Reviewer comments: Gloria Agyemang, CPA 2014
Back from the brink; surviving near extinction in the not for profit sector.
Summary of paper
This paper is an interesting paper focusing on sports clubs in New Zealand. The paper uses
Bourdieu’s logic of practice theory to analyse its findings. It also uses Darwin theory about the
struggle for survival to set the context for how sports clubs fight for survival mainly where they
have had financial crises.
The paper starts by explaining Darwin's theory about the struggle for survival in nature. It provides
some interesting quotes from Darwin's 1909 seminal text. For example that nature does not make
sudden changes but rather changes very gradually. Small changes give each organism a slight
competitive edge over others providing those organisms with reproductive advantages to enable
them to survive the competition for resources.
The paper then proceeds to describe a later development of Darwin's theory called “punctuated
equilibrium”. This thesis suggests that after an explosive event, there is a period of disequilibrium
followed by a period of rapid organic evolution. The authors state that “the concept of stasis
alternating with explosive and rapid evolutionary change is now endemic in a wide range of natural
science scholarship” page 3. These ideas of explosion, stability and reaction have been drawn upon
in organisational studies of change management and transformational leadership. Punctuated
equilibrium has even been used to study changes in financial reporting (Waymire and Basu). In
terms of human organisation there are situations where an external jolt occurs after periods of
stability this is then followed by a periods of rapid change.
The paper then turns to Bourdieu and the example he gave of the struggles during a game of
football field. In football also there are “both explosive rapidity and unilineal directionality towards
each goal post, not unlike punctuated equilibrium”. The paper explains the three key elements of the
theory of practice. These are habitus, capitals and fields.
“Habitus is each individual’s disposition (The “feel for the game”; predispositions; tendencies;
inclinations; properties; perceptions and appreciations structured by each person's past and present
circumstances) page,5, It includes learned habits, tastes, skills, bodily skills, non -discursive
knowledge of a specific group. It goes without saying…
Fields… the place of the human struggle where there is competition and a desire to gain victory.
Capitals… the resources used in the field. Includes social capital (family, religious and cultural
heritage); cultural capital (forms of knowledge) ; symbolic capital (status; can be exchanged for
the other capitals) and economic capital (financial; however not explained in the paper).
The paper argues that when threatened an individual or a club may have to leave the field if they
cannot harness enough capital to survive the field. Where there is sufficient habitus to survive the
struggles, capitals may accumulate and the team will survive. In Figure 1 the paper shows 3
possible paths of transformation. Stability, a disturbance, leading to stability; stability, disturbance
leading to decline and extinction; finally, stability, disturbance and then survival and growth.
1
After a brief literature review of how Bourdieu has been used in the accounting literature the paper
proceeds to explain the empirical work undertaken which was looking at the financial vulnerability
and resilience of golf and football clubs in New Zealand. Interviews and focus groups were the
main data collection methods. Data from 7 focus groups and 17 interviewees were analysed to
identify 12 narratives which identified crises and the action taken to move the club or Regional
Sport organisation away from the crises. The outcome of the analysis is that 2 models are provided
as evidence of the transformations that sports clubs undertake when faced with financial crises.
The paper draws in the interview data to identify habitus, fields, and capitals of the sports clubs
(pages 7-9).
In the findings section the paper explains the 2 Models of transformation.
Model 1 explains the example of financial decline (loss of economic capital and social capital). This
was followed by a realignment of habitus, drawing on social capital; which led to a rebuilding of
economic and social capital. The key feature of Model 1 was that it was the changes were spurred
on by “competent volunteers”.
Model 2 is similar to Model 1. The main difference is that the changes in Model 2 were instigated
by a strong visionary leader. In all the case examples, there was only one club that depicted this. In
all the other examples, the resurgence was led by a group of committed and competent volunteers.
The paper’s conclusions (pages 10-11) are that:
1. The field of struggles, common to Bourdieu and Darwin, can be observed in every aspect of
human endeavour: corporate, political, sporting, religion and familial.
2. Disequilibrium may be caused from weaknesses within or external jolts, Bourdieu's Theory
of Practice clarifies the structural processes that great leaders intuitively use to rebuild and
survive for another season.
3. Habitus, field and capital are interdependent, and simultaneously constructed. None are
primary, dominant or causal.
4. The turn-around point has been observed to be driven from resources/capital wholly within
each club. The turnaround point has also been mostly observed to be a point at which
members with valuable capital agree to contribute and re-build the club; such members may
not normally agree to commit to serve on the governing committee during period of
equilibrium, but will respond when the needs are dire.
Comments on the paper
This is an interesting paper that shows much potential for publication. The paper, in my view, is at a
very early stage of development however and requires further work to get it in shape for
publication. A few things to consider as part of this process are the following.
a) The introduction should set the scene more carefully, highlighting the contribution that the
paper seeks to make and what previous literature suggests on the issue. In effect, what is the
gap in the literature, how is this work going to contribute; what is the central argument?
b) Though Darwin was interesting to read, it did not feature much in the subsequent part of the
paper. Is it necessary? If so , more linkage is needed within the empirical analysis and
discussion.
c) I agree with you that the discussion of Bourdieu is limited. You do need a stronger
discussion. In particular how habitus, fields and capitals interact together would be useful
for teasing out. You have discussed the three elements in terms of sport club but it is often
2
useful to see them in their “pure state” prior to relating them to your context. I refer you to
the paper by Emirbayer, M. and Johnson, V. (2008), "Bourdieu and organizational analysis",
Theory and Society, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
d) A fuller discussion of the concept of field is needed. Why do you see the club as a field
where there is a struggle? Similarly, I think you do not explain economic capital.
e) The empirical section of the paper requires most development. It would be useful (and
helpful for telling the story) if you could consider each case individually. We do not get a
sense of the case studies in a holistic way. You have presented the information, to my mind,
as a sort of survey. Using the sub titles such as “where is habitus observed” and “where is
capital observed” does not allow the paper to show the richness of the data, rather it seems
to be attempting to make a qualitative paper seem like a quantitative paper. See Pratt (2009)
It would be useful and interesting to get a feel for the individual sports clubs, their history (
from which habitus is derived), the crisis they faced, (what was the explosive event as
suggested by earlier discussion of punctuated equilibrium); what individual capitals did
each case depend on . I suspect if you look in more detail at individual cases, you will get a
much richer story with richer findings. I think you need to move away from attempts to
generalise as you seem to be doing. Get rid of this approach :“As shown in the analysis
below, the clustering around the first ‘model’ presented in this paper, along with further
support from the literature for ‘model’ two, suggest that these examples exhibit a
generalizability belying their smallness in number” (page 6). I suspect if you analyse the
cases separately, you may have more than 2 “models” to discuss.
f) The concluding discussion is too brief, arguably because the empirical discussion requires
development as stated in (e) above.
Overall this paper has great potential and should lead to some lively discussion at the conference.
Further references
Pratt, M. G. (2009), "For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative
research", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 856-862.
3