gender/sport relationship: from women in sport to gender relations. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 16, 359 503. Birrell, S. (1989). Racial relations theories and sport: suggestions for a more critical analysis. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 212 227.

Journal of Sport & Tourism

137

Birrell, S. (1990). Women of color, critical autobiography and sport. In M. Messner & D. Sabo (Eds.), Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, pp. 185 199. Birrell, S. (2002). Feminist theories for sport. In J. Coakley & E. Dunning (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Studies. London: Sage, pp. 61 77. Bloyce, D. (2004). Research is a messy process: a case study of a gurational sociology approach to conventional issues in social science research methods. Graduate Journal of Social Science, 1(1), 114 166. Bolin, A. (1992). Vandalized vanity: feminine physique betrayed and portrayed. In F. Mascia-Lees & P. Sharpe (Eds.), Tattoo, Torture, Mutilation and Adornment: The De-naturalization of the Body in Culture and Text. New York: State University of New York Press. Brackenridge, C. (1999). Managing myself: investigator survival in sensitive research. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34(4), 115 130. Caudwell, J. (1999). Womens football in the United Kingdom: theorizing gender and unpacking the butch lesbian image. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23(4), 390 402. Charmaz, K. (2000) Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn). London: Sage. Clift, S. & Carter, S. (Eds.) (2000). Tourism and Sex: Culture, Commerce and Coercion. London: Thomson. Cole, C. (1993). Resisting the canon: feminist cultural studies, sport and technologies of the body. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17(2), 77 97. Cole, C. (2002). Body studies in the sociology of sport. In J. Coakley & E. Dunning. (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Studies. London: Sage, pp. 439 461. Collins, P.H. (1991). Learning from the outsider-within: the sociological signicance of black feminist thought. In M. Fonow & J. Cook (Eds.), Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research, Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 35 60. Colwell, S. (1999). Feminisms and gurational sociology: contributions to understandings of sports, physical education and sex/gender. European Physical Education Review, 5(3), 219 40. Cook, J. & Fonow, M. (1990). Knowledge and womens interests: issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In. J. Nielsen (Ed.), Feminist Research Methods. London: Westview, pp. 69 94. Delamont, S. (2005). No place for women among them? Reections on the axe of eldwork. Sport, Education and Society, 10(3), 305 320. Du Bois, B. (1983). Passionate scholarship: notes on values, knowing and method in feminist social sciences. In G. Bowles & R. Duelli Klein (Eds.), Theories of Womens Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 105 116. Dunning, E. (1986). Sport as a male preserve: notes on the social sources of masculine identity and its transformations. In N. Elias & E. Dunning (Eds.), Quest for Excitement: Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 267 284. Dunning, E. (1992). Figurational sociology and the sociology of sport: some concluding remarks. In E. Dunning & C. Rojek (Eds.), Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process: Critique and Counter Critique. London: Macmillan, pp. 221 285. Dunning, E. (1999). Sport Matters: Sociological Studies of Sport, Violence and Civilization. London: Routledge. Dunning, E. & Maguire, J. (1996). Process sociological notes on sport, gender relations and violence control. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 31(3), 295 317. Elias, N. (1956). Problems of involvement and detachment. British Journal of Sociology, 7(3), 226 252. Elias, N. (1978). What is Sociology? London: Hutchinson. Elias, N. (1987). Involvement and Detachment. Oxford: Blackwell.

138

Louise Manseld

Fair, J. (1999). Muscletown USA: Bob Hoffman and the Manly Culture of York Barbell. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. Fine, G. (1987). With the Boys: Little League Baseball and Preadolescent Culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fonow, M. & Cook, J. (1991). Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Gibson, H. (1998). Sports tourism: a critical analysis of research. Sport Management Review, 1, 45 76. Gibson, H. (2004). Moving beyond the what is and who of sport tourism to understanding why. Journal of Sport Tourism, 9, 247 265. Gibson, H. & Pennington-Gray, L. (2005). Insights from role-theory: understanding golf tourism. European Sport Management Quarterly, 5(4), 443 468. Green, C. & Chalip, L. (1998). Sports tourism as the celebration of subculture. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 275 291. Greendorfer, S. (1983). Gender role stereotypes and early childhood socialization. In G. Cohen (Ed.), Women in Sport: Issues and Controversies. Newbury Part, CA: Sage, pp. 3 14 Giulianotti, R. (2000). Football: A Sociology of the Global Game. Cambridge: Polity. Hall, M. (1988) The discourse of gender and sport: from femininity to feminism. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5(4), 330 340. Hall, A. (1996) Feminism and Sporting Bodies: Essays on Theory and Practice. Leeds: Human Kinetics Publishers. Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575 599. Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell University Press. Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? New York: Cornell University Press. Hargreaves, J. (1986). Wheres the virtue? Wheres the grace? A discussion of the social production of gender relations through sport. Theory, Culture and Society, 3, 109 121. Hargreaves, J. (1989). The promise and problems of womens leisure and sport. In C. Rojek (Ed.), Leisure for Leisure: Critical Essays. New York: Routledge, pp. 130 149. Hargreaves, J. (1990). Gender on the sports agenda. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 25, 287 308. Hargreaves, J. (1992). Sex, gender and the body in sport and leisure. Has there been a civilising process? In E. Dunning & C. Rojek (Eds.), Sport, Leisure and the Civilising Process, London: Macmillan, pp. 161 183. Hargreaves, Jennifer (1994). Sporting Females: Critical Issues in the History and Sociology of Womens Sport. London: Routledge. Hargreaves, J. (2000). Heroines of Sport: The Politics of Difference and Identity. London: Routledge. Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Howe, P.D. (2004). Sport, Professionalism and Pain: Ethnographies of Injury and Risk. London: Routledge. Hudson, S. (2000). Snow Business: A Study of the International Ski Industry. London. Cassell. Humberstone, B. (2004). Standpoint research: multiple versions of reality in tourism theorizing and research. In J. Phillimore & L. Goodson (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routledge, pp. 119 137. Jackson, S. & Jones, J. (Eds.). (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Jeffreys, S. (1999). Globalising sexual exploitation: sex tourism and the trafc in women. Leisure Studies, 18(3), 179 196. [see - Jeffrey not Jeffreys in text? and next entry] Jeffreys, S. (2003). Sex tourism: do women do it too? Leisure Studies, 22(3), 223 238. Johnston, L. (2000) (Other) bodies and tourism studies. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 180 201.

Journal of Sport & Tourism

139

Jordan, F. (1997). An occupational hazard? Sex segregation in tourism employment. Tourism Management, 8(18), 525 534. Jordan, F. (2004). Gender discourses of tourism: the experiences of mid-life women traveling solo. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Gloucester, UK. Kerr, A. (2006). Feminism and science, feminist epistemology. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology. London: Blackwell, pp. 1681 1685. Kilminster, R. (2004). From distance to detachment: knowledge and self-knowledge in Eliass theory of involvement and detachment. In S. Loyal & S. Quilley (Eds.), The Sociology of Norbert Elias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25 42. Kinnaird, V. & Hall, D. (1994). Tourism: A Gender Analysis. Chichester: Wiley. Klein, A. (1993) Little Big Men: Bodybuilding, Subculture and Gender Construction. New York: SUNY. Lenskyj, H. (1991). Combating homophobia in sport and physical education. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 61 69. Liston, K. (2006a). Womens soccer in the Republic of Ireland: some preliminary sociological comments. Sport in Society, 7(2 3), 364 384. Liston, K. (2006b). Sport and gender relations. Sport in Society, 9(4), 616 633. Liston, K. (2007). Revisiting the feminist-gurational sociology exchange. Sport in Society, 10(4), 623 645. Maguire, J. (1986). Images of manliness and competing ways of living in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain. British Journal of Sport History, 3(3), 265 287. Maguire, J. (1988). Doing gurational sociology: some preliminary observations on methodological issues and sensitizing concepts. Leisure Studies, 7, 187 193. Maguire, J. (1995). Common ground? Links between sports history, sports geography and the sociology of sport. Sport Traditions, 12(1), 3 25. Maguire, J. & Manseld, L. (1998). No-bodys perfect. Women, aerobics and the body beautiful. Sociology of Sport Journal, 15, 109 137. Maguire, J. & Pearton, R. (1986). Figurational sociology for small-scale situations. Paper presented at the 8th Commonwealth Conference, Glasgow. Maguire, J. & Young, K. (2002). Back to the future: thinking sociologically about sport. In J. Maguire & K. Young (Eds.), Theory, Sport and Society. London: JAI Elsevier Science, pp. 1 25. Maguire, J., Manseld, L., Pike, E. & Smith Maguire, J. (2008, forthcoming). Bodies, Sport and Social Problems. London: Routledge. Manseld, L. (2002). Feminist thought and gurational (process) sociology. In J.Maguire & K. Young (Eds.), Theory, Sport and Society. London: JAI Elsevier Science, pp. 317 335. Manseld, L. (2005). Gender, power and identities in the tness gym: towards a sociology of the exercise body beautiful complex. Unpublished PhD thesis, Loughborough University, UK. Manseld, L. & Maguire, J. (1999). Active women, power relations and gendered identities: embodied experiences of aerobics. In S. Roseneil & J. Seymour (Eds.), Practising Identities: Power and Resistance. London: Macmillan, pp. 81 107. Manseld, L. (2008, forthcoming). Reconsidering feminisms and the work of Norbert Elias for understanding gender, sport and sport-related activities. European Physical Education Review. Markula. P. (1995). Firm but shapely, t but sexy, strong but thin: the postmodern aerobicizing female bodies. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 424 533. Markula, P. (2003). The technologies of the self: sport, feminism and Foucault. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20(2), 87 108. Mars, G. & Nicod, M. (1984). The World of Waiters. London: Allen and Unwin. Mennell, S. (1992). Norbert Elias: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Messner, M. & Sabo, D. (Eds.), (1990). Sport, Men and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

140

Louise Manseld

Monaghan, L. (2000) Creating the perfect body: a variable project. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Body Modication. London: Sage, pp. 267 291. McGhee, N., Loker-Murphy, L. & Uysal, M. (1996). The Australian international pleasure travel market: motivations from a gendered perspective. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 7(1), 45 57. McGhee, N., Yoon, Y. & Cardenas, D. (2003). Involvement and travel for recreational runners in North Carolina. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 305 324. Naples, A. (2006). Feminist standpoint epistemology. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology. London: Blackwell, pp. 1710 1715. Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L. (Eds.), (2004). Qualitative Research in Tourism: Ontologies, Epistemologies and Methodologies. London: Routledge. Pritchard, A. (2001). Tourism and representation: a scale for measuring gendered portrayals. Leisure Studies, 20, 79 94. Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford: Open University Press. Ribbens, J. & Edwards, R. (Eds), (1988). Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives. London: Sage. Riley, P. (1988). Road culture of international long-term budget travelers. Annals of Tourism Research, 15, 313 328. Rojek, C. (1986). Problems of involvement and detachment in the writings of Norbert Elias. British Journal of Sociology, 37, 591 607. Ryan, C. & Hall, C. (2001). Sex Tourism: Marginal People and Liminalities. London: Routledge. Sands, R. (2002). Sport Ethnography. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. Scraton, S. (1992). Shaping up to Womanhood: Gender and Girls Physical Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Scraton, S. & Flintoff, A. (2002). Sport feminism: the contribution of feminist thought to our understandings of gender and sport. In S. Scraton & A. Flintoff (Eds.), Gender and Sport: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 30 47. Sheard, K. & Dunning, E. (1973). The rugby football club as a type of male preserve: some sociological notes. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 5(3), 5 24. Sinclair, T. (1997). Tourism and Employment. London: Routledge. Smith, D. (1979). A sociology for women. In J. Sherman & E. Beck (Eds.), The Prism of Sex. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 135 187. Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1983) Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1990). Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist research processes. In L. Stanley (Ed.), Feminist Praxis: Research, Theory and Epistemology in Feminist Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 20 63. Stephenson, M. (2002). Traveling to the ancestral homelands: the aspirations and experiences of a UK Caribbean community. Current Issues in Tourism, 5(5), 378 425. Sugden J. (2002). Scum Airways: Inside Footballs Underground Economy. Edinburgh: Mainstream Sport. Sugden, J. & Tomlinson, A. (1998). FIFA and the Contest for World Football: Who Rules the Peoples Game? Cambridge: Polity. Sugden, J. & Tomlinson, A. (1999). Digging the dirt and staying clean: retrieving the investigative tradition for a critical sociology of sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34(4), 385 397. Sugden, J. & Tomlinson, A. (2002). (Eds.). Power Games: A Critical Sociology of Sport. London: Routledge. Swain, M. (1995). Gender in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 22, 247 266. Theberge, N. (1985). Toward a feminist alternative to sport as a male preserve. Quest, 37, 193 202. Theberge, N. (2002). Challenging the gendered space of sport: womens ice hockey and the struggle for legitimacy. In S. Scraton & A. Flintoff. (Eds.), Gender and Sport: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 292 303.

Journal of Sport & Tourism

141

Thomson, S. (1999). Mothers Taxi: Sport and Womens Labour. New York: SUNY. Urry, J. (1990). The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. Van Krieken, R (1998). Norbert Elias. London: Routledge. Ward, S. (1997). Being objective about objectivity: the ironies of standpoint epistemology. Sociology, 31(4), 773 91. Weed (2005). Sports tourism theory and method: concepts, issues and epistemologies. European Sport Management Quarterly, 5(3), 229 242. Weed, M. (2006a). Sports tourism research 2000-2004: a systematic review of knowledge and a metaevaluation of methods. Journal of Sport and Tourism, 11(1), 5 30. Weed, M. (2006b). The story of an ethnography: the experience of watching the 2002 World Cup in the pub. Soccer and Society, 7(1), 76 95. Weskott, M. (1990). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. In. Nielsen, J. (Ed.), Feminist Research Methods. London: Westview, pp. 587 569. Wheaton, B. (2000). Just do it: consumption, commitment and identity in the windsurng subculture. Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 254 274. Wheaton, B. (2004). Understanding Lifestyle Sports: Consumption, Identity and Difference. London: Routledge. Whelehan, I. (1995). Modern Feminist Thought: From the Second Wave to Post-feminism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Williams, J., Dunning, E. & Murphy, P. (1984). Hooligans Abroad: The Behaviour and Control of English Fans in Continental Europe. London: Routledge Kegan Paul. Williams, P. & Fidgeon, P. (2000). Addressing participation constraint: a case study of potential skiers. Tourism Management, 21, 379 393. Williams, P. & Lattey, C. (1994). Skiing constraints for women. Journal of Travel Research, XXXIII(2), 21 26. Zalatan, A. (1998). Wives involvement in tourism decision processes. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4), 890 903.