4.3 Article

Mind the Gap: A Grounded Theory of Dual Career Pathways in Sport

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 280-301

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10413200.2019.1654559

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study uses grounded theory to explore the theory of dual career pathways, categorizing dual career experiences into sporting pathways, educational/vocational pathways, and dual career pathways. Each pathway is associated with different outcomes and considerations for research and practice.
The purpose of this study is to identify and examine individuals' experiences of and the outcomes of sport and education or vocational development, with the intention to establish an overarching theory of dual career (DC) pathways in sport. Because the contrasting experiences and outcomes of a DC are largely unguided by a theoretical model, the grounded theory method was selected to address the research aim. Seventeen DC athletes took part in a life-story interview; these were analyzed, along with previous literature, to develop a conceptual understanding of the research area. The findings that emerged from this study supported a categorization of DC experiences into 3 pathways: a sporting pathway, an educational/vocational pathway, and a DC pathway. The overarching themes of these pathways were encompassed into 3 vignettes, and the outcomes of each pathway are discussed. The developed grounded theory presents a conceptualization of different DC development pathways, the practical implications likely to be associated with these pathways, and provides a framework for future research. Lay summary: The study develops a theory of dual career pathways and the outcomes via a method known as grounded theory. Three main pathways were identified: a dual career pathway, a sporting pathway, and an educational/vocational pathway. Each pathway is associated with various outcomes and considerations for research and practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available