Large Questions, Small Questions, and Leaky Ones Too

in Kinesiology Review
View More View Less
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $41.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $55.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $79.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $105.00

An examination of the kinds of questions we ask ourselves provides a window through which to interpret our history and imagine our future. I suggest that there are three kinds of questions—large ones, small ones, and leaky ones. Those that are identified as large and small map onto the value structures we have created for ourselves in higher education. I call these structures caste systems in which some subdisciplines are valued over others, and theoreticians stand above both practitioners and skill teachers. Leaky questions are those that cross boundaries because they cannot be effectively answered by those residing in any one area or at any one level. I argue that leaky questions generate humility, mutual respect, and incentives for collaboration. I trace my own attempts to address all three kinds of questions as a sport philosopher and conclude that our brighter future in kinesiology, including our attempts to address the harms created by the caste system, requires us to see that most of the questions we find interesting are, in fact, leaky in nature.

The author (rsk1@psu.edu) is Professor Emeritus with the Dept. of Kinesiology, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA.

  • Bucher, C. (1960). Foundations of physical education (3rd ed.). Mosby.

  • Capra, F., & Luisi, P. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University.

  • Cremin, L. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education—1876–1957. Vintage Books.

  • Davis, E. (1961). The philosophic process in physical education. Lea & Febiger.

  • Davis, P. (2006). Game strengths. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 33(1), 5066. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2006.9714690

  • Gerber, E. (1966). Three Interpretations of the role of physical education: Charles Harold McCloy, Jay Bryan Nash, and Jesse Feiring Williams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Henry, F. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. In H. Slusher & E. Lockhart (Eds.), Anthology of contemporary readings: An introduction to physical education (2nd ed., pp. 277281). Wm. C. Brown.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Beacon.

  • Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. The University of Chicago.

  • Kelso, S., & Engstrom, D. (2006). The complementary nature. The MIT Press.

  • Koveces, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

  • Kretchmar, S. (1996). Movement and play on higher education’s contested terrain. Quest, 48(4), 433441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1996.10484208

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kretchmar, S. (2005). Game flaws. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 32(1), 3648. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2005.9714669

  • Kretchmar, S. (2008a). Calling the beautiful game ugly: A response to Davis. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 2(3), 321336. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320802475747

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kretchmar, S. (2008b). The utility of silos and bunkers in the evolution of kinesiology. Quest, 60(1), 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2008.10483564

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kretchmar, S. (2019). Huizinga’s uncertain Influence on the philosophy of play. A paper delivered at the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport Conference, Kyoto, Japan.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

  • Lawson, H.A. (2021). Boundary crossing and bridge building. Kinesiology Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1123/KR.2020-0053

  • McCloy, C. (1947). Philosophical bases for physical education. F.S. Crofts.

  • Metheny, E. (1968). Movement and meaning. McGraw-Hill.

  • Nash, J., & Cozens, F. (1959). An Introduction to physical education (5th ed.). W. B. Saunders.

  • Oberteuffer, D. (1956). Physical education. Harper and Brothers.

  • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. Norton.

  • Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking/Penguin.

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.

  • Slusher, H. (1967). Man, sport and existence: A critical analysis. Lea & Febiger.

  • Suits, B. (2014). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia (3rd ed.). Broadview Press.

  • Taylor, C. (2016). The language animal: The full shape of the human linguistic capacity. The Belknap Press/Harvard University.

  • Torres, C. (2002). Play as expression: An analysis based on the philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (unpublished doctoral dissertation [Penn State]). ProQuest Information and Learning, Ann Arbor, MI.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wilkerson, I. (2020). Caste: The origins of our discontents. Penguin Random House.

  • Williams, J. (1964). The principles of physical education (8th ed.). W. B. Saunders.

  • Wood, T. & Cassidy, R. (1927). The new physical education: A program of naturalized activities for education toward citizenship. The Macmillan Co.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeigler, E. (1964). Philosophical foundations for physical, health, and recreation education. Prentice-Hall.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 84 84 40
Full Text Views 12 12 3
PDF Downloads 7 7 1