Having recently emerged as an intellectual project, new materialism (NM) is extending to different fields, including sport, exercise and health studies. However, it is still unclear why and how NM is new, which can jeopardise its potential impact in academia and society. The aim of this paper is to discuss the newness of NM and to explore how it plays out in relation to different issues, such as knowledge translation and partisan positions. At the same time, NM is used as a way of understanding my own positionality as a newcomer who is becoming an academic within a field having manifold intellectual debates while being shaped by a neoliberal rationality. Reasons as to why NM has to be more concerned about accessibility are provided, and a case for a receptive yet suspicious attitude towards the label ‘new’ is made. Several key points that might help newcomers start thinking with the ‘new’ are also highlighted. Next, an example of NM in action is presented. This section illuminates what NM brings to my research practice and, more specifically, how I re-created a concept that worked and is still working for me in my research on exercise and disability. The article closes by offering strategies to resist the neoliberal academic assemblage and inviting sport and exercise researchers to partake in collective environments that support the developing of new ways of thinking and becoming.

What physical activity (PA) training do current and future healthcare professionals (HCPs) receive in the UK? How is PA training delivered to them? The present scoping review looks at existing evidence to respond these questions. Seven databases were searched: Medline, SportDISCUS, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Review Database, and Web of Science. Grey literature sources and key stakeholders were consulted. Studies were screened for inclusion, data were extracted and charted, and findings were synthesised according to the two research questions. Of the 3535 identified studies, 25 were included. The results show that no standardised approach was used to deliver PA promotion in HCPs training. PA training content was chiefly underpinned by an epidemiological approach. Online delivery of content predominated in continuing professional development training, whereas in undergraduate healthcare curriculum, delivery strategies varied. Overall, the process of embedding PA in HCPs’ curriculum and culture is ongoing. In addition to highlighting what is present within healthcare education, this study identifies further opportunities. Potential avenues include extending PA promotion into other workforces, including social workers.

This paper qualitatively examines environmental factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to participation in physical activity (PA) of people with physical disabilities. Interview data were collected from 27 Spanish university students through the innovative method of two-on-one interviews. Thereafter, data were subject to a flexible thematic analysis. Three themes were constructed: associations; PA practice spaces; and nonhumans. Concepts from different theories were used to generate meaningful interpretations around each theme. Drawing on our results, we offer several reflections and directions. Two key messages can be highlighted. First, environmental barriers and facilitators are context dependent and thus do not precede the circumstances in which they emerge. Second, Spanish universities should work harder to become relevant PA promoting environments for students with physical disability. The knowledge generated in this study is expected to inform the design, implementation and evaluation of programs promoting PA among Spanish university students with physical disability.

This article explores a question that was left mostly unanswered in a recent special issue of Qualitative Inquiry surveying the field of postqualitative research: How can conventional and post qualitative research coexist within the qualitative community? The importance of addressing this key question is first highlighted. Then, a possible answer is offered, which is: By promoting a new paradigm dialogue grounded in the principles of agonistic pluralism. Challenging the idea of consensus and harmonious coexistence, agonistic pluralism allows casting researchers with competing paradigmatic positions as adversaries or “friendly enemies,” which exist together in the same space without each sacrificing its beliefs about knowledge production. We invite members of the global qualitative community to explore this possibility.