Governing bodies of sport as knowledge brokers in Sport-for-All communities of practice

Abstract

Delivering Sport-for-All is a major challenge for sport organizations and policy-makers worldwide. Sport-for-All is a practical activity and a knowledge intensive field, characterized by dispersed knowledge creation and sharing processes involving numerous agencies, professionals and volunteers; in other words, it is a community of practice. Communities of practice are vehicles that allow knowledge sharing and creation in intensive and dispersed settings. Learning in communities is enhanced by knowledge brokers, a role typically assumed by governing bodies of sport as part of their formal mandates. In this study, the authors use a community of practice lens to look at Sport-for-All. The authors collected and analyzed data on Sport-for-All communities on the regional (Flanders), national (Australia and England), and international (Sport and Development) level by interviewing key people in each of the communities, and by interrogating virtual knowledge repositories (websites) and public web-based data. Results indicated the existence of Sport-for-All communities of practice with governing bodies of sport acting as brokers in those communities for sharing knowledge, exploration of new ideas, and knowledge creation. However, governing bodies of sport are not strategically exploiting the full potential of online tools to enhance the communities. They ought to focus on supporting the communities by taking a more strategic approach and using new media tools, and let the community of practice standards emerge instead of determining them. © 2018 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand

Full text

Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for
-All
communities
of
practice
Annick
Willem
a,
*,
Vassil
Girginov
b
,
Kristine
Toohey
c
a
Research
Group
Sport
Management,
Department
of
Movement
and
Sport
Sciences,
Ghent
University,
Watersportlaan
2,
9000
Ghent,
Belgium
b
Department
of
Life
Sciences,
College
of
Health
and
Life
Sciences,
Brunel
University
London,
Uxbridge,
UB8
3PH,
United
Kingdom
c
Department
of
Tourism,
Sport
and
Hotel
Management,
Gold
Coast
Campus,
Griffith
University,
Parklands
Drive,
Southport,
QLD,
4222,
Australia
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Article
history:
Received
15
January
2018
Received
in
revised
form
24
August
2018
Accepted
25
August
2018
Available
online
xxx
Keywords:
Sport-for-All
Communities
of
practice
Sport
and
development
Knowledge
sharing
Governing
bodies
of
sport
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
Delivering
Sport-for-All
is
a
major
challenge
for
sport
organizations
and
policy-makers
worldwide.
Sport-for-All
is
a
practical
activity
and
a
knowledge
intensive
field,
characterized
by
dispersed
knowledge
creation
and
sharing
processes
involving
numerous
agencies,
professionals
and
volunteers;
in
other
words,
it
is
a
community
of
practice.
Communities
of
practice
are
vehicles
that
allow
knowledge
sharing
and
creation
in
intensive
and
dispersed
settings.
Learning
in
communities
is
enhanced
by
knowledge
brokers,
a
role
typically
assumed
by
governing
bodies
of
sport
as
part
of
their
formal
mandates.
In
this
study,
the
authors
use
a
community
of
practice
lens
to
look
at
Sport-for-
All.
The
authors
collected
and
analyzed
data
on
Sport-for-All
communities
on
the
regional
(Flanders),
national
(Australia
and
England),
and
international
(Sport
and
Development)
level
by
interviewing
key
people
in
each
of
the
communities,
and
by
interrogating
virtual
knowledge
repositories
(websites)
and
public
web-based
data.
Results
indicated
the
existence
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
with
governing
bodies
of
sport
acting
as
brokers
in
those
communities
for
sharing
knowledge,
exploration
of
new
ideas,
and
knowledge
creation.
However,
governing
bodies
of
sport
are
not
strategically
exploiting
the
full
potential
of
online
tools
to
enhance
the
communities.
They
ought
to
focus
on
supporting
the
communities
by
taking
a
more
strategic
approach
and
using
new
media
tools,
and
let
the
community
of
practice
standards
emerge
instead
of
determining
them.
©
2018
Sport
Management
Association
of
Australia
and
New
Zealand.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
1.
Introduction
Sport-for-All
is
an
umbrella
concept
encompassing
a
range
of
meanings
and
practices.
It
reflects
an
ideology
and
related
institutionalized
policies
and
practices
concerned
with
promoting
social
justice
and
equality
(Dobbels,
Voets,
Marlier,
De
Waegeneer,
&
Willem,
2018).
It
is
inherently
a
developmental
enterprise,
as
by
definition
any
engagement
with
sport
leads
to
personal,
organizational,
and
social
changes
(Girginov,
2008).
And
it
is
premised
on
active
participation
(including
access
to
cognitive
and
material
resources)
as
a
necessary
condition
for
any
such
changes/benefits
to
occur
(Coalter,
2013).
Accordingly,
more
recent
terms,
such
as
sport
development
and
sport
for
development
(Edwards,
2015),
do
not
represent
*
Corresponding
author.
E-mail
addresses:
annick.willem@ugent.be
(A.
Willem),
vassil.girginov@brunel.ac.uk
(V.
Girginov),
k.toohey@griffith.edu.au
(K.
Toohey).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005
1441-3523/©
2018
Sport
Management
Association
of
Australia
and
New
Zealand.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Sport
Management
Review
journa
l
homepage
:
www.e
lsevier.com/loca
te/smr

new
phenomena;
rather,
they
tend
to
emphasize
different
aspects
of
the
same
Sport-for-All
concept
and
are
on
a
continuum
with
greater
or
lesser
focus
on
participation
(Hylton
&
Totten,
2008).
In
this
paper,
we
use
these
terms
interchangeably,
fitting
with
the
complex,
dispersed,
and
knowledge-intensive
character
of
the
field,
and
the
sheer
amount
of
organizations
involved.
The
range
of
Sport-for-All
providers
is
wide
and
varied
and
includes
governmental
agencies,
non-
and-for
profit
sport,
and
non-sport
organizations,
operating
at
international,
national,
regional,
or
local
levels
(Vos
et
al.,
2011).
Thus,
Sport-for-All
practices
are
dispersed
and
involve
numerous
volunteers
and
paid
staff
(Bergsgard,
Houlihan,
Mangset,
Nodland,
&
Rommetvedt,
2007)
who
drive
its
delivery
on
a
daily
basis
(Skille,
2008).
Moreover,
new
technological
possibilities,
combined
with
greater
diversity
in
Sport-for-All
provision,
have
created
a
context
in
which
practitioners
can
interact
and
shape
the
field
in
innovative
ways
(Girginov
&
Hills,
2008;
Girginov,
Taks,
Boucher,
&
Holman,
2009).
Apart
from
these
structural
dimensions,
Sport-for-All
is
also
a
knowledge-driven
activity,
involving
both
very
context-
specific
knowledge
and
generic
principles.
It
seeks
to
address
the
complex
social
problem
of
encouraging
non-active
people
to
engage
in
sport
in
a
sustainable
manner,
a
process
that
defies
linear
thinking
assuming
a
simple
relationship
between
inputs
and
outcomes.
Knowledge
is
crucial
for
creating
Sport-for-All
opportunities,
developing
programs,
and
understanding
what
programs
work,
for
whom,
and
when
(Girginov,
Toohey,
&
Willem,
2015).
Moreover,
researchers
have
also
indicated
that
there
are
core
principles,
universally
shared
concerns,
and
corresponding
practices
that
are
common
in
all
Sport-for-All
contexts
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a;
Marlier
et
al.,
2015).
While
the
Sport-for-All
sector
can
greatly
benefit
from
developing,
storing,
and
sharing
knowledge
about
participants,
policies,
programs,
and
outcomes,
Sport-for-All
knowledge
sharing
practices
have
been
challenging
due
to
diverse
cultural
contexts,
agendas,
providers,
and
delivery
mechanisms
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
Lack
of
knowledge
sharing
on
Sport-for-All
has
resulted
in
limited
knowledge
consolidation
and
few
systematic
evidence-based
approaches
in
the
field
(Girginov,
Toohey,
&
Willem,
2015).
Several
scholars
have
focused
on
understanding
the
non-profit
organizations
involved
in
Sport-for-All
(e.g.,
Misener
&
Doherty,
2009;
Sharpe,
2006)
or
on
Sport-for-All
policy
development
(e.g.,
Houlihan,
2008;
Skille,
2008;
Van
Tuyckom
&
Scheerder,
2010)
and
sport
policy
networks
(Grix
&
Phillpots,
2011;
Lin
&
Kao,
2016;
Phillpots,
Grix,
&
Quarmby,
2011).
However,
none
of
these
researchers
have
specifically
considered
the
knowledge
practices
of
the
Sport-for-All
community
and
the
role
of
knowledge
brokers
in
enhancing
and
facilitating
knowledge
sharing
in
the
community.
Due
to
their
privileged
position
and
government
support,
governing
bodies
of
sport
in
many
European
countries
and
Australia
have
emerged
as
the
focal
origination
and,
consequently,
chief
coordinator
in
the
Sport-for-All
field
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015b,
2009).
Governing
bodies
of
sport
have
been
actively
involved
in
developing,
storing,
and
sharing
Sport-for-All
knowledge.
The
need
for
better
global
knowledge
sharing
and
coordination
has
prompted
the
emergence
of
numerous
organizations
at
international
level,
such
as
the
(Youth)
European
non-governmental
sport
organization
(Youth
ENGSO
and
ENGSO)
and
Sportanddev.
However,
few
researchers
have
studied
their
role
as
knowledge
brokers
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a)
and
there
is
a
lack
of
understanding
of
the
extent
to
which
these
organizations
are
able
to
enhance
learning
in
Sport-for-All
communities
and
ensure
a
process
of
knowledge
creation
and
sharing.
We
argue
that
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
is
a
potentially
useful
heuristic
tool
capable
of
providing
these
insights.
Communities
of
practice
are
characterized
by
a
social
space
in
which
a
common
identity
and
social
interactions
allow
for
the
sharing
of
knowledge
(Li
et
al.,
2009).
The
concept
of
a
community
of
practice,
thus,
provides
a
new
analytical
device
to
unpack
the
pluralistic
nature
of
Sport-for-All
and
management
challenges
facing
governing
bodies
of
sport
in
implementing
initiatives.
Hence,
this
concept
can
help
in
enhancing
our
knowledge
of
the
Sport-for-All
delivery
systems,
and
subsequently
its
efficacy.
The
aims
of
this
paper
are
threefold
to:
(a)
explore
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
as
a
lens
to
study
Sport-for-All
delivery;
(b)
study
empirically
the
presence
and
functionality
(ability
to
enhance
learning
and
knowledge
sharing
processes)
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
on
three
levels:
regional
(Flanders),
national
(England
and
Australia),
and
international
(Sport
and
development);
and
(c)
examine
the
broker
role
of
leading
organizations
in
the
communities
at
each
level,
namely
of
Sport
Flanders,
Sport
England,
the
Australian
Sports
Commission,
and
Sportanddev.
To
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
we
are
the
first
to
focus
on
community
of
practice
in
sport
management.
The
following
section
analyses
the
dispersed
nature
of
delivering
Sport-for-All,
followed
by
the
conceptualization
of
a
community
of
practice
as
an
analytical
tool
for
studying
sport
delivery
to
address
the
first
aim
of
the
paper.
We
then
describe
and
analyse
the
four
cases
in
which
we
collected
primary
and
secondary
data.
In
the
conclusion
section,
we
outline
the
applicability
of
the
Sport-for-All
community
of
practice.
We
did
not
try
to
investigate
the
social
learning
and
knowledge
creation
processes
within
the
community
of
practice,
but
instead,
focused
solely
on
the
knowledge
brokers
and
facilitators
in
four
communities
of
practice
cases
and
their
differences
and
commonalities
with
regard
to
roles,
tools,
and
efforts
to
develop
and
enhance
standards
in
Sport-for-All.
From
a
sport
management
perspective
these
are
the
most
manageable
aspects
in
Sport-for-All
community
of
practice.
2.
The
complex
nature
of
Sport-for-All
delivery
Government
organizations
have
been
involved
in
delivering
Sport-for-All
through
various
interventions
(Green,
2006),
but
no
single
definition
of
Sport-for-All
and
of
the
organizations
that
need
to
be
involved
exists
(Skille
&
Osteras,
2011).
Nonetheless,
several
researchers
have
agreed
that
Sport-for-All
requires
diverse
collaborations
(Cousens,
Barnes,
&
MacLean,
2012;
Lindsey,
2006).
Cousens
and
Barnes
(2009)
and
Cousens
et
al.
(2012),
for
instance,
emphasized
the
highly
embedded
2
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

and
complex
character
of
Sport-for-All’s
delivery
community
and
that
the
numerous
formal
and
informal
relationships
between
organizations
and
volunteers
may
inhibit
interactions.
Skille
(2008)
argued
that
policymakers
need
to
understand
better
how
the
Scandinavian
Sport-for-All
operates
and
that
organizations
other
than
elite
sport
agencies
ought
to
be
involved
in
its
delivery.
Notwithstanding
its
diverse
nature,
a
common
characteristic
of
Sport-for-All
is
the
critical
role
of
a
central
coordinating
governing
body.
Houlihan
and
Green
(2009)
explicated
that
Sport
England
keeps
tight
control
on
the
country’s
Sport-for-All
delivery
by
closely
monitoring
participation
numbers.
The
same
kind
of
control
and
co-ordination
takes
place
in
Australia
and
Flanders
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
What
unifies
this
seemingly
wide
diversity
of
policies,
practical
approaches
and
agencies
are
two
underlying
similarities.
The
first
is
an
explicit
concern
with
positive
Sport-for-All
outcomes,
and
the
second
is
the
central
role
of
state
actors.
Knowledge
is
essential
in
developing
and
implementing
Sport-for-All
and
involves
numerous
experts
and
practitioners
(Rowe,
2009).
Thus,
both
as
a
concept
and
a
practical
activity,
Sport-for-All
is
predicated
on
knowledge.
Due
to
its
labour
intensive
and
resource-dependent
nature,
national
or
regional
sport
governing
bodies
typically
control
this
knowledge
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
However,
these
governing
bodies
of
sport
are
not
the
sole
knowledge
creators
and
certainly
not
the
only
promoters
of
Sport-for-All
practices.
Thus,
there
exists
a
challenge
in
coordinating
the
knowledge
flow
in
the
dispersed
landscape
of
Sport-for-All
delivery
and
in
enhancing
social
learning
among
practitioners.
To
obtain
greater
insights
into
how
knowledge
about
the
practices
is
codified,
shared,
and
diffused
in
the
field,
the
community
of
practice
lens
is
used.
3.
Communities
of
practice
The
notion
of
a
community
is
not
new
to
the
field
of
knowledge
sharing
and
learning,
and
was
introduced
in
the
1990s
by
Wenger
(1998)
through
the
concept
of
community
of
practice.
Communities
of
practice
are
communities
involved
in
an
activity
led
by
knowledge
brokers
who
enhance
the
knowledge
and
learning
processes
across
the
community.
Communities
of
practice
are
everywhere
inside
and
outside
organizations
and
may
cross
organizational
boundaries
(Wenger,
1998).
Wenger
et
al.
(2002)
defined
communities
of
practice
as
“groups
of
people
who
share
a
concern,
a
set
of
problems,
or
a
passion
about
a
topic,
and
who
deepen
their
knowledge
and
expertise
in
this
area
by
interacting
on
an
ongoing
basis”
(p.
4).
The
concept
of
community
of
practice
draws
from
adult
learning
principles
and
suggests
that
all
learning
is
situated
in
communities
of
practice
(Lave
&
Wenger,
1991 ).
To
become
a
member
of
such
a
community
requires
learning,
often
by
apprenticeship
and/or
socialization
(Barley
&
Kunda,
2001).
Brown
and
Duguid
(1991)
suggested
that
communities
of
practice
are
informal
and
evolving,
not
limited
by
organizational
boundaries,
and
can
exist
in
a
virtual
setting
(Ardichvili,
2008).
People
belong
to
a
community
of
practice
due
to
their
shared
interest
and
practices,
but
might
not
deliberately
choose
to
do
so
or
even
realize
that
they
are
part
of
one
(Wenger,
1998).
A
community
of
practice
can
be
situated
on
different
levels,
including
global
(virtual)
worldwide
community
(e.g.,
employees
of
a
multinational
corporation
sharing
practices;
Kirkman,
Cordery,
Mathieu,
Rosen,
&
Kukenberger,
2013),
or
local,
with
members
all
located
in
a
smaller
region.
Thus,
the
boundaries
of
a
community
of
practice
are
not
geographical
but
determined
by
a
shared
concern.
The
structural
model
of
a
community
of
practice
is
made
up
of
three
fundamental
elements:
a
domain
of
knowledge,
which
defines
a
set
of
issues
(e.g.,
sport
participation);
a
community
of
people
who
care
about
this
domain;
and
the
shared
practice
that
members
are
developing
to
be
effective
in
their
domain
(Wenger,
McDermott,
&
Snyder,
2002).
Thus,
there
is
a
common
concern
for
certain
issues
as
well
as
identified
practices,
which
makes
people
feel
drawn
towards
a
community
of
practice.
Wenger
(1998)
suggested
three
modes
of
belonging
to
a
community:
engagement,
imagination,
and
alignment.
Community
members
can
be
engaged
to
advise
each
other,
and
to
help
and
share
their
expertise.
Since
a
community
is
not
necessarily
a
well-defined
physical
structure
with
formal
membership
or
a
fixed
location
or
building,
imagination
is
essential
in
constructing
a
community
of
practice.
Members
create
the
image
of
the
community
of
practice
to
which
they
orient
themselves.
Furthermore,
alignment
refers
to
coordinating
the
community
of
practice’s
practices
to
fit
within
higher
goals.
The
practices
are
not
just
individual
initiatives,
but
align
with
a
higher
goal,
such
as
creating
opportunities
for
all
to
practice
sport.
Ayas
and
Zeniuk
(2001)
argued
that
communities
of
practice
have
a
reflective
character.
Identifying
with
the
community
of
practice
group
and
absorbing
the
culture
of
the
practice
are
essential
elements
in
the
learning
processes
within
the
community
of
practice
(Lave
&
Wenger,
1991).
Common
understandings
enhances
knowledge
sharing.
Learning
the
norms,
rules,
and
culture
of
the
community
is
central
in
this
learning
process
(Lave
&
Wenger,1991).
Communities
of
practice
evolve
(Lave
&
Wenger,
1991 )
and
their
situational
character
can
make
it
difficult
to
capture
knowledge.
Storytelling
and
narratives
help
in
capturing
knowledge
(Barley
&
Kunda,
2001).
Communities
of
practice
need
to
be
sufficiently
stable
to
develop
shared
understanding
and
socialization.
However,
a
certain
level
of
turnover
in
participants
is
possible
without
endangering
the
existence
of
the
community
of
practice
(Li
et
al.,
2009).
Although
communities
of
practice
are
social
learning
spaces
and
not
management
tools,
they
can
be
cultivated
and
even
‘managed’
by
a
leader
or
facilitator
(Wenger
et
al.,
2002).
The
leader
is
a
highly
respected
expert
who
can
recruit
new
members,
while
the
facilitator
can
be
responsible
for
the
activity
of
the
community
of
practice.
The
concept
of
community
of
practice
has
not
been
without
critics.
The
community
of
practice
perspective
is
a
lens
within
social
learning
theory
that
has
been
employed
to
examine
a
range
of
social
learning
settings,
such
as
education
and
health
care
(Harris
&
Jones,
2010;
Kothari,
Boyko,
Conklin,
Stolee,
&
Sibbald,
2015).
Like
other
useful
theoretical
lenses,
researchers
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
3
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

shape
the
evolution
of
the
concept
and
criticize
its
applicability.
As
a
consequence,
several
authors
pointed
to
the
vagueness
of
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
and
the
difficulty
of
clearly
distinguishing
between
it
and
other
groups
of
interest
(Aubry,
Müller,
&
Glückler,
2011;
Li
et
al.,
2009).
Li
et
al.
(2009)
suggest
that
the
original
notion
of
community
of
practice
evolved
from
a
concept
on
social
learning
to
a
management
tool
to
enhance
a
group’s
competitiveness
or
foster
innovation.
In
the
latter
case,
the
community
becomes
more
formal
and
less
of
a
voluntarily
learning
process
where
experts
share
similar
practices.
Aubry
et
al.
(2011)
pointed
to
a
management
paradox
in
communities
of
practice.
A
strength
of
communities
of
practice
is
that
they
are
self-organized,
informal,
and
emerging
groups
in
which
social
learning
takes
place
that
crosses
organizational
boundaries.
However,
as
part
of
the
development
of
(strategic)
knowledge
management,
communities
of
practice
have
been
utilized
as
an
instrument
to
enhance
the
learning
capacity
of
organizations,
and
to
create
and
capture
its
knowledge.
In
this
scenario,
communities
of
practice
are
purposefully
managed
where
leaders
and
facilitators
might
deliberately
identify
and
support
the
communities
that
only
benefit
their
organization
(Wenger
&
Snyder,
2000).
This
instrumental
use
contradicts
the
voluntariness
and
boundary
crossing
character
of
communities
of
practice.
Mintzberg
(2009),
although
not
explicitly
referring
to
the
concept
of
community
of
practice,
introduced
the
notion
of
“communityship”
and
suggested
that
a
grouping
exists
that
lies
in
between
collective
citizenship
and
individual
leadership.
The
latter
results
in
a
situation
in
which
leaders
set
the
trend,
have
the
knowledge
and
others
would
follow.
In
collective
citizenship,
a
fully
dispersed
situation
exists
without
leadership.
In
communityship,
a
minimum
of
leadership
exists
in
the
form
of
a
community
leader
who
encourages
people
in
a
community
to
contribute
(e.g.,
as
is
the
case
for
Wikipedia
or
open
source
software
development).
Within
communities
of
practice
such
leadership
exists
and
might
even
be
necessary
to
facilitate
the
knowledge
processes
in
the
community.
Hence,
a
community
of
practice
balances
between
leadership
and
citizenship.
Communities
of
practice
have
potential
limitations
as
they
might
even
inhibit
learning
when,
for
example,
group
thinking
and
‘not-invented-here’
syndromes
occur.
The
strength
of
a
community
of
practice
is
at
the
same
time
its
weaknesses
(Wenger,
2010).
People
are
committed
to
a
certain
practice
and
part
of
that
commitment
is
also
to
ensure
that
such
practice
has
status
and
that
a
stronger
voice
is
obtained
through
the
community
of
practice.
The
same
processes
that
benefit
the
learning
in
the
communities
endangers
these
communities.
“Learning,
once
successful,
is
prone
to
turning
into
its
own
enemy”
(Wenger,
2010,
p.
3).
Awareness
for
silent
voices,
learning,
and
feedback
loops,
openness
to
newcomers,
and
a
legitimate
coordinator
or
facilitator
with
the
ability
to
criticize
the
community
are
important
for
a
community
of
practice
to
avoid
becoming
self-destructive.
Notwithstanding
the
criticisms,
the
community
of
practice
concept
remains
a
useful
lens
to
study
learning
and
knowledge
sharing
practices
in
the
field
of
Sport-for-All.
3.1.
Sport-for-all
as
a
community
of
practice
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
can
clearly
be
distinguished
from
networks
such
as
partnerships
(e.g.,
Cousens
&
Barnes,
2009).
While
partnerships
are
developed
to
reach
a
common
goal,
communities
of
practice
do
not
have
a
common
goal
but
rather
a
common
interest
and
identity.
Communities
of
practice
are
thus
social
learning
spaces,
not
networks,
and
hence,
draw
from
learning
theory
and
knowledge
management
concepts.
However,
literature
on
communities
of
practice
in
a
sport
management
or
Sport-for-All
context
is
scarce
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
Most
scholars
focusing
on
communities
of
practice
in
a
sport
context
have
investigated
the
role
of
coaches
and
coach
education
(e.g.,
Culver
&
Trudel,
2008;
Garner
&
Hill,
2017;
Mayer,
Woulfin,
&
Warhol,
2015;
Stoszkowski
&
Collins,
2014;
Stoszkowski
&
Collins,
2016).
Stoszkowski
and
Collins
(2016),
for
instance,
explain
the
social
learning
process
of
coaches
and
the
possibility
that
a
coaches’
community
of
practice
can
change
behaviour
and
professional
standards.
As
noted
earlier,
to
consider
a
community
as
a
community
of
practice,
the
three
structural
elements
need
to
be
present
including
a
domain,
practices,
and
a
group
of
people
who
care
(Wenger
et
al.,
2002).
The
knowledge
domain
here
is
the
broader
field
of
Sport-for-All.
Multiple
issues
can
exist
within
the
field
and
people
from
several
sectors
might
share
an
interest
in
it
without
being
a
Sport-for-All
expert
(e.g.,
health
experts
interested
in
the
health
benefits
of
Sport-for-All).
Regardless
of
their
background,
all
Community
of
practice
participants,
distinguished
by
their
shared
interest
in
Sport-for-
All,
need
relevant
knowledge
and/or
competences.
Wenger
et
al.
(2002)
defined
practice
as
a
“set
of
frameworks,
ideas,
tools,
information,
styles,
language,
and
documents
that
community
members
share”
(p.
29).
The
overall
purpose
of
the
practice
is
to
create
the
basis
for
action,
communications
and
problem
solving,
monitoring
members’
performance,
and
accountability
for
actions,
but
critical
are
the
people
and
their
knowledge
sharing.
Communities
of
practice
can
only
exist
when
there
is
belongingness
to
it,
whether
or
not
people
are
conscious
about
their
belonging.
A
feeling
of
accountability
for
and
identification
with
the
domain
reflects
this
belongingness.
Therefore,
accountability
and
identification
are
good
measures
to
identify
the
existence
of
a
community
of
practice
even
when
people
do
not
recognize
their
participation
in
it.
Even
in
the
presence
of
all
three
structural
elements
of
communities
of
practice,
knowledge
sharing
might
not
occur
spontaneously
or
might
be
limited.
Nonaka
(1994)
argued
that
knowledge
is
created
through
the
conversion
of
different
forms
of
knowledge.
Knowledge
is
(re)created
and
implemented
in
new
situations
and
contexts
through
processes
of
knowledge
sharing
and
conversion.
In
communities
of
practice,
the
presence
of
a
shared
identity
and
knowledge
domain
allows
social
learning
and
the
sharing
and
reshaping
of
practices
so
these
practices
can
be
used
more
widely
(Kothari
et
al.,
2015).
Although
the
community
of
practice
provides
a
suitable
setting
for
knowledge
sharing,
knowledge
brokers
are
required
to
help
facilitate
the
process
through
analytical,
technical
and
relational
activities
(Conklin,
Lusk,
Harris,
&
Stolee,
4
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

2013).
They
can,
for
instance,
bring
together
communities
of
practice’s
knowledge
producers
and
users
from
different
disciplines.
Governing
bodies
of
sport
(e.g.,
Sport
England)
are
taking
up
the
role
of
knowledge
brokers.
They
can
connect
researchers
with
practitioners
to
allow
the
application
of
scientific
knowledge
and
innovations;
are
in
the
centre
of
a
knowledge
hub
able
to
disseminate
knowledge
to
practitioners
in
various
organizations;
and
can
provide
the
technical
support,
tools,
or
platforms
for
knowledge
sharing
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
Governing
bodies
of
sport
have
also
knowledge
depositories
related
to
sport
participation
and
practices
developed
by
practitioners.
Such
dynamic
knowledge
inventories
(e.g.,
databases,
libraries,
websites)
can
flexibly
store
up-to-date
knowledge
on
practices
as
well
as
provide
inventories
of
experts,
organizations
and
practices
structured
so
that
knowledge
can
be
accessed
easily
(Bastow,
Dunleavy,
&
Tinkler,
2014).
The
relevance
of
communities
of
practice
to
Sport-for-All
is
significant.
Sport
organizations
build
on
their
human
resources
and
knowledge
in
the
communities
of
practices
in
which
staff,
volunteers,
members,
and
athletes
are
involved.
Organizations
depend
on
communities
of
practice
because
they
can
be
seen
as
constellations
of
interconnected
competencies
within
them
(Wenger,
1998).
For
instance,
employees
of
governing
bodies
of
sport
can
be
members
of
a
community
of
practice
on
sport
infrastructure,
elite,
and
school
sport.
These
communities
of
practice
connect
and
cross
organizational
boundaries.
Knowledge,
thus,
resides
in
organizations
and
people
(Lam,
1997),
but
also
in
and
across
these
communities
(Wenger,
1998).
Although
all
organizations
involved
in
Sport-for-All
can
benefit
from
knowledge
sharing,
governing
bodies
of
sport
are
dependent
on
the
communities
of
practice.
They
can
neither
develop
sport
policy
without
experts’
knowledge
nor
implement
new
practices
without
disseminating
knowledge
about
the
practice
to
those
working
in
the
field.
Governing
bodies
of
sport
use
appropriation
(i.e.,
building
up
a
new
knowledge
domain
by
transfer
of
knowledge
from
external
sources)
and
probing
(i.e.,
individuals
and
teams
are
given
responsibility
to
build
up
a
new
knowledge
domain
from
scratch)
strategies
to
develop
knowledge
on
promoting
Sport-for-All
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
Hence,
governing
bodies
of
sport
might
not
only
be
knowledge
brokers
but
also
deliberately
cultivate
the
Sport-for-All
community
of
practice
to
achieve
objectives,
such
as
increasing
physical
activity.
Therefore,
this
research
is
not
only
concerned
with
identifying
the
existence
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
but
also
pays
particular
attention
to
the
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers.
4.
Method
We
used
a
multiple-case
study
approach
to
examine
the
existence
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
and
to
identify
the
role
of
governing
bodies
as
knowledge
brokers
in
four
cases
at
different
levels.
This
approach
was
suitable
because
of
the
exploratory
nature
of
the
study
of
a
complex
phenomenon
(Yin,
2017).
The
case
study
is
a
context-dependent
approach
to
a
social
phenomenon
and
is
premised
upon
the
fundamental
idea
that
“in
the
study
of
human
affairs,
there
appears
to
exist
only
context-dependent
knowledge”
(Flyvbjerg,
2006,
p.
211).
The
objectives
were
to
learn
new
insights
about
Sport-for-All
and
how
governing
bodies
of
sport
strongly
involved
in
the
communities
of
practice
influence
standards
within
the
Sport-
for-All
communities
of
practice,
and
hence
to
challenge
existing
assumptions
about
Sport-for-All.
We
used
an
innovative
and
multiple
set
of
data
collection
tools
(Shaw
&
Hoeber,
2016)
to
unravel
how
communities
of
practice
can
provide
analytical
generalisation.
We
selected
four
settings:
Sport
and
Development
(global);
Australia
and
England
(National);
and
Flanders
(regional).
This
range
provided
a
variety
of
contexts,
policies,
and
sport
participation
cultures.
Girginov
et
al.
(2015a)
described
the
sport
systems
in
Australia,
Flanders,
and
England
as
consumption,
education,
and
delivery
oriented
respectively.
Sport
and
Development
is
a
Swiss-based
international
organization,
which
several
governmental
and
non-governmental
agencies
support,
while
the
other
three
organizations
were
governmental
entities.
Sport
and
Development
specializes
in
education,
knowledge
generation
and
sharing,
and
advocacy,
and
operated
a
global
online
platform:
www.sportanddev.org/en.
In
all
four
cases,
the
organization
offered
several
Sport-for-All
programs
targeting
specific
groups
risking
exclusion
from
sport
and
its
benefits,
but
differences
existed
in
the
characteristics
of
the
target
groups.
The
case
selection
allowed
studying
the
same
phenomenon
across
four
settings
to
seek
patterns
of
similarities
and
differences
in
approaches
towards
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice.
Since
communities
of
practice
have
no
strict
boundaries
and
are
therefore
difficult
to
delineate
(Wenger,
1998),
it
was
important
to
be
clear
in
the
study’s
delimitations.
We
did
so
by
developing
our
study
around
the
knowledge
brokering
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport,
namely
Sport
Flanders
(Flanders),
Sport
England
(England),
Australian
Sports
Commission
(Australian
Sport
Commission,
Australia),
and
Sportanddev
(the
International
Platform
for
Sport
and
Development).
The
Australian
Sport
Commission,
Sport
England,
and
Sport
Flanders
are
governmental
organizations
shaping
and
implementing
Sport-for-All
policy
based
on
systematic
research
and
knowledge
generation
and
dissemination.
While
these
three
organizations
varied
in
size,
budgets
and
remit,
there
was
similarity
in
their
objectives:
Sport
Flanders
and
Australian
Sport
Commission
both
had
explicit
knowledge
sharing
as
one
of
their
formal
goals.
Sportanddev
is
not
a
policy
making
or
program
implementing
organization
but
an
independent
knowledge
sharing
institute.
It
operates
globally
but
mainly
virtually
and
is
only
focused
on
Sport
and
Development.
The
Sportanddev
platform
was
established
in
2003
as
“a
hub
for
sharing
knowledge,
building
good
practice,
facilitating
coordination
and
fostering
partnerships
between
and
within
different
stakeholders
in
Sport
&
Development”
(Sportanddev,
2016,
"What
is
this
platform
for?,"
para.
1).
Sportanddev
evolved
from
a
conference
to
the
facilitator
of
a
platform
where
people
could
meet
virtually
and
share
ideas
(interview,
01-
12-2015).
As
an
organization,
Sportanddev
is
comparable
with
the
Knowledge
and
Information
Centre
for
Sport
in
Flanders
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
5
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

and
Sport
England
Insights
Directorate.
Both
are
departments
of,
and
the
information
and
knowledge
centres
for
Sport
Flanders
and
Sport
England
respectively,
tasked
to
collect,
share,
and
facilitate
knowledge
sharing
on
various
strategies
and
programs
for
Sport-for-All.
4.1.
Data
collection
Considering
the
study’s
focus,
data
collection
was
centred
on
the
facilitators
of
Sport-for-All
within
Sportanddev,
Australian
Sport
Commission,
Sport
Flanders,
and
Sport
England.
To
aim
for
reliability
and
content
validity,
we
used
triangulation
in
data
collection
by
combining
four
sources
of
data:
systematic
analyses
of
websites;
web
monitoring
data;
interviews;
and
organisational
documents.
The
analysis
of
secondary
data,
such
as
organisational
documents,
allowed
an
objective
study
of
coded
knowledge
and
initiatives
of
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
to
enhance
the
communities
of
practice.
Primary
data
in
the
form
of
websites
analyses
and
interviews
provided
subjective
perspectives
on
how
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
were
enhanced,
offered
insights
in
the
relative
importance
of
informal
versus
formal
knowledge
brokering
activities,
and
served
to
confirm
(or
refute)
findings
from
the
document
analyses.
The
authors
who
had
insider
knowledge
in
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
in
their
own
countries
but
not
in
each
other’s
countries
or
regions
followed
established
guidelines
(e.g.,
Meyrick,
2006;
Tracy,
2010)
on
qualitative
data
analyses
to
reduce
bias,
and
increase
transparency
and
systematic
in
data
collection
and
analysis.
Apart
from
triangulation,
we
used
multiple
coding
and
the
use
of
an
analytical
framework
to
improve
systematic
analysis.
First,
a
systematic
search
was
conducted
by
three
researchers
on
the
case
organizations’
websites
(i.e.,
www.sportanddev.
org,
www.sportengland.org,
www.sport.vlaanderen,
www.bloso-kics.be,
www.ausport.gov.au,
and
www.clearinghousefor-
sport.gov.au.)
for
the
presence
of
Sport-for-All
knowledge
sharing,
tools,
and
standards.
These
websites
represented
the
main
vehicle
for
cultivating
communities
of
practice
because
of
their
cost-effectiveness.
Both
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
and
Sport
Flanders
operated
a
separate
website
to
their
main
website
specifically
for
knowledge
sharing
purposes.
These
websites
are
the
Clearinghouse
for
sport
and
Knowledge
and
Information
Centre
for
Sport
respectively
and
were
also
included
in
the
analysis,
resulting
in
the
study
of
six
websites.
Sport
Flanders
revamped
all
websites
in
2016
following
a
change
in
organisation
branding.
The
Clearinghouse
for
Sport
in
Australia
had
existed
as
knowledge
sharing
entity
of
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
in
its
current
form
since
2012.
Its
platforms
supported
the
transfer
and
development
of
knowledge
on
elite
and
grassroots
sport.
We
performed
the
search
over
two
week-long
periods
starting
from
February
13,
2017
and
March
13,
2017
respectively,
to
ensure
that
any
changes
on
the
sites
were
recorded.
A
similar
approach
was
taken
by
Girginov
et
al.’s
(2009)
study
of
Canadian
governing
bodies
of
sport
use
of
relationship
marketing
for
promoting
participation.
We
used
a
coding
scheme
based
on
the
analytical
tool
developed
by
Wenger
to
systematically
analyse
the
webpages
and
collect
data
from
the
websites
of
the
knowledge
brokers
(Wenger
&
Trayner,
2013).
The
tool
included
66
indicators
organised
in
8
categories
as
follows:
informing
(17),
networking
(13),
capacity
building
(8),
community
building
(10),
advocacy
(6),
problem
solving
(4),
performance
(4),
and
accountability
(4).
Second,
we
monitored
the
web
traffic
on
the
four
organizations’
websites
to
identify
the
extent
to
which
people
used
these
knowledge
repositories,
and
to
compare
this
data
with
the
interview
data.
We
used
the
monitoring
service
www.
similarweb.com
for
the
period
of
mid-August
until
mid-October
2016.
We
collected
data
on
average
visits
and
their
duration,
bounce
rate
1
and
average
pages
per
visit,
traffic
by
countries,
and
source.
These
indicators
allowed
capturing
the
level
of
engagement
within
the
domain.
Third,
we
studied
organizational
structures
of
the
Australian
Sport
Commission,
Sport
Flanders,
and
Sport
England,
and
we
identified
key
officials
responsible
for
research
and
knowledge
management.
Sampling
of
those
key
officials
for
the
interviews
occurred
through
snowball
sampling,
with
the
authors
using
their
personal
contacts
in
the
four
case
organizations
to
identify
and
contact
the
key
people
responsible
for
Sport-for-All
in
the
four
organisations.
The
sample
consisted
of
a
mix
of
policy
officers
responsible
for
knowledge
sharing
and
department
heads
(e.g.,
head
of
the
knowledge
centre
of
the
governing
body
of
sport
or
head
of
the
Sport-for-All
promotion
department).
We
conducted
interviews
with
3
individuals
with
Sportanddev,
5
with
Sport
Flanders,
2
with
Australian
Sport
Commission,
and
3
with
Sport
England.
The
purpose
of
the
interviews
was
first
to
identify
the
specific
groups
of
people
(e.g.,
sport
and
development
officers,
community
workers,
youth
leaders,
volunteers)
who
comprised
the
communities
of
practice,
and
their
interests.
In
addition,
we
sought
to
learn
more
on
the
knowledge
sharing
and
creation
process
among
these
groups,
viewed
from
the
perspective
of
the
knowledge
brokers
and
how
they
perceived
their
roles
in
the
Sport-for-All
communities.
We
developed
an
interview
guide
including
three
main
areas
of
organizational
activities,
including
knowledge
creation,
transfer,
and
management
supplemented
by
a
range
of
questions.
The
interview
format
was
semi-structured
to
allow
the
interviewer
to
expand
on
a
point
of
interest
as
well
as
for
informants
to
elaborate.
Interviews
had
a
varying
duration
between
three
quarters
of
an
hour
and
two
hours.
Fourth,
we
consulted
relevant
documents
on
the
websites
of
Sport
England,
Sport
Flanders
and
Australian
Sport
Commission
that
provided
clues
on
knowledge
sharing
or
sharing
of
practices
related
to
Sport-for-All
and
added
these
as
1
Bounce
rate
refers
to
the
percentage
of
all
people
visiting
a
website
that
visited
only
one
page
of
a
website
without
browsing
further
on
that
website.
High
bounce
rates
are
generally
seen
as
negative
because
people
are
not
searching
for
specific
information
further
on
the
website.
6
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

additional
data
to
the
analysis
of
website
data.
For
Sportanddev,
we
analysed
Wenger
and
Trayner’s
(2013)
report
premised
on
the
community
of
practice
lens
on
the
working
and
knowledge
enabling
role
of
Sportanddev.
4.2.
Data
analysis
We
coded
the
websites
using
the
analytical
framework
of
Wenger
and
Trayner
(2013),
according
to
which
five
actual
and
potential
categories
of
knowledge
activities
existed:
informing,
networking,
capacity
building,
community
building,
and
advocacy
(see
the
legend
of
Table
1
for
explanation
of
each
category).
For
this
research,
and
following
a
discussion
with
Wenger
and
Trayner,
we
added
three
more
categories:
problem
solving,
performance,
and
accountability
to
better
capture
the
brokering
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport.
First,
based
on
analyses
of
the
websites,
the
authors
identified
different
target
groups
to
which
the
webpages
were
oriented.
Some
pages,
like
the
home
page,
were
generic
but
other
parts
of
the
website
were
clearly
intended
for
particular
groups
of
visitors
(e.g.,
coaches,
parents,
athletes,
national
governing
bodies).
We
then
coded
the
information
found
on
the
webpages
for
each
of
the
different
target
groups
using
the
analytical
framework.
For
instance,
the
coding
allowed
us
to
see
if
there
were
community
building
tools
for
coaches
and
thus
uncover
segmentation
in
target
groups
within
the
Sport-for-All
field.
Second,
we
coded
sub
domains
of
knowledge,
such
as
knowledge
about
sport
participation,
elite
sport,
sport
infrastructure,
programs,
or
sport
policy.
While
the
first
coding
started
from
the
target
group
and
the
way
these
were
approached.
The
second
coding
of
the
same
website
information
included
the
content
and
the
subdomains
of
knowledge
that
were
present.
The
web
monitoring
provided
coded
descriptive
data
about
the
use
of
the
websites
in
general.
This
did
not
allow
us
to
see
exactly
which
target
group
was
using
which
knowledge.
We
analysed
organisational
documents
by
the
subdomains
and
provided
insights
into
standard
Sport-for-All
knowledge
in
these
domains.
In
the
Sportanddev
case,
these
documents
also
showed
how
this
platform
evolved
in
its
enabling
role.
We
transcribed
and
coded
the
interview
data.
Codes
were
related
to
the
three
elements
of
communities
of
practice,
namely
domain
(including
subdomains),
practices,
and
people
(belonging,
identity,
and
accountability).
Following
Robson
(2011),
we
developed
a
data
coding
and
thematic
analysis
protocol
to
ensure
consistency
between
the
cases.
Next,
we
coded
the
interview
data
deductively
in
NVIVO10.
We
used
a
constructionist
perspective
to
analyse
the
interview
data,
which
suggests
that
meaning
and
experience
were
socially
produced
and
reproduced
in
specific
socio-cultural
contexts,
rather
than
developed
within
individuals.
Theme
identification
was
both
theoretical
(i.e.,
deductive)
or
‘top
down’,
and
inductive
(i.e.,
bottom-up)
to
capture
emerging
themes,
and
other
aspects
of
the
communities
of
practice.
We
conducted
the
analyses
from
the
perspective
of
the
role
of
governing
bodies
in
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice.
For
instance,
when
analysing
the
subdomains
in
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
the
segmentation
used
by
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
provided
information
about
the
groups/individuals
with
whom
a
governing
body
of
sport
communicates,
and
who
enhanced
and
coordinated
learning.
We
identified
these
groups
by
studying
the
organizations’
websites.
Table
1
Examples
of
actual
knowledge
generation
and
sharing
activities.
Activity
Sport
England
Australian
Sport
Commission
Sport
Flanders
SportandDev
Informing
++
+++
++
+++
Networking
++
+++
+++
+++
Capacity
building
+
++
++
+++
Community
building
+
++
+
++
Advocacy
+
++
++
+
Problem
solving
+
+++
/
++
Performance
/
+++
+
+
Accountability
+
+
+
+
+++
Dominantly
present.
++
Several
examples.
+
Limited
presence.
/
Not
present.
Informing:
member
posts,
comments,
free
tagging,
integrated
external
feeds,
advanced
search
capability,
publications,
project
case
studies
and
flash,
selected
bibliographies,
categories
and
specified
tags,
reports,
seeking
stories,
subscriptions
on
selected
categories,
archives
organized
by
digital
librarian,
languages,
newsletters,
local
correspondents,
research
databases.
Networking:
profiles
of
people
and
organizations,
project
description,
geomapping,
people
finder,
following
people
and
projects,
job/volunteer
postings,
tweeting,
requiring
updates
profiles,
archiving,
feedback
on
posts
from
G
analytics,
brokering
connections,
in-person
visits,
local
and
regional
facilitators
of
connections.
Capacity
building:
self-assessment,
toolkit,
webinars
and
training
on
how
to
use
it,
focused
courses
(online,
on-site,
regional),
organizational
mentoring,
workshops
at
global
conferences,
benchmarking
different
approaches
to
Sport-for-All
across
different
contexts.
Community
building:
self-organized
group
practices,
E-debate,
regular
debates,
hot
topic
discussion,
case
studies,
topical
and
regional
groups,
interactive
visits
and
showcases,
global
practitioner
conferences,
regional
gatherings,
core
groups.
Advocacy:
open
funding
requests
and
offers,
overview
and
history
of
the
field,
funding
marketplace,
strategic
partnership,
connecting
to
other
fields,
strategic
conversations
across
stakeholder
groups.
Problem
solving:
problem
recognition
and
reporting,
encouraging
problem
identification,
problems
solutions
reporting,
feasibility/needs/risks/impacts
assessments.
Performance:
self-reflections,
KPI
discussions,
measure
and
evaluation
tools,
new
performance
measures
development.
Accountability:
boards’
membership
information,
seeking
board
and
committee
members,
annual
reports,
governance
strategic
development.
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
7
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

In
sum,
interview
data
gave
insight
into
the
formal
and
informal
knowledge
sharing
processes
in
the
communities
of
practice
in
which
governing
bodies
of
sport
were
involved.
The
websites
revealed
the
enabling
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport,
knowledge
domains
and
target
groups,
while
the
web
monitoring
quantified
websites’
frequency
and
purpose
of
use.
We
coded
documents
for
presence
of
the
subdomains
and
knowledge
standards
in
Sport-for-All.
Results
from
these
different
sources
were
then
combined
to
analyse
the
existence
of
communities
of
practice
by
examining
the
three
fundamental
elements
(domain,
practice,
community)
and
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport.
This
allowed
us
to
meet
the
second
research
aim
of
this
paper.
5.
Results
5.1.
Knowledge
domains
Analysis
of
the
websites
delineated
the
relevant
knowledge
domains.
Sport
England’s
domains
were
mainly
concerned
with
research
and
sport
participation
programs.
Similar
knowledge
domains
were
present
in
the
Australian
Clearinghouse
for
Sport,
while
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
site
displayed
more
news
and
knowledge
on
elite
sport.
The
main
Sport
Flanders
site
provided
practical
knowledge
and
support
on
how
to
organize
activities.
All
knowledge
found
on
the
websites
was
related
to
Sport-for-All
or,
in
the
case
of
Australia,
also
to
elite
sport,
but
there
were
no
delineated
sets
of
knowledge
domains.
This
was
different
in
Sportanddev
where
there
are
eight
knowledge
domains
(i.e.,
disability,
health,
education,
economic
development,
peace,
child
protection,
disaster
response,
and
gender).
5.2.
Practices
Analysis
of
the
websites’
content
revealed
also
differences
in
the
practices
shared
by
participants.
In
Sport
Flanders,
there
was
both
knowledge,
based
on
scientific
research
and
more
practical
knowledge
related
to
promoting
Sport-for-All.
In
general,
its
two
platforms
tried
to
inform
the
Sport-for-All
community
on
how
to
implement
initiatives.
Sport
England
went
a
step
further
by
providing
practical
tools
for
monitoring
participation
among
different
groups
and
regions
and
through
storytelling
that
illustrated
Sport-for-All
knowledge
in
context.
However,
apart
from
the
Active
Living
tool
(https://
activelives.sportengland.org/),
the
platform
was
not
interactive,
with
only
Sport
England
collecting,
creating,
and
sharing
knowledge.
The
Australian
Sport
Commission
was
the
closest
of
the
three
governing
bodies
of
sport
to
a
knowledge
creation
and
sharing
platform
because
Sport-for-All
stories
could
be
posted
by
users,
allowing
a
dynamic
knowledge
creation
process
to
occur.
Similarly,
Sportanddev
practitioners
could
post
their
experiences
and
knowledge
on
how
to
develop
sport
initiatives
by
writing
a
short
clear
note
(i.e.,
as
codified
knowledge
and
stories).
Although
links
to
sites
with
practical
tools
existed,
the
information
was
rather
brief,
and
visitors
were
directed
to
partner
websites
for
more
in-depth
knowledge.
5.3.
Communities
of
people
Website
analyses
provided
further
insights
into
the
members
of
different
communities.
Information
on
Sport
England’s
site
was
aimed
at
a
range
of
target
groups,
especially
women,
and
enabled
networking.
The
other
categories
of
knowledge
activities
on
the
website,
except
performance
measurement
(tools),
were
present
but
not
prominent.
For
capacity
building,
for
instance,
there
were
several
tool
kits
available,
such
as
Value
of
Sport,
Local
Sport
Profiles,
or
Small
area
estimate
that
Table
2
Target
groups/
‘people’
in
the
Sport-for-All
community
of
practice.
Target
group
Sport
England
Sport
Flanders
Australian
Sport
Commission
Sportanddev
*
Coaches
x
x
x
Volunteers
x
x
x
Elite
athletes
x
x
x
Parents
x
x
x
Schools
(incl.
physical
education
teachers)
x
x
x
x
Board
members
x
Local
sport
administrations
x
x
x
x
Sport
participants
x
x
x
x
Governing
bodies
of
sport
x
x
x
x
Voluntary
organizations
x
x
x
x
Sport
professionals
x
x
x
x
Corporations
x
x
x
Women
x
x
x
Officials;
referees
x
Policymakers
x
x
x
Sport
scientists
x
x
x
x
Dedicated
major
partner
organizations
x
*
Sportanddev
has
no
explicit
target
groups
but
those
indicated
here
were
inferred
from
the
website
analysis.
8
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

were
not
particularly
oriented
to
a
target
group.
Networking
was
enhanced
through
the
website
but
closely
monitored
by
Sport
England.
Partners
wishing
to
share
their
projects
did
so
but
only
after
approval
from
the
administrator.
More
direct
interaction
was
limited
to
Facebook
and
Twitter.
This
was
very
similar
to
Sport
Flanders,
which
invested
heavily
in
informing
different
target
groups,
and
in
developing
search
engines
and
databases.
The
search
engines
and
databases
allowed
for
networking
but
the
websites
did
not
facilitate
direct
interaction
among
partners
and
practitioners.
Sport
Flanders
also
invested
in
community
capacity
building
and
taught
partners
how
to
deliver
Sport-for-All.
The
website
was
replete
with
standards
and
knowledge
on
how
schools,
sport
clubs,
and
other
entities
could
contribute
to
the
Sport-for-All
aim.
However,
problem
solving
was
not
a
dimension
that
was
clearly
present
and
others,
such
as
community
building,
were
less
well-developed.
Both
Australian
Sport
Commission’s
websites
provided
a
more
interactive
platform
to
support
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice.
There
was
a
large
amount
of
information,
standards,
online
courses,
and
databases
for
all
target
groups.
While
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
had
a
more
developed
and
complex
website,
according
to
the
dimensions
suggested
by
Wenger
and
Trayner
(2013),
it
too
had
limitations
in
the
area
of
community
building.
For
instance,
open
e-debates
among
practitioners
and
discussions
through
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
websites
were
scarce.
In
contrast,
the
Sportanddev’s
platform
intended
to
facilitate
discussion,
interaction,
and
sharing
of
best
practices
rather
than
purely
informing.
However,
our
results
showed
that
although
the
tools
were
present
on
the
Sportanddev
platform,
those
were
not
intensively
used.
Additionally,
Sportanddev
was
organized
differently
to
the
other
three
case
sites.
It
was
structured
around
knowledge
domains,
which
facilitated
sharing
the
practices
of
each
of
the
domains
among
groups
of
people
with
similar
functions.
Table
1
displays
a
summary
of
the
website
analysis.
We
list
the
websites’
target
groups
as
identified
on
the
webpages
in
Table
2.
Despite
apparent
similarities
across
cases’
target
groups,
there
were
also
differences.
For
instance,
women
were
an
explicit
target
group
for
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
and
for
Sport
England,
while
not
explicitly
recognized
on
Sport
Flanders’
platforms.
Other
target
groups
included
volunteers,
parents,
referees,
and
corporations.
An
interesting
difference
between
the
three
governing
bodies
of
sport
websites
and
Sportanddev
was
that
the
latter
implicitly
set
boundaries
around
a
practice,
while
the
formers’
boundaries
were
designed
around
people/target
groups,
such
as
volunteers
or
parents.
Although
there
were
gradations
in
the
functionality
of
the
platforms,
the
three
governing
bodies
of
sport
sites
proved
useful.
An
indirect
but
objective
way
to
assess
this
was
with
traffic
metrics
on
the
four
websites.
Table
3
provides
some
well-
established
web
monitoring
metrics.
Sport
England’s
site
was
used
far
less
than
those
of
Sport
Flanders
or
the
Australian
Sport
Commission,
and
time
spent
on
it
was
shorter.
Sportanddev,
despite
its
worldwide
orientation,
was
also
not
visited
frequently
in
relative
terms.
Although
there
were
no
standards
on
how
long
a
visit
should
take
to
allow
for
knowledge
sharing
or
absorption,
the
stories
and
tools
needed
time
to
be
accessed.
This
may
be
problematic
given
that
the
average
visit
durations
at
the
Sportandev
site
was
only
two
minutes.
The
Australian
Sport
Commission
was
the
most
visited,
with
the
longest
duration
and
most
pages
accessed.
The
country
of
origin
of
visitors
also
differed
for
each
of
the
sites.
Surprisingly,
for
Sport
England
only
60
percent
of
the
visits
were
from
the
UK.
For
the
Flanders
sport’s
sites,
visits
from
Belgium
were
around
85
percent,
with
another
10
percent
coming
from
Dutch
users.
The
Australian
Sport
Commission
and
the
Clearinghouse
sites
had
67
and
49
percent
home
visitors
respectively.
Sportanddev’s
traffic
by
countries
indicated
large
shares
from
the
US
(12%),
the
UK
(10%),
Turkey
(5%),
Congo
(5%),
India
(4%),
and
more
than
60%
further
spread
around
the
world.
Traffic
source
was
examined
to
Australian
Sport
Commissionertain
whether
it
was
comprised
of
a
particular
group
of
people
who
knew
and
recognized
the
organizations
as
knowledge
brokers,
and
who
accessed
the
sites
directly
when
they
Table
3
Governing
bodies
of
sport
web
monitoring
statistics.
Indicator
England
Flanders
Australia
Global
Sport-
England
Sport-Flanders
Knowledge
and
Information
Centre
for
Sport
Australian
Sport
Commission
Clearinghouse
Sportanddev
visits
(av)
117 0 0 0
45400
140 0
131000
30500
79800
duration
(av)
1:19
2:34
2:58
5:50
1:12
2:06
pages
per
visit
(av)
2.07
4.76
1.86
8.31
1.49
2.3
bounce
rate
49.53%
33,84%
40,69%
41,67%
50,5%
50,87%
traffic
by
countries
59.6%
UK
85.39%
Belgium,
13%
Netherland
83.15
%
Belgium
66.85
%
Australia
48.82%
Australia;
11%
U.S.
12%
U.S.,
10%
UK,
5,44%
Turkey;
4,6
Congo,
4%
India
traffic
source:
direct
(%)
22.57
23.17
50.96
28.24
9.15
17.89
traffic
source:
referrals
(%)
9.89
24.12
2.68
15.68
5.07
1.82
traffic
source:
search
(%)
65.7
49.82
46.35
52.61
72.71
70.34
traffic
source:
social
(%)
1.63
0.72
0
1.62
0
4.28
traffic
source:
mail
(%)
0.2
2.16
0
1.84
13.07
5.67
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
9
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

wanted
to
learn
or
share
knowledge.
Direct
access
to
the
sites
was
indicative
of
this.
Other
possibilities
to
access
a
site
were
through
search
engines
(e.g.,
Google),
via
referrals
on
other
sites,
links
in
e-mails
or
social
media
(e.g.,
in
a
tweet).
Visitors
to
the
Sportanddev
platform
mainly
accessed
the
site
via
a
search
engine.
This
was
also
the
case
for
the
Clearinghouse
in
Australia.
For
the
sites
in
Flanders,
access
via
search
engines
was
equally
common
but
many
visitors
came
directly
to
them.
This
metric
provided
a
rough
indication
of
the
level
of
visitors’
knowledge
about
the
information
needed
and
where
to
find
it
directly.
For
those
accessing
via
search
engines
the
keywords
entered
for
the
analyzed
period
were
as
follows:
Sport
England:
Sport
England,
community
sport,
list
of
sports;
Australian
Sport
Commission:
Australian
Sport
Institute,
AIS,
Australian
Sports
Commission,
Australian
Institute
of
Sport;
Sport
Flanders:
Bloso
(former
name
of
Sport
Flanders),
mountain
bike
route,
basic
fit,
multimove;
and
Sportanddev:
physical
activity,
impacts
of
sport,
nature
news,
positive
effects
of
sport.
Surprisingly,
there
were
no
keywords
related
to
development
of
any
of
the
specific
knowledge
domains
of
the
Sportanddev
sites.
In
general,
the
keywords
were
very
vague
and
did
not
indicate
any
specific
search.
However,
a
limitation
of
this
metric
was
that
the
keyword
information
provided
by
the
web
monitoring
services
was
limited
and
may
vary
over
time.
5.4.
Knowledge
brokers
Interview
data
with
experts
in
each
of
the
studied
organizations
provided
further
information
on
the
knowledge
brokering
roles
and
existence
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice.
In
Sportanddev,
the
community
of
practice
consisted
of
experts
who
had
some
links
with
sport
and
development
and
“who
all
bring
their
own
little
package
of
expertise
to
the
group
and
some
come
from
the
practitioners’
side,
some
from
the
academic
side,
some
are
policymakers”
(interview,
01-12-
2015).
Sportanddev
maintained
a
list
of
individual
and
organizational
members,
but
it
was
by
no
means
exhaustive
of
all
people
involved
in
sport
and
development.
Interviews
indicated
that
hardly
any
of
those
members
could
be
considered
sport
and
development
experts,
in
so
far
as
this
was
a
unique
field
of
expertise
with
a
strong
interdisciplinary
nature
bound
by
a
concern
for
sport
in
the
world
of
development.
They
[people
active
on
the
Sportanddev
platform]
share,
they
publish
reports,
there
is
obviously
a
sort
of
a
stance
of
‘sport
and
dev’,
there
is
a
way
they
view
sport
in
the
world
of
development.
You
know
it’s
people
who
identify
with
that
stance
and
who
feel
accountable
for
the
stance
and
within
their
own
country
they
may
be
the
only
person
who
does.
But
they’ve
got
in
the
back
of
their
minds
that
there
is
this
international
entity
out
there
where
they
belong,
where
they
are
not
just
a
little
voice
in
the
wilderness.
(interview,
08-11-2015)
Although
Sportanddev
was
a
growing
community
at
a
rate
of
40
percent
increase
in
membership
each
year
(interview,
01-
12-2015),
it
maintained
a
large
and
stable
core
group
of
more
than
500
experts.
Conferences
where
people
could
meet
in
person
were
important
complements
to
the
virtual
knowledge
sharing
processes.
However,
although
practitioners,
scholars
and
experts
used
the
platform
because
of
their
common
concern
for
sport
in
the
world
of
development,
they
might
not
have
seen
it
as
a
community
to
which
they
belong.
The
importance
of
Sportanddev’s
facilitating
role
manifested
in
knowledge
sharing
promoted
through
the
e-platform.
Given
the
value
of
this
virtual
platform,
actual
activities,
software
tools,
and
real
sharing
of
practices
were
required
to
maintain
sufficient
traffic
and
to
allow
this
facilitating
role.
The
latter
sometimes
needed
to
be
facilitated
by
language
editing
(interview,
01-12-2015).
In
Sportanddev,
sharing
often
required
making
knowledge
explicit
in
a
written
or
visual
form
so
it
could
be
used.
This
forces
practitioners,
policymakers,
and
researchers
to
reflect
on
the
knowledge
they
possessed
and
applied
it
in
their
daily
practices.
It
took
more
than
five
years
before
some
sort
of
common
understanding
among
the
members
on
the
benefits
of
the
Sportanddev
community
developed.
Until
then
there
was
no
clear
set
of
shared
values
in
this
community
of
practice,
but
rather
a
common
understanding
of
sport
as
a
universal
tool
for
communication
and
a
source
of
positive
notions
(interview,
01-12-2015).
The
brokering
roles
of
governing
bodies
of
sport
in
Australia,
England,
and
Flanders
were
much
more
local,
with
more
personal
contacts
and
content
connected
to
the
specific
Sport-for-All
policies
in
each
of
the
constituencies,
such
as
a
focus
on
activating
women
in
sport
in
England.
There
were
clear
similarities
among
the
roles
of
Australian
Sport
Commission,
Sport
England,
and
Sport
Flanders.
Governing
bodies
of
sport’s
interviewees
were
explicit
in
their
depictions
of
the
communities
of
practice.
For
example,
an
Australian
interviewee
commented:
The
whole
theory
behind
the
Clearinghouse
is
you
create
this
place
and
it's
really
basic.
You
create
a
place,
a
go
to
place,
with
all
this
explicit
knowledge
and
it's
supported
by
a
good
client
.
.
.
Clearinghouse
for
Sport,
as
a
means
to
bring
together
key
stakeholders
in
the
sport
knowledge
community
and
build
a
coalition
for
sharing
knowledge,
with
the
Australian
Sport
Commission
research
being
only
one
aspect
to
the
broader
array
of
knowledge
shared
.
.
.
People
who
are
actually
delivering
it
know
it's
much
more.
It's
a
strategy.
It's
around
changing
behaviour.
It's
around
joining
up.
(interview,
21
July,
2014).
In
the
same
vein,
Sport
England’s
knowledge
manager
expressed
that
“Mutuality
is
at
the
heart
of
it
–
Sport
England
helps
them
(various
delivery
partners,
explanation
added)
understand
issues
and
they
help
Sport
England
understand
practical
challenges
facing
these
partners”
and
that
“Sport
England
works
in
partnership
with
the
sector,
we
do
not
impose
ideas
on
the
sector”
(interview,
22
July
2014).
Sport
Flanders
Sport-for-All
knowledge
management
system
was
labelled
as
educating
and
this
role
was
also
strongly
manifest
in
the
Flemish
Sport-for-All
community
of
practice
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
At
the
time
of
data
collection,
10
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

knowledge
was
dispersed
among
a
large
number
of
individuals
and
organizations,
and
Sport
Flanders
was
both
spreading
and
using
the
knowledge
of
others.
Previously,
Sport
Flanders
used
to
educate
other
organizations
about
the
importance
of
Sport-for-All.
Sport
Flanders
took
a
strong
facilitating
role
in
the
community
of
practice.
“We
seek
knowledge
purposefully,
for
instance
we
have
a
project
group
and
platform
on
Sport-for-All
and
there
we
collected
our
knowledge”
(interview,
June
24,
2014).
Another
interviewee
emphasized
Sport
Flanders’
role
in
spreading
good
practices
and
even
standards
for
Sport-
for-All
initiatives:
We
place
best
practices
on
our
website,
so
others
can
see
and
do
what
they
like
with
it.
You
can
see
this
as
sharing
knowledge.
We
have
an
opinion
on
which
method
works
best
and
we
have
specific
examples
of
it,
these
are
placed
on
the
website
as
good
practices.
We
also
suggest
doing
things,
like
sport
for
seniors,
and
we
suggest
how
you
can
organize
such
things
on
a
local
level
(interview,
June
10th,
2014).
Sport
Flanders
collaborated
extensively.
“A
lot
is
being
done
in
collaboration
with
partners,
so
we
exchange
automatically
knowledge.
It
is
a
function
of
our
activities
but
not
as
structured
as
we
intend
to
do
in
the
future”
(interview,
June
3,
2014).
There
was
a
need
to
balance
between
formally
managing
the
communities
of
practice
and
allowing
freedom
and
informal
interactions.
One
sport
participation
expert
mentioned:
“Sharing
knowledge
is
informal,
there
is
no
systematic
approach
like
now
we
are
going
to
write
to
all
local
sport
administrations.
Yes,
we
inform
through
our
website
and
maybe
that
is
considered
formal,
but
I
see
it
as
informal
because
they
are
not
obliged
to
use
the
knowledge
on
the
website,
we
just
make
suggestions”
(interview,
June
10
th
,
2014).
Several
of
the
initiatives
in
Flanders
were
related
to
knowledge
storing
(e.g.,
the
Knowledge
and
Information
Centre
for
Sport
database
and
the
Sport
database
with
club
and
infrastructure
data)
but
the
campaign
“Sports
people
enjoy
more”
that
started
in
2016
and
lasted
for
several
years
more
actively
invited
interaction
and
sharing
of
practices.
6.
Discussion
6.1.
Sport-for-all
as
a
community
of
practice
We
empirically
examined
the
existence
and
functionality
of
four
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
and
to
uncover
the
broker
role
of
governing
bodies
in
them.
The
analysis
showed
that
in
each
of
the
four
cases
the
organizations’
websites
stored
an
extensive
range
of
readily
available
information
and
knowledge.
Interview
data
confirmed
that
sport
participation
in
the
three
countries
represented
a
highly
fragmented
rich
knowledge
domain.
These
domain
characteristics
were
also
present
in
sport
and
development.
Hence,
the
results
suggested
that
Sport-for-All
was
a
knowledge-intensive,
and
even
research-
driven
sector,
in
addition
to
its
obvious
practical
focus.
In
a
knowledge-driven
sector,
there
is
a
need
for
knowledge
sharing,
so
it
can
be
spread
throughout
the
community,
and
communities
of
practice
are
vehicles
that
enable
that
(Wenger,
et
al.,
2002).
Our
results
revealed
the
presence
of
the
three
structural
communities
of
practice
prerequisites
(i.e.,
domain,
practices,
community)
in
each
of
the
case
organizations.
The
responsibility
for
making
sport
accessible
to
all
seemed
to
have
been
sufficient
as
a
common
denominator
allowing
a
vastly
culturally
diverse
group
of
people
to
navigate
all
four
cases’
platforms.
Despite
differences
in
terminology,
languages
and
backgrounds,
there
was
an
underlying
concern
for
sharing
Sport-for-All
knowledge.
This
meant
that
best
practices,
information,
and
knowledge
on
specific
Sport-for-All
initiatives
could
be
transferred
across
contexts,
as
long
as
members
of
the
communities
of
practice
had
a
shared
understanding
of
the
challenges,
objectives
and
the
evidence
to
support
it.
For
instance,
it
was
clear
that
members
seem
to
understand
the
importance
of
lifelong
sport
participation
for
mental
and
physical
health
as
well
as
the
fact
that
socio-economic
status
influences
sport
participation.
The
experts
interviewed
confirmed
the
existence
of
such
shared
understanding
and
considered
this
as
a
key
element
in
the
survival
of
the
Sport-for-
All
communities
of
practice.
Further,
the
high
interest
in
the
domain,
combined
with
the
practices
and
the
interactions
within
the
community,
stimulated
communities
of
practice’s
members
to
be
at
the
cutting
edge
of
their
domain.
Latest
insights
and
new
methods
for
reaching
out
disadvantaged
communities
needed
to
be
spread
among
members
who
were
eager
to
learn
and
develop
their
knowledge
further.
Crucial
for
this
learning
process
and
the
creation
of
these
communities
has
been
the
spread
of
modern
technology
and
the
Internet
in
particular
(Stoszkowski
&
Collins,
2016).
Both
Australian
Sport
Commission
and
Sport
England
boast
dedicated
extensive
online
platforms
that
allowed
for
sharing
and
developing
practice
in
a
collegial
way.
According
to
the
interviewees,
practitioners
were
interested
in
receiving
new
knowledge
and
working
with
it.
People
are
key
in
the
communities
of
practice
where
experts
and
practitioners
have
knowledge
embodied
(experience-
based)
or
embrained
(cognitive)
and
can
apply
it
in
practice
(Lam,
1997).
Thus,
knowledge
resides
among
the
people
who
can
use
it
or
develop
it
further.
The
sites
were
clearly
oriented
to
make
their
members
more
knowledgeable.
The
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
in
the
cases
studied
had
no
clear
boundaries
but,
at
their
core,
were
groups
of
organizations
and
people
(e.g.,
in
Flanders
employees
of
Sport
Flanders,
Flemish
Sport
Federation,
and
the
Institute
for
local
Sport
and
Recreation
Policy;
in
England
local
authorities
and
national
governing
bodies’
members
working
in
sport
development).
However,
there
were
also
plenty
of
activities
and
sharing
with
other
sport
and
non-sport
organizations
and
individuals
involved
in
Sport-for-All.
Hence,
much
sharing
had
been
taking
place
at
the
borders
of
the
community.
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
11
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

Wenger
(2000)
emphasised
the
importance
of
activity
at
the
boundaries
of
the
communities
of
practice
because
it
is
there
where
people
connect
with
each
other
and
knowledge
domains
are
combined,
resulting
in
the
creation
of
new
knowledge.
Knowledge
sharing
and
creation
within
the
core
of
the
community
and
at
the
communities
of
practice’s
boundaries
perform
two
different
and
mutually
enhancing
functions.
The
first
function
is
diffusion
of
knowledge
among
members
involving
knowledge
creation
through
socialization,
and
the
second
allows
new
knowledge
to
flow
into
the
community.
Thus,
communities
of
practice
should
not
be
too
closed
because
their
knowledge
creation
process
will
be
diluted.
Learning
processes
at
the
core
and
at
the
boundaries
of
communities
of
practice
need
to
be
balanced
allowing
both
sufficient
social
learning
among
the
core
members
to
sustain
the
common
interest
and
access
to
new
knowledge
(Wenger,
2000).
Analysis
revealed
the
existence
of
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
in
each
of
the
four
different
cases
because
elements
of
communities
of
practice
were
clearly
present
and
although
data
did
not
allow
insights
into
the
specific
interactions
in
this
community,
it
highlighted
governing
bodies’
knowledge
brokering
role.
6.2.
Cultivating
the
sport-for-all
community
of
practice
Based
on
the
interviews
and
websites
analysis,
two
conclusions
emerged:
(a)
the
partners
and
client
base
of
the
three
governing
bodies
of
sport
and
Sportanddev
included
a
range
of
public,
commercial,
and
non-for-profit
agencies
as
well
as
numerous
sport
participants;
and
(b)
governing
bodies
of
sport
had
developed
their
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
coordinating
role
over
the
years.
In
Belgium,
for
instance,
a
network
of
people
at
sport
federations,
clubs,
local
sport
administrations,
educators,
infrastructure
managers,
and
others
were
all
connected
to
both
Sport
Flanders
and
in
the
Sport-
for-All
community
of
practice,
because
of
their
engagement
and
alignment
with
its
cause.
Although
those
partners
had
been
collaborating
for
years,
as
mentioned
by
the
interviewees,
a
community
of
practice
facilitated
by
a
knowledge
broker
seemed
to
allow
a
more
effective
knowledge
sharing
and
creation
process
that
was
very
helpful
in
implementing
Sport-for-All
policies,
as
evidenced
by
governing
bodies
of
sport’s
attempts
to
facilitate
a
community
of
practice
in
Sport-for-All.
Content
on
the
websites
studied
showed
how
governing
bodies
of
sport
value
the
Sport-for-All
field
in
terms
of
priorities,
target
groups,
and
knowledge
considered
worth
disseminating.
Clearly,
all
four
organizations
used
the
virtual
platform
for
knowledge
sharing
purposes
and
not
just
to
showcase
what
they
did.
This
was
most
prominent
in
Flanders
and
Australia
with
dedicated
platforms
(i.e.,
Knowledge
and
Information
Centre
for
Sport
and
the
Clearinghouse
for
Sport)
separated
from
the
organization’s
main
site.
But,
in
all
cases,
knowledge
was
collected
and
made
accessible
to
a
range
of
target
groups.
Although
websites
did
not
provide
the
full
picture
of
initiatives,
they
were
indicative
of
how
governing
bodies
of
sport
saw
their
role.
Furthermore,
people
preferred
searching
online
when
they
had
questions
and
considered
these
platforms
as
their
major
information
source
instead
of
direct
contacts
with
experts.
This
is
similar
to
the
case
for
health
care
where
people
resort
to
the
Internet
for
health
advice
(Nath,
Huh,
Adupa,
&
Jonnalagadda,
2016).
Publishing
knowledge
through
governing
bodies
of
sport
websites,
combined
with
practitioners’
common
practice
of
consulting
online
sources,
stimulates
knowledge
sharing
and
creation.
Hence,
decisions
concerning
the
Sport-for-All
content
to
publish
online
directly
influence
the
communities
of
practice.
Interview
data
indicated
that
the
organizational
cultures
of
Australian
Sport
Commission,
Sport
Flanders
and
Sport
England
had
been
broadly
supportive
of
the
process
of
knowledge
creation
and
in
nurturing
the
communities
of
practice.
Management
encouraged
staff
in
the
three
organizations
to
systematically
enhance
their
general
and
area-specific
knowledge
through
a
variety
of
formal
and
informal
forums.
The
existence
of
a
team
structure,
which
was
formed
typically
around
specific
projects
and
knowledge
domains,
supported
this
process
(interview,
June
3,
2014).
It
is
important
that
not
only
the
staff
of
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
need
to
feel
a
sense
of
belonging
to
the
communities
of
practice,
but
other
practitioners
as
well.
Governing
bodies
of
sport
have
been
trying
to
enhance
the
three
types
of
belonging
in
the
context
of
communities
of
practice
suggested
by
Wenger
(2000),
viz.,
engagement,
imagination
and
alignment.
Identifying
target
groups
uncovered
which
practitioners
were
considered
part
of
the
community
of
practice
according
to
the
governing
bodies
of
sport.
Although
websites
were
accessible
to
everyone,
by
delineating
specific
knowledge
domains
(e.g.,
Sportanddev)
or
target
groups
(e.g.,
Sport
Flanders),
implicit
boundaries
were
set.
As
a
consequence,
people
not
belonging
to
the
target
group
might
not
consider
the
information
relevant
for
them
and
thus
might
not
consult
or
interact
with
the
site.
In
this
way,
knowledge
and
people
are
grouped.
Furthermore,
people
who
belong
to
established
target
groups
and
receive
hands-on
knowledge
might
feel
more
accountable
for
how
they
use
it
in
their
own
daily
practices.
Sportanddev
organized
its
website
around
knowledge
domains
instead
of
target
groups
and
created
(sub)
communities
around
particular
topics.
Regardless
of
one’s
function,
background,
position,
job
or
role,
anyone
interested,
concerned,
and
feeling
attachment
to
the
topic
could
participate
in
the
online
community
and
experience
a
sense
of
belonging
to
it.
This
facilitated
interactions
across
people’s
roles.
While
a
target
group-oriented
website
was
used
by
the
other
governing
bodies
of
sport,
as
a
convenient
tool
for
informing
people,
it
was
less
preferable
from
a
communities
of
practice
perspective.
A
target
group-oriented
website
might
discourage
interaction
among
coaches,
parents,
athletes,
and
officials
interested
in
a
specific
practice
because
they
are
placed
in
different
(sub)
communities.
Communities
of
practice
develop
around
a
common
concern
crossing
boundaries,
while
target
group-based
websites
might
enforce
existing
boundaries
between
organizations,
roles,
and
hierarchies.
Imagination
to
create
a
sense
of
belonging
is
reflected
in
the
community
building
efforts
and
identity
creation
(Wenger
et
al.,
2002).
For
example,
the
“be
inspired”
messages
throughout
Sport
England’s
platform
provided
identity
to
the
community
members.
The
Sport
Flanders
sites
used
the
slogan
“sports
people
experience
more”
to
create
the
feeling
of
a
12
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

community
of
people
who
play
sport,
have
fun,
are
excited
to
be
a
member
of
that
community,
and
to
contribute
to
it.
The
Australian
Sport
Commission’s
site
promotes
examples
of
elite
sporting
success
but
seems
less
concerned
with
creating
a
Sport-for-All
identity.
Since
this
study
used
mainly
the
official
website
of
the
four
organizations
to
analyze
the
process
of
cultivating
communities
of
practice,
it
is
important
to
recognize
that
these
sites
were
not
just
a
computational
infrastructure
that
supported
the
design
and
use
of
certain
applications.
Governing
bodies’
websites,
as
the
full
name
of
Sportanddev
made
explicit,
represent
a
platform.
Platforms
perform
an
important
discursive
function,
which,
in
the
case
of
sport,
sanctions
a
specific
understanding
of
participation,
and
its
value
to
individuals
and
society.
As
Gillespie
(2010),
p.
351)
observed,
“the
‘platform’
is
defined
not
just
by
height,
but
also
by
its
level
of
surface
and
its
openness
to
those
hoping
to
stand
upon
it.”
The
inclusiveness
of
Sport-for-All
platforms
therefore,
becomes
one
of
their
defining
features.
Platforms
also
need
to
address
tensions
and
discrepancies
between
user-generated
versus
organization-produced
content,
as
well
as
between
cultivating
a
community
of
practice
and
serving
political
agendas.
The
communities
of
practice
have
an
identity
created
through
numerous
artifacts
and
interactions
(Wenger,
1998).
These
identities
are
at
the
heart
of
what
interests
the
members
and
exist
over
time,
even
when
members
join
or
leave
the
community.
Alignment,
as
the
third
form
of
communities
of
practice
belonging,
is
reflected
in
the
website
tools
designed
to
support
advocacy.
These
are,
however,
limited
in
all
four
cases
because
few
initiatives
or
tools
reflect
strategic
partnerships
or
strategic
conversations.
Hence,
although
there
were
well-developed
websites
serving
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
their
potential
was
underexploited.
This
finding
echoes
Wenger
and
Trayner’s
(2013)
strategic
review
of
Sportandev,
such
that
members’
engagement
is
critical
for
the
cultivation
of
communities
of
practice.
People
did
not
utilize
key
functionalities
supported
by
web
technology
that
allow
more
community
building
(e.g.,
E-debate,
Wordpress,
Drupal),
including
advocacy
and
networking.
Those
technologies
allow
to
create
blogs
or
web
space
where
people
can
contribute
and
jointly
create
content
and
knowledge.
Capacity
and
community
building,
and
advocacy
represent
strategic
activities
that
go
beyond
the
effort
of
managing
a
website
and
are
premised
on
engaging
members
and
other
players
in
the
Sport-for-All
field.
Governing
bodies
of
sport
were
not
capitalizing
on
the
opportunity
to
create
a
full
virtual
platform
to
support
the
Sport-for-All
communities,
and
thus
to
enhance
the
commitment
of
its
members.
This
conclusion
is
in
line
with
Polanyi
(1962)
observation
that
commitment
underlies
human
knowledge
creating
activities
and
that
individual
commitment
is
predicated
on
three
key
factors:
intention
(i.e.,
the
exercise
of
consciousness),
autonomy
(i.e.,
the
ability
to
express
one’s
own
personality
and
intentions)
and
fluctuation
(i.e.,
continuous
interaction
with
the
external
world).
The
Sport-for-All
knowledge
brokers
can
play
a
role
in
solving
problems
that
are
of
major
concerns
for
the
communities
of
practice,
such
as
how
to
engage
disadvantaged
groups
in
sport.
There
was
limited
evidence
on
the
websites
examined
illustrating
that
problem
solving
was
of
great
importance
to
the
case
organizations.
The
same
goes
for
evaluating
the
performance
of
a
specific
community,
as
only
governing
bodies
of
sport’s
annual
reports
were
available.
This
style
of
informing
the
community
and
the
limited
interactive
use
of
the
sites
limited
the
possibility
of
creating
a
sense
of
belonging
to
a
community
of
practice.
From
an
interaction
perspective,
more
important
are
the
tools
used
for
networking
and
capacity
building
that
create
engagement
within
the
community.
For
instance,
capacity
building
efforts
can
result
in
establishing
applied
standards
and
practices.
Directing
these
standards
towards
specific
target
groups
makes
the
groups
more
prone
to
consider
their
use
in
practice.
6.3.
Pitfalls
in
the
sport-for-all
communities
of
practice
Applying
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
as
a
lens
for
studying
the
knowledge
brokering
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport,
coupled
with
awareness
of
the
critics
questioning
the
management
focus
on
the
concept
(Li
et
al.,
2009),
allowed
identification
of
some
areas
of
improvement
in
the
four
cases.
Communities
of
practice
need
boundary
spanners
and
facilitators
(Wenger,
2000),
a
role
clearly
taken
by
the
governing
bodies
of
sport.
Both
interview
insights
and
website
data
highlighted
the
management
perspective
on
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
because
of
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
taking
a
strong
role
in
cultivating
these
communities
(Wenger
et
al.,
2002)
to
the
extent
that
their
self-organizing
character
might
be
questioned.
The
platforms
of
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
tended
to
offer
knowledge
in
the
form
of
standard
practices
with
limited
interaction
instead
of
standards
emerging
through
interaction
of
the
practitioners.
In
contrast,
the
Sportanddev
staff
did
not
really
manage
the
Sportanddev
community;
rather,
social
learning
was
facilitated
within
it.
The
important
point,
as
Wenger
et
al.
(2002),
p.
9)
observed,
is
that
“Communities
of
practice
do
not
reduce
knowledge
to
an
object.
They
make
it
an
integral
part
of
their
activities
and
interactions,
and
they
serve
as
a
living
repository
for
that
knowledge.”
Members
of
communities
of
practice
benefit
their
organizations
through
knowledge
created
and
shared
in
the
community
and
from
the
new
ideas
that
are
brought
into
the
organization.
For
organizations
premised
on
knowledge,
such
as
governing
bodies
of
sport,
this
is
essential
for
their
long-term
existence
(Girginov
et
al.,
2015a).
However,
governing
bodies
of
sport
need
to
facilitate
sharing
among
the
partners
instead
of
hoarding
knowledge
at
their
organization,
and
selectively
pushing
it
into
the
community.
For
instance,
Sport
Flanders
was
often
too
dominant
and
controlling
in
the
facilitating
role
because,
instead
of
facilitating
interactions
and
having
knowledge
shared
through
interactions
among
the
people
in
the
community,
Sport
Flanders
felt
the
need
to
collect
all
knowledge
and
then
push
knowledge
towards
other
partners
while
keeping
control
on
the
knowledge
flows.
Also,
existing
webpages
and
e-tools
heavily
emphasized
storing
and
diffusing
knowledge
instead
of
creating
knowledge
by
interactions
in
the
domain.
Because
of
this
particular
role
taken
by
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
13
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

governing
bodies
of
sport,
they
were
neither
actively
enhancing
learning
in
the
communities
of
practice
nor
learning
themselves
as
actors
in
this
community.
Thus,
governing
bodies’
role
posed
a
threat
to
the
communities
of
practice
because
it
led
to
a
number
of
risks.
First,
group
thinking
might
occur
on
the
level
of
governing
bodies
of
sport’s
knowledge
brokers
(Roberts,
2006),
resulting
in
the
dominance
of
less
than
optimal
practices,
e.g.,
the
idea
that
organizing
a
mass
recreational
sporting
event
automatically
increases
the
number
of
sportspeople
in
a
community.
Second,
limiting
interactions
and
knowledge
sharing
might
occur
when
partners
feel
that
governing
bodies
of
sport
are
collecting
knowledge
and
deciding
on
the
standards
in
the
community
without
consultation.
Third,
if
the
knowledge
broker
is
not
considered
to
be
legitimate,
other
brokers
in
the
community
might
emerge.
Fourth,
data
revealed
that
to
some
extent,
the
studied
communities
of
practice
showed
characteristics
of
communityship
(Mintzberg,
2009),
where
the
strong
policy
implementation
focus
of
the
brokers
blurred
their
knowledge
brokering
role
and
mixed
it
with
the
hierarchical
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport.
This
pitfall
might
be
a
barrier
to
change
in
the
communities
of
practice
because
disruptive
innovations
might
be
difficult
given
the
current
dominance
of
brokers
and
boundary
spanners
in
Sport
England
and
Sport
Flanders.
These
pitfalls
impact
on
the
implementation
of
Sport-for-All
initiatives.
However,
they
also
seem
to
be
consistent
with
an
inherent
dilemma
faced
by
boundary
spanners,
who
are
defined
by
their
ability
to
engage
with
others
and
deploy
effective
relational
and
interpersonal
competencies
(Williams,
2002).
As
Williams
(2002),
p.
111 )
suggests,
this
is
not
unproblematic
because
boundary
spanners
develop
skills
allowing
a
balance
between
breaking
down
boundaries
and
at
a
same
time
enforcing
boundaries
to
protect
from
engaging
with
others’
problems’
or
“a
balancing
act
between
inclusion
and
separation,
dependence
and
autonomy”.
Furthermore,
the
practice
of
sport
participation
is
a
set
of
frameworks,
ideas,
tools,
language,
stories,
and
documents
that
community
members
share.
The
notion
of
practice
denotes
a
set
of
socially
defined
ways
of
workings
and
goes
beyond
the
tangibles,
such
as
a
Website
or
a
report,
and
implies
interactions
and
developing
a
set
of
behaviors
and
common
standards.
It
was
clear
that
the
websites
are
supporting
the
communities
of
practice,
but
that
personal
interactions
and
knowledge
exchange
are
more
crucial.
The
analysis
of
web
monitoring
results,
which
demonstrated
many
visits
but
equally
large
bounce
rates
and
limited
direct
visits,
supported
this
conclusion.
Hence,
in
three
cases,
the
websites
were
only
supporting
the
communities
of
practice,
while
in
the
fourth
(Sportanddev),
the
platform
was
at
the
core
of
the
communities
of
practice.
However,
even
in
the
Sportanddev
case,
conferences
were
compulsory
to
allow
personal
contacts.
Applying
Wenger
and
Trayner’s
model
(2013)
revealed
that
the
governing
bodies
of
sport
websites
of
Australia,
England,
and
Flanders
included
more
incremental
functionalities
(such
as
informing
and
networking)
to
support
the
communities
of
practice
and
less
strategic
ones
(such
as
advocacy).
On
the
Sportanddev
site
there
was
more
attention
to
strategic
aspects,
such
as
community
building,
but
there
was
potential
to
further
increase
these
functionalities
and
intensify
their
use.
Communities
of
practice
easily
cross
boundaries
of
sport
organizations,
and
even
inter-sectoral
boundaries
are
no
hurdle
for
the
communities
of
practice.
Ultimately,
communities
of
practice
should
allow
for
a
change
of
the
whole
Sport-for-All
approach
because
they
are
able
to
facilitate
systems
changes
(Harris
&
Jones,
2010).
We
did
not
observe
such
large
changes
in
any
of
the
cases
studied.
The
communities
of
practice
were
not
using
their
full
potential,
for
instance,
these
did
not
drive
a
system’s
change
in
Sport-for-All,
while
such
change
might
be
needed.
One
example
here
is
that
organized
sport
participation
increased
in
most
European
countries
and
Australia
until
a
decade
ago
but
since
has
only
grown
marginally
or
even
flattened,
seemingly
having
reached
a
maximum
within
the
current
sport
system
and
policies
(Eime
et
al.,
2015;
Hoekman,
Breedveld,
&
Scheerder,
2011).
The
communities
of
practice
lens
suggests
that
Sport-for-All
learning
and
sharing
is
limited
because
of
the
lack
of
possibilities
for
all
practitioners
to
contribute
to
the
community.
A
more
fully
active
community
might
be
necessary
for
change
(Goodyear,
Casey,
&
Kirk,
2014).
Sport-for-All
is
facing
challenges,
as
Wenger
and
Trayner’s
(2013)
study
of
Sportanddev,
as
a
sport
delivery
community,
concluded
that
the
communities
of
practice
was
not
exploited
to
its
full
extent
and
that
what
was
required
was
more
sense
of
belonging
to
the
community
and
more
sharing
among
the
practitioners
in
the
communities.
We
found
that
English
and
Flemish
governing
bodies
websites
worked
on
the
identity
and
belonging
aspects,
while
Sportanddev
and
Australian
Sport
Commission
scored
better
on
the
sharing
part
but
none
of
the
four
resembled
a
fully-fledged
community
of
practice,
thus
limiting
the
opportunities
for
improving
Sport-for-All
in
their
regions.
7.
Conclusion
Sport-for-All
requires
social
learning
processes
and
the
community
of
practice
provides
a
platform
for
this
learning.
Although
the
concept
of
community
of
practice
in
its
narrow
sense
might
not
fully
match
the
instrumental
approach
taken
in
this
study,
its
broader
applicability
proved
a
useful
lens
for
studying
the
extent
to
which
knowledge
is
shared
and
created
in
the
whole
community
of
people
and
actors
involved
in
Sport-for-All
as
well
as
unravelling
the
role
of
the
knowledge
brokers
within
it.
The
four
cases
demonstrated
that
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
are
active
and
play
an
important
role
in
shaping
practices
in
the
field
but
fall
short
of
exploiting
their
full
potential.
We
noticed
some
limitations
and
pitfalls.
On
the
one
hand,
communities
of
practice
need
brokers
and
boundary
spanners,
but,
on
the
other
hand,
dominance
of
those
brokers
might
be
affecting
the
working
of
communities.
A
well-working
social
learning
process
in
communities
of
practices
is
crucial
to
advance
knowledge
about
enhancing
sport
participation.
A
community
of
practice
lens
allows
understanding
the
challenges
of
delivering
Sport-for-All,
for
instance
on
how
to
develop
knowledge
to
increase
sport
participation
among
certain
target
groups
or
enhance
social
learning
so
all
people
involved
in
Sport-for-All
have
the
best
available
knowledge.
The
contribution
to
sport
management
lies
in
applying
the
14
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

community
of
practice
lens
to
Sport-for-All
practices.
The
value
of
communities
of
practice
in
sport
management
extends
beyond
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice
and
has
applicability
to
offer
to
other
knowledge-intensive
areas
of
sport,
such
as
elite
sport,
governance,
coaching,
and
fan
monitoring.
The
concept
of
community
of
practice
adds
to
the
sport
management
literature
on
collaboration
by
investigating
more
organic
collaborations
in
which
not
common
goals
or
activities,
but
common
interests
and
knowledge,
are
central.
We
show
the
importance
of
knowledge
sharing
and
the
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport
in
such
types
of
informal
collaborations.
It
also
underlines
that
implementing
sport
policy
builds
on
knowledge
that
is
developed
and
shared
in
a
larger
community
involving
all
kind
of
experts
and
brokering
organizations.
Policymakers
working
on
the
implementation
of
Sport-for-All
objectives
should
be
aware
of
the
potential
of
well-cultivated
but
not
broker-dominated
communities
of
practice.
Finally,
we
add
to
understanding
the
governance
of
governing
bodies
of
sport
by
indicating
an
inherited
dualism
between
their
enhancing
and
inhibiting
role
in
knowledge
sharing
and
creation,
which
has
implications
for
the
realization
of
the
sport-for-all
policy
and
governance
of
governing
bodies
of
sport.
Governing
bodies
of
sport
managers
need
to
be
aware
of
this
dualism
and
use
brokering
the
communities
of
practice
as
an
explicit
part
of
their
task
in
a
facilitating
rather
than
controlling
way.
An
important
limitation
of
our
study
concerns
the
data
that
were
collected
through
publicly
available
sources,
such
as
websites,
and
interviews
with
community
of
practice
knowledge
brokers,
instead
of
with
members
of
the
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice.
Further
research
could
include
interviews
with
more
actors,
especially
those
on
the
borders
of
the
communities
of
practice,
and
in
other
connected
communities.
Future
scholars
can
also
analyze
more
in-depth
the
individual
and
organizational
social
learning
processes
within
the
community
and
take
a
longitudinal
approach
to
understanding
how
practices
are
learned
and
become
standards.
The
study
is
limited
in
scope
with
the
focus
on
the
knowledge
brokering
role
of
governing
bodies
of
sport,
which
is
an
important
influence
on
the
social
learning
in
the
communities
of
practice
but
is
not
about
unravelling
the
learningprocess
itself.
Conflict
of
interest
None.
References
Ardichvili,
A.
(2008).
Learning
and
knowledge
sharing
in
virtual
communities
of
practice:
Motivators,
barriers,
and
enablers.
Advances
in
Developing
Human
Resources,
10(4),
541–554.
Aubry,
M.,
Müller,
R.,
&
Glückler,
J.
(2011).
Exploring
PMOs
through
community
of
practice
theory.
Project
Management
Journal,
42(5),
42–56.
Ayas,
K.,
&
Zeniuk,
N.
(2001).
Project-based
learning:
Building
communities
of
reflective
practitioners.
Management
Learning,
32(1),
61–76.
Barley,
S.
R.,
&
Kunda,
G.
(2001).
Bringing
work
back
in.
Organization
Science,
12(1),
76–95.
Bastow,
S.,
Dunleavy,
P.,
&
Tinkler,
J.
(2014).
The
impact
of
the
social
sciences.
London:
Sage.
Bergsgard,
N.
A.,
Houlihan,
B.,
Mangset,
P.,
Nodland,
S.
I.,
&
Rommetvedt,
H.
(2007).
Sport
policy:
A
comparative
analysis
of
stability
and
change.
Routledge.
Brown,
J.
S.,
&
Duguid,
P.
(1991).
Organizational
learning
and
communities-of-practice:
Towards
a
unified
view
of
working,
learning
and
innovation.
Organization
Science,
2,
40–57.
Coalter,
F.
(2013).
Sport
for
development:
What
game
are
we
playing?
London:
Routledge.
Conklin,
J.,
Lusk,
E.,
Harris,
M.,
&
Stolee,
P.
(2013).
Knowledge
brokers
in
a
knowledge
network:
The
case
of
Seniors
Health
Research
Transfer
Network
knowledge
brokers.
Implement
Science,
8(7),
1–10.
Cousens,
L.,
&
Barnes,
M.
(2009).
Sport
delivery
in
a
highly
socialized
environment:
A
case
study
of
embeddedness.
Journal
of
Sport
Management,
23(5),
574–
590.
Cousens,
L.,
Barnes,
M.,
&
MacLean,
J.
(2012).
Strategies
to
increase
sport
participation
in
Canada:
The
role
of
a
coordinated
network.
International
Journal
of
Sport
Management
and
Marketing,
12(3/4),
198 –2016.
Culver,
D.,
&
Trudel,
P.
(2008).
Clarifying
the
concept
of
communities
of
practice
in
sport.
International
Journal
of
Sports
Science
&
Coaching,
3(1),
1–10.
Dobbels,
L.,
Voets,
J.,
Marlier,
M.,
De
Waegeneer,
E.,
&
Willem,
A.
(2018).
Why
network
structure
and
coordination
matter:
A
social
network
analysis
of
sport
for
disadvantaged
people.
International
Review
for
the
Sociology
of
Sport,
53(3),
572–593.
Edwards,
M.
B.
(2015).
The
role
of
sport
in
community
capacity
building:
An
examination
of
sport
for
development
research
and
practice.
Sport
Management
Review,
18(1),
6–19.
Eime,
R.
M.,
Sawyer,
N.,
Harvey,
J.
T.,
Casey,
M.
M.,
Westerbeek,
H.,
&
Payne,
W.
R.
(2015).
Integrating
public
health
and
sport
management:
Sport
participation
trends
2001–2010.
Sport
Management
Review,
18(2),
207–217.
Flyvbjerg,
B.
(2006).
Five
misunderstandings
about
case-study
research.
Qualitative
Inquiry,
12(2),
219–245.
Garner,
P.,
&
Hill,
D.
M.
(2017).
Cultivating
a
community
of
practice
to
enable
coach
development
in
Alpine
ski
coaches.
International
Sport
Coaching
Journal,
4
(1),
63–75.
Gillespie,
T.
(2010).
The
politics
of’
platforms’.
New
Media
&
Society,
12(3),
347–364.
Girginov,
V.
(2008).
Management
of
sport
development.
Oxford:
Elsevier.
Girginov,
V.,
&
Hills,
L.
(2008).
A
sustainable
sports
legacy:
Creating
a
link
between
the
London
Olympics
and
sports
participation.
The
International
Journal
of
the
History
of
Sport,
25(14),
2091–2116.
Girginov,
V.,
Taks,
M.,
Boucher,
B.,
&
Holman,
M.
(2009).
Canadian
national
sport
organisations’
use
of
the
web
for
relationship
marketing
in
promoting
sport
participation.
International
Journal
of
Sports
Communication,
2(2),
164 –184.
Girginov,
V.,
Toohey,
K.,
&
Willem,
A.
(2015a).
Creating
and
leveraging
knowledge
to
promote
sport
participation:
The
role
of
public
governing
bodies
of
sport.
European
Sport
Management
Quarterly,
15(5),
555–578.
Girginov,
V.,
Toohey,
K.,
&
Willem,
A.
(2015b).
Information,
knowledge
creation
and
innovation
management
in
sport:
An
introduction
to
the
thematic
section.
European
Sport
Management
Quarterly,
15(5),
516–517.
Goodyear,
V.
A.,
Casey,
A.,
&
Kirk,
D.
(2014).
Tweet
me,
message
me,
like
me:
Using
social
media
to
facilitate
pedagogical
change
within
an
emerging
community
of
practice.
Sport,
Education
and
Society,
19(7),
927–943.
Green,
M.
(2006).
From
‘sport
for
all’to
not
about
‘sport’at
all?:
Interrogating
sport
policy
interventions
in
the
United
Kingdom.
European
Sport
Management
Quarterly,
6(3),
217–238.
Grix,
J.,
&
Phillpots,
L.
(2011).
Revisiting
the
‘governance
narrative’:‘asymmetrical
network
governance’and
the
deviant
case
of
the
sports
policy
sector.
Public
Policy
and
Administration,
26(1),
3–19.
Harris,
A.,
&
Jones,
M.
(2010).
Professional
learning
communities
and
system
improvement.
Improving
Schools,
13(2),
172 –181.
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
15
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005

Hoekman,
R.,
Breedveld,
K.,
&
Scheerder,
J.
(2011).
Introduction
to
the
special
issue
on
sports
participation
in
Europe.
European
Journal
for
Sport
and
Society,
8
(1-2),
7–13.
Houlihan,
B.
(2008).
Public
sector
sport
policy
developing
a
framework
for
analysis.
International
Review
for
the
Sociology
of
Sport,
40(2),
163–18 5.
Houlihan,
B.,
&
Green,
M.
(2009).
Modernization
and
sport:
The
reform
of
Sport
England
and
UK
Sport.
Public
administration,
87(3),
678–698.
Hylton,
K.,
&
Totten,
M.
(2008).
Community
sports
development.
In
K.
Hylton,
&
P.
Bramham
(Eds.),
Sports
development:
Policy,
process
and
practice
(pp.
77–
117).
London:
Routledge.
Kirkman,
B.
L.,
Cordery,
J.
L.,
Mathieu,
J.,
Rosen,
B.,
&
Kukenberger,
M.
(2013).
Global
organizational
communities
of
practice:
The
effects
of
nationality
diversity,
psychological
safety,
and
media
richness
on
community
performance.
Human
Relations,
66(3),
333–362.
Kothari,
A.,
Boyko,
J.
A.,
Conklin,
J.,
Stolee,
P.,
&
Sibbald,
S.
L.
(2015).
Communities
of
practice
for
supporting
health
systems
change:
A
missed
opportunity.
Health
Research
Policy
and
Systems,
13(1),
33.
Lam,
A.
(1997).
Embedded
firms,
embedded
knowledge:
Problems
of
collaboration
and
knowledge
transfer
in
global
cooperative
ventures.
Organization
Studies,
18(6),
973–996.
Lave,
J.,
&
Wenger,
E.
(1991).
Situated
learning:
Legitimate
peripheral
participation.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Li,
L.
C.,
Grimshaw,
J.
M.,
Nielsen,
C.,
Judd,
M.,
Coyte,
P.
C.,
&
Graham,
I.
D.
(2009).
Evolution
of
Wenger’s
concept
of
community
of
practice.
Implementation
Science,
4(1),
11.
Lin,
Y.
L.,
&
Kao,
C.
H.
(2016).
A
Study
on
the
policy
of
sport
for
all
in
Taiwan
from
the
perspective
of
the
new
public
service.
Asian
Sports
Management
Review,
10,
2–10.
Lindsey,
I.
(2006).
Local
partnerships
in
the
United
Kingdom
for
the
new
opportunities
for
PE
and
sport
programme:
A
policy
network
analysis.
European
Sport
Management
Quarterly,
6(2),
167–184.
Marlier,
M.,
Van
Dyck,
D.,
Cardon,
G.,
De
Bourdeaudhuij,
I.,
Babiak,
K.,
&
Willem,
A.
(2015).
Interrelation
of
sport
participation,
physical
activity,
social
capital
and
mental
health
in
disadvantaged
communities:
A
SEM-analysis.
PloS
One,
10(10),
18.
Mayer,
A.,
Woulfin,
S.,
&
Warhol,
L.
(2015).
Moving
the
center
of
expertise:
Applying
a
communities
of
practice
framework
to
understand
coaching
in
urban
school
reform.
Journal
of
Educational
Change,
16(1),
101–12 3.
Meyrick,
J.
(2006).
What
is
good
qualitative
research?
A
first
step
towards
a
comprehensive
approach
to
judging
rigour/quality.
Journal
of
Health
Psychology,
11(5),
799–808.
Mintzberg,
H.
(2009).
Rebuilding
companies
as
communities.
Harvard
Business
Review,
87(7/8),
140 –143.
Misener,
K.,
&
Doherty,
A.
(2009).
A
case
study
of
organizational
capacity
in
nonprofit
community
sport.
Journal
of
Sport
Management,
23(4),
457–482.
Nath,
C.,
Huh,
J.,
Adupa,
A.
K.,
&
Jonnalagadda,
S.
R.
(2016).
Website
sharing
in
online
health
communities:
A
descriptive
analysis.
Journal
of
Medical
Internet
Research,
18(1).
Nonaka,
I.
(1994).
A
dynamic
theory
of
organizational
knowledge
creation.
Organization
Science,
5(1),
14–37.
Phillpots,
L.,
Grix,
J.,
&
Quarmby,
T.
(2011).
Centralized
grassroots
sport
policy
and
‘new
governance’:
A
case
study
of
County
Sports
Partnerships
in
the
UK–
Unpacking
the
paradox.
International
Review
for
the
Sociology
of
Sport,
46(3),
265–281.
Polanyi,
M.
(1962).
Personal
knowledge:
Toward
a
post-critical
philosophy.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Roberts,
J.
(2006).
Limits
to
communities
of
practice.
Journal
of
Management
Studies,
43(3),
623–639.
Robson,
C.
(2011).
Real
world
research:
A
resource
for
social
scientists
and
practitioner-researchers
(Regional
Surveys
of
the
World).
Oxford:
Blackwell
Publishing.
Rowe,
N.
(2009).
The
active
people
survey:
A
catalyst
for
transforming
evidence-based
sport
policy
in
England.
International
Journal
of
Sport
Policy
and
Politics,
1(1),
89–98.
Sharpe,
E.
K.
(2006).
Resources
at
the
grassroots
of
recreation:
Organizational
capacity
and
quality
of
experience
in
a
community
sport
organization.
Leisure
Sciences,
28(4),
385–401.
Shaw,
S.,
&
Hoeber,
L.
(2016).
Unclipping
our
wings:
Ways
forward
in
qualitative
research
in
sport
management.
Sport
Management
Review,
19(3),
255–265.
Skille,
E.
(2008).
Understanding
sport
clubs
as
sport
policy
implementers:
A
theoretical
framework
for
the
analysis
of
the
implementation
of
central
sport
policy
through
local
and
voluntary
sport
organizations.
International
Review
for
the
Sociology
of
Sport,
43(2),
181 –200.
Skille,
E.,
&
Osteras,
J.
(2011).
What
does
sport
mean
to
you?
Fun
and
other
preferences
for
adolescents’
sport
participation.
Critical
Public
Health,
21(3),
359–
372.
Sportanddev
(2016).
Vison,
mission,
goals.
Retrieved
from.
http://www.sportanddev.org/en/about_this_platform/vision_mission_goals22/.
Stoszkowski,
J.,
&
Collins,
D.
(2014).
Communities
of
practice,
social
learning
and
networks:
Exploiting
the
social
side
of
coach
development.
Sport,
Education
and
Society,
19(6),
773–788.
Stoszkowski,
J.,
&
Collins,
D.
(2016).
Sources,
topics
and
use
of
knowledge
by
coaches.
Journal
of
Sports
Sciences,
34(9).
Tracy,
S.
J.
(2010).
Qualitative
quality:
Eight
“big-tent”
criteria
for
excellent
qualitative
research.
Qualitative
Inquiry,
16(10),
837–851.
Van
Tuyckom,
C.,
&
Scheerder,
J.
(2010).
Sport
for
all?
Insight
into
stratification
and
compensation
mechanisms
of
sporting
activity
in
the
27
European
Union
member
states.
Sport,
Education
and
Society,
15(4),
495–512.
Vos,
S.,
Breesch,
D.,
Késenne,
S.,
Van
Hoecke,
J.,
Vanreusel,
B.,
&
Scheerder
(2011).
Governmental
subsidies
and
coercive
pressures:
Evidence
from
sport
clubs
and
their
resource
dependencies.
European
Journal
for
Sport
and
Society,
8(4),
257–280.
Wenger,
E.
(1998).
Communities
of
practice:
Learning,
meaning
and
identity.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Wenger,
E.
(2000).
Communities
of
practice
and
social
learning
systems.
Organization,
7(2),
225–246.
Wenger,
E.
(2010).
Communities
of
practice
and
social
learning
systems:
The
career
of
a
concept.
Social
learning
and
communitities
of
practice.
London:
Springer,
179 –198.
Wenger,
E.
C.,
&
Snyder,
W.
M.
(2000).
Communities
of
practice:
The
organizational
frontier.
Harvard
Business
Review139 –145.
(January-February).
Wenger,
E.,
&
Trayner,
B.
(2013).
International
Platform
on
Sport
&
Development:
A
strategic
review,
report.
47.
Wenger,
E.,
McDermott,
R.
A.,
&
Snyder,
W.
(2002).
Cultivating
communities
of
practice:
A
guide
to
managing
knowledge.
Harvard
Business
Press.
Williams,
P.
(2002).
The
competent
boundary
spanner.
Public
Administration,
80(1),
103 –124.
Yin,
R.
(2017).
Case
study
research
and
applications:
Design
and
methods.
London:
Sage
publications.
16
A.
Willem
et
al.
/
Sport
Management
Review
xxx
(2018)
xxx–xxx
G
Model
SMR
510
No.
of
Pages
16
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
A.
Willem,
et
al.,
Governing
bodies
of
sport
as
knowledge
brokers
in
Sport-for-All
communities
of
practice,
Sport
Management
Review
(2018),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2018.08.005