Theory-Building and Multi-Level Analysis: Further Broadening the Horizon of Communication & Sport

Abstract

In this brief essay, I will highlight and elaborate on some of the main reflections put forth by Cummins and Hahn in their recently published systematic review of 10 years of academic work in Communication & Sport (2013–2022). In the first part, I will elaborate on some of the shortcomings the authors identify in the use of theory in the sampled articles. In the second section, I will reflect on methodological approaches in the journal, as they are discussed in the article, in particular the emphasis on content analysis. Cummins & Hahn’s review reveals how audience reception studies or examinations of production processes, or a combination of these, are still less represented in the journal than would ideally be the case. The essay closes with some concluding remarks summarizing and extending on some of the main challenges and ways forward as suggested by the authors.

Introduction

Cummins and Hahn’s (2025) contribution looks back and forth over the academic work that has appeared in Communication & Sport in its first ten volumes (2013–2022). It identifies commonalities in the use of methodology and theory over this period of time, providing insights into what gets emphasis and what not, thus providing useful input for considerations of future scholarship in the journal and the wider field of communication and sport.

Cummins & Hahn’s review shows, first of all, that Communication & Sport is a lively journal that incorporates insightful, international scholarship that draws on a great variety of methodologies and theories. As such, the journal lives up to its expectations formulated at its inception in 2013, to be an inclusive home for a diverse set of scholarly and theoretical traditions (Wenner, 2013). At the same time, Cummins & Hahns see opportunities to “further broaden the horizons” of the journal and “further advance its legitimacy in the field” (p. 2).

I will use this brief essay to reiterate, highlight and further elaborate on two (interrelated) ‘opportunities’ the authors refer to: (1) the articulation of theory, and (2) the methodological focus on media content. I will discuss these in separate sections followed by a brief conclusion.

Use of Theory

In their review, Cummins & Hahn allude to a lack of explicit articulation of theory in relatively many of the articles in the journal. More specifically, they show how the use of theory often remains limited to mere references to theory or a theoretical concept (theory as “brief reference”, p.16), instead of interrogating theory, or utilizing it as a guiding theoretical perspective. The example of hegemonic masculinity – a framework used in relatively many of the journal articles - is used to illustrate this, with hegemonic masculinity more often being merely referenced (59%) than used as a guiding theoretical framework (38.6%). And when it was referenced, the authors mention how it was being noted as a guiding concept much more often (79.5%) than as part of a more articulated formal theoretical perspective or framework (20.5%). The same more or less applies to the frequent use of the concept of ‘framing’ where references to framing theory as a theoretical perspective/framework remained usually implicit. The authors conclude that “although theory certainly appears within Communication & Sport, it often does just that – appears” (p. 13). Boeije (2010, p. 95) defines theoretical perspective as “a coherent framework that attempts to describe, understand and explain aspects of social life”. A theoretical perspective informs the questions we ask as scholars, and acts as a lens that guides the interpretation of our data (Macdonald et al., 2002). Silverman (2011), in his book on qualitative analysis, considers the clear articulation of theoretical perspective necessary to guarantee ‘theoretical transparency’ and sees it as one of the main pillars in doing trustworthy research. Theoretical transparency refers, in Silverman’s words, to making explicit “the theoretical stance from which the interpretation takes place and showing how this produces certain interpretations and excludes others” (p. 360). Cummins and Hahn (2025) provide some concrete suggestions for increasing such theoretical transparency, most notably encouraging scholars who submit to the journal to clearly and explicitly articulate and explain their theoretical perspective. Such explication of theoretical advancement will also be a useful antidote to what Maguire and Young (2002, p. 2) have once referred to as a main threat of academic research in the realm of sports: articles that remain too closely tied to ‘the here and now’ and to their specialized topic, without indicating broader theoretical significance. Asking of authors of journal articles to explicitly explain their theoretical perspective - in a separate Theory section, for example – will not only result in a better recognition of how their work is tied to theory-building, but will also open up space for different theories in the journal to engage with one another (Cummins & Hahn, 2025). Such an approach would render findings relevant beyond the specialized subject matter and square well – as Cummins & Hahn righty argue- with the interdisciplinary vision of the journal.

Multi-Level Analysis

At the same time, as scholars such as Grossberg (2006) and MacDonald et al. (2002) argued, theory cannot be a pursuit on its own but needs to be connected to empirical practice. Theory needs testing and trying out in the field, to see if it enables the asking of relevant questions and is helpful in getting at useful and innovative interpretations. In this light, it is relevant to touch on another finding by Cummins & Hahn: the journal’s strong methodological focus on content analysis. Based on frequency counts, Cummins & Hahn conclude that the analysis of media content (quantitative and qualitative) represent about 43% of the scholarship published in Communication & Sport, making content analysis (by far) the most dominant methodological approach in the journal articles. This is not surprising; many scholars have already referred to the overwhelming preoccupation with content analysis in the study of sports media (e.g. Bruce, 2013; Kane & Maxwell, 2011; Van Sterkenburg, 2020). And while content analyses have contributed significantly to the academic knowledge base on the workings of sports media, they have generally failed to address how ‘flesh and blood folk’ make sense of media content. This is a problem since researcher interpretations of media content may not square with those of actual media audiences (Lines, 2000). More comprehensive media studies – that combine various levels of analysis at the same time such as content and reception - are therefore needed. While this is of course nothing new, Cummins and Hahns’ review shows the necessity to reiterate this message ¹ .

Encouraging such ‘multi-level’ analysis also draws us into questions surrounding those producing sports media content. Similar to audience reception studies, production studies still remain an underdeveloped area in the field, including in Communication & Sport (Cummins & Hahn, 2025). We know relatively little, for example, about the processes that lie behind sports media content, whether it is mainstream media coverage or other forms of media content such as e-sports content (again, notable exceptions are e.g. Billings, 2008; Billings, Angelini, & MacArthur, 2017; Friman, Ruotsalainen, & Stahl, 2023; Schoch, 2022; Silk, Slack, & Amis, 2000). My own work and that of colleagues showed how sports media coverage incorporates racial and gender bias, but that the journalists producing the coverage often were unaware of it or denied their own use of biases (Van Lienden et al., 2024; Van Sterkenburg, De Heer, & Mashigo, 2021). In order to change this, we need to shift the focus and go to the source of the coverage – the journalists responsible for the actual sports content. Such research will not only will have scholarly impact but also impact on the ground, as a first step to reveal and start changing problematic practices in media content where needed.

Conclusion

I will conclude this reflection by summarizing and extending on some of the main recommendations put forward by Cummins and Hahn (2025) to further ‘broaden the horizon’ of the work of scholars in Communication & Sport. Most importantly, a stronger articulation of theoretical perspective in published work will showcase the journal’s contribution to advancement of theory. Theoretical advancement has been referred to by Billings & Hardin as one of the cornerstones of the journal, in their 2022 inaugural address as editors of the journal. Manuscripts that “seek theoretical and methodological advancement” pushing “boundaries and evoke new ways of thinking” should be prioritized over those who remain on already familiar intellectual grounds (Billings & Hardin, 2022, p. 3). It reflects Cummins & Hahn’s concrete suggestion that scholars in Communication & Sport clarify “how their work advances, contradicts, expands, or otherwise sheds light on their respective theories (p. 17). For proper theoretical advancement to happen, however, existing theory needs testing and trying out on a variety of empirical contexts – not just primarily the context of media content. While content analysis remains important for documenting the role of sports media in reproducing hegemonic discourses, we need to shift the focus more to individuals’ engagement with media and give more equal weight to the various dimensions within the entire ‘chain of meaning making’ related to media: production, content, and reception. Encouraging this kind of multi-level approach to research will further strengthen both the journal’s theoretical contribution and its methodological variety. It will result in an increasingly better understanding of everyday meaning-making in relation to sports media practices.