Generalisation in relation to qualitative research has rarely been discussed in-depth in sport and exercise psychology, the sociology of sport, sport coaching, or sport management journals. Often there is no mention of generalizability in qualitative studies. When generalizability is mentioned in sport and exercise science journals it is often talked about briefly or highlighted as a limitation/weakness of qualitative research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed discussion of generalisation in order to dispel any misunderstandings or myths about generalizability in qualitative research and offer guidance about how researchers might consider generalisation. It is emphasised that it is a misunderstanding to claim that qualitative research lacks generalizability. It is highlighted that statistical types of generalizability that inform quantitative research are not applicable to judge the value of qualitative research or claim that it lacks generalizability. Reasons as to why researchers might consider generalizability in qualitative research are then offered. It is emphasised that generalisations can be made from qualitative research, but just not in the same way as quantitative results are. To help guide how generalisation might be considered, four different types of generalizability are presented: naturalistic generalisation, transferability, analytical generalizability and intersectional generalizability. Practical strategies are also offered for considering generalizability when seeking to publish qualitative research or reflect on already published work. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations to support high quality and rigorous qualitative research for scholars – including journal editors and reviewers – in relation to generalizability.

There is growing interest in co-production in the sport, exercise, and health sciences. That includes from researchers in sport and exercise physiology, public health, sports medicine, sport sociology, sport and exercise psychology, sport management, physical education, sport coaching, leisure studies, geography, and occupational therapy. Despite the disciplinary spanning interest, academic resources in our field dedicated to the complex problem of comprehensively detailing the co-production of research and taking it forward are lacking. This paper is a modest attempt to do this. Rationales outlining the need for a resource are first presented. What is meant by co-production is then attended to. An original typology is developed to illuminate different ways co-production is defined and put to use. In the typology three differing types of co-production are described: Citizens’ Contributions to Public Services; Integrated Knowledge Translation; and Equitable and Experientially-informed Research. Why researchers co-produce research, along with various challenges involved with doing it, are then offered. It is suggested that generally university structures and academic norms tend not to facilitate co-production processes. Next, working principles to promote co-production as a means to advance a participatory turn in sport, exercise, and health research are introduced. We also highlight practical options for how to co-produce research and advance various criteria for judging the quality of it. Throughout it is highlighted why qualitative researchers are well prepared to do high quality co-produced research and should be considered important collaborators for researchers without qualitative expertise intending to co-produce research. The paper closes with future directions.

This paper offers a concise overview of qualitative methods in sport and the social sciences. A broad definition of qualitative research is first offered, after which various qualitative traditions – ethnography, grounded theory, narrative inquiry and critical inquiry – are described. After describing these traditions, the paper highlights several ways in which social scientific sport researchers might collect data for their investigations. These are interviewing, participant observation, visual methods and the Internet. Next, the paper describes a type of analysis that qualitative sport researchers might use to make sense of the data they collect. Finally, generalizability and validity are discussed in relation to qualitative sport research in the social sciences.

Physical activity (PA) can have a positive impact upon health and well-being for people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite these benefits, people with SCI are within the most physically inactive segment of society that comprises disabled people. This original meta-synthesis of qualitative research was undertaken to explore the barriers, benefits and facilitators of leisure time physical activity (LTPA) among people with SCI. Articles published since 2000 were identified through a rigorous search of electronic databases, supported with a hand search of relevant journals and papers. In total, 64 papers were read in full, and based on inclusion criteria, 18 were relevant for review. The key themes constructed from the data were summarised, compared and synthesised. Eight interrelated concepts were identified as barriers, benefits and/or facilitators of LTPA: (i) well-being (WB); (ii) environment; (iii) physical body; (iv) body–self relationship; (v) physically active identity; (vi) knowledge; (vii) restitution narrative; (viii) perceived absences. Based on the synthesised evidence, healthcare professionals need to appreciate the relationships between the barriers, benefits and facilitators of LTPA in order to successfully promote a physically active lifestyle. Equally, a more critical attitude to PA promotion is called for in terms of possible adverse consequences.

Although researchers have identified the benefits of physical activity on well-being, there is little evidence concerning the effects of nature-based physical activity. We investigated the effect of one nature-based activity—surfing—on the well-being of combat veterans experiencing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We conducted interviews and participant observations with a group of combat veterans belonging to a United Kingdom-based veterans’ surfing charity. Our primary analytical approach was dialogical narrative analysis. Based on our rigorous analysis and findings, we suggest that surfing facilitated a sense of respite from PTSD. Respite was a fully embodied feeling of release from suffering that was cultivated through surfing and shaped by the stories veterans told of their experiences. We significantly extend previous knowledge on physical activity, combat veterans, and PTSD by highlighting how nature-based physical activity, encapsulated in the conceptual notion of the “blue gym,” can promote well-being among combat veterans.

Narrative inquiry, as one form of qualitative research, has recently attracted some interest within the field of sport and exercise psychology. Seeking to be theoretically imaginative and instigate dialogue, this article focuses attention on five main issues within ongoing conversations among sport and exercise psychology researchers who promote and/or engage in narrative research. Theoretically inspired and grounded, these interrelated issues include, motivations for why researchers have turned to narrative, the concept of ‘the self’, interviewing, the issue of ‘truth’, and representation. Some implications of these issues for sport and exercise psychology are also highlighted. The article closes with some reflections about the future directions that narrative inquiry might take.