Critical Discourse Analysis as Theory, Methodology, and Analyses in Sport Management Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a theory, methodology, and type of analysis used across various fields, including linguistics, sociology, and philosophy. CDA focuses on how language is used; discourses are found within language, and knowledge is created through these discourses. CDA can be beneficial to sport management scholars who seek to question existing power structures. The purpose of this paper was to highlight the value and appropriateness of CDA forJournal of Sport Managementreaders in an effort to see this approach become more prevalent in the journal. The authors shared their perspectives about the lack of critical qualitative methodologies inJournal of Sport Management, presented theoretical foundations of CDA, showcased its application in sport management studies, and explored four theoretical, methodological, and analytical approaches for future use. The authors also provided suggestions for scholars to adopt discourse-related methodologies to enhance knowledge creation in their field. Finally, the authors acknowledged the limitations of this approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.152 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".