QUEST, 1989. 41, 235-256
From Physical Education
to Kinanthropology:
A Quest for Academic
and Professional Identity
Roland Renson
This paper traces the origins of the current dissatisfaction with the term physical
education. A retrospective-comparative overview is given of the major
conceptual trends and structural developments that have arisen since the
academic status of physical education has been questioned. This quest starts
in the United States in 1964, then moves to the Francophone sphere, on to
Gennany and Great Britain, and ends in the Low Countries. Four major
conceptual trends are identified which are disciplinary, multi- or interdisciplinary
or cross-disciplinary in nature. In an attempt to integrate these
divergent approaches, the concept of kinanthropology is presented as an
epistemological claim and a common denominator for both the science and
the professional applications concemed with humans in movement.
Physical education is no longer considered an appropriate term for defining
the study of humans in movement. As a clear symptom of the present dissatisfaction
with the term physical education, the 25th anniversary conference
of AIESEP (The International Association of Higher Schools of Physical Education)
was entitled Human kinetics—Mouvement humain (Lisbon, December 2-5,
1987). The double subtitle New professional directions and Fundamental studies
clearly reflects the fact that the search for a new professional and scientific identity
has become an intemational endeavor.
In this paper I attempt to trace and interpret the origins of the dissatisfaction
with the term physical education. I offer a retrospective-comparative overview
of the major conceptual trends and structural developments that have arisen
since the academic status of physical education has been questioned. Up to tbe
present, however, most scholars who have attempted to construct an epistemological
framework bave shown a tendency to dwell within national or linguistic
boundaries. Just like tbe name of tbis journal, this comparative study can be seen
as a quest, in the medieval sense of an adventurous journey through intemational
literature. The search starts in tbe United States in 1964, from wbere it moves
About the Author: Roland Renson is with the Department of Kinanthropology at
the Institute of Physical Education, K.U. Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, B-3030, Leuven,
Belgium.
233
236 RENSON
to Francopbone Canada and tbe Francopbone sphere, then to Germany and Great
Britain, ending up in tbe Low Countries.
The first international summary of tbe conceptual problem was made in
1974 during an international seminar on Concepts of Physical Education and Sport
Sciences (Simri, 1974). In tbe same year Claude Bouchard (1974) published an
extensive overview of the topic. This contribution, therefore, concentrates primarily
on tbe very beginnings of the debate and on developments that have occurred
since 1974.
Subsequently, a more prospective approach is taken. I present a twodimensional
taxonomy to illustrate tbe concept of kinantbropology. The kinantbropology
paradigm attempts to integrate fragmented approacbes and offers an
epistemological framework and common denominator for both scientific and
profession^ applications focusing on bumans in movement in tbe context of sport,
play, dance, physical exercise, work, or rehabilitation.
Physical Education in the U.S.: Discipline or Profession?
Altbougb tbe roots of discussion on tbe terminology and tbe academic status
of pbysical education in the U.S. can be traced in the 19tb century (Park,
1981; Rose, 1986), the debate was not opened until the 196O's. Franklin Henry's
address at tbe 1964 meeting of the National College Pbysical Education Association
for Men (NCPEAM), "Physical education: An academic discipline," (publisbed
in JOHFER, September, 1964 and further explicated in Quest in 1978),
is generally accepted as having caused the "great debate" in Nortb America.
Henry's concem was "defming, at least in a general way, the field of knowledge
tbat constitutes tbe academic discipline of physical education in the college degree
program." He made tbe following statement, wbicb is often quoted and discussed:
An academic discipline is an organized body of knowledge collectively
embraced in a formal course of leaming. The acquisition of such knowledge
is assumed to be an adequate and worthy objective as such, without any demonstration
or requirement of practical application. The content is theoretical
and scholarly as distinguished from technical and professional. (Henry, 1978,
p. 13)
Stressing tbe need for integration, Henry pointed out that this academic discipline
cannot be synthesized by a curriculum composed of carefully selected courses
from other departments; nor does it consist of tbe application of the disciplines
of anthropology, pbysiology, psychology, and the like to the study of pbysical
activity. He stressed the cross-disciplinary nature of tbis field of knowledge and
concluded as follows:
Furihennore, the purely motor aspects of human behavior need far more attention
than they currently receive in the traditional fields of anthropology and
psychology. If the academic discipline of physical education did not already
exist, there would be a need for it to be invented. (Henry, 1964)
Henry's paper has given rise to many controversies and to confusion about
tbe specialization-fragmentation issue in the academic discipline. Some even con-
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 237
sider tbe paper in itself to be the contributing source of division and disunity between
the academic discipline and tbe profession (Bressan, 1979; Harris, 1981).
The journal Quest was publisbed for the first time in the year of Henry's
address (1964). Since then, it has become an arena for discussion and also an
official "wailing wall" for the academic versus professional status debate. A selection
of articles tbat have appeared in Quest or elsewhere provides an expressive
testimony of the continuing controversy (Table 1).
The titles in Table I clearly reflect two major problems: (a) a professional
as opposed to a disciplinary orientation; and (b) the proliferation of new (sub)disciplines
without any mutual cobesiveness. On one band, there are voices wbich
accuse tbe disciplinarians of losing touch with the profession. According to Locke
(1977), pedagogy should be the main concem and teacher preparation should be
tbe role of physical education. On the otber hand, several new subdisciplines
emerged as scbolars focused on particular aspects. Biomecbanics, exercise physiology,
motor learning, sport psychology, sport sociology, history of sport and
physical education, sport philosophy, and so on gradually became recognized and
institutionalized as distinct entities (Rarick, 1967).
Although scholars like Henry (1964, 1978), Rarick (1967), and Brooks
(1981) have all claimed that human movement is a legitimate field of researcb,
that it should be cross-disciplinary, and that no otber discipline explores it, tbey
have failed to prove their thesis by providing a proper terminology and taxonomy
in order to create an integrated body of knowledge.' Ross (1974, 1978, 1981)
argued that tbe absence of such a paradigm or a central unifying theory has led
to the situation that pbysical education cannot be labeled as a discipline but ratber
"a cooperative amalgamation or association of subdisciplines" (Ross, 1978, p.
11). Zeigler (1983, 1985) cbose anotber tactic; be proposed to identify the socalled
"eight areas of scholarly study and researcb" of sport and pbysical education
with terms that are not currently part of tbe names of otber recognized disciplines.
For instance, instead of sociology of sport or psycbology of sport, one
should speak of "sociocultural and behavioral aspects." This proposal was conTable
1
Some Writings on the Wall
'Is the term physical education obsolete?" (Sage. 1969)
'Whither thou goest, physical education?" (Wrenn & Love, 1973)
'2001: The profession is dead—Was it murder or suicide?" (Bressan. 1979)
'Physicai education: A house divided" (Harris, 1981)
'Has the name, physical education, outlived its usefulness?" (Ojeme, 1984)
'Specialization + fragmentation = extermination: A formula for the demise of graduate
education" (Hoffman. 1985)
'Physical education and paranoia: Synonyms" (Thomas, 1985)
'Is there a discipline of physical education?" (Rose, 1986)
'Are we already in pieces or just falling apart?" (Thomas, 1987)
'Specialization, fragmentation, integration, discipline, profession: What is the real issue?"
(Greendorfer. 1987)
238 RENSON
ceived in order to protect our discipline and profession; epistetnologically speaking,
however, it can hardly be qualified "a taxonomy of knowledge," but rather
an act of academic camouflage.
Recetitly Greendorfer (1987) has critically examined the causes of the two
schisms. She argues that the cause of fragmentation was the vertical direction
taken by the developing subdisciplines without an eye toward horizontal or thematic
integration. However, she views fragmentation as not necessarily an automatic
outcome of specialization. If this specialization results in altemative configurations
such as, for instance, the model suggested by Lawson and Morford (1979), then
knowledge is not fragmented and dispersed but integrated. Lawson and Morford
(1979), who identify their subject matter as Kinesiology and Sport Studies, use
a holistic, integrated approach that draws from several disciplines. Their model
transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries because it generates a thematicalhorizontal
integration. This framework represents a significant departure from
the type of specialization/fragmentation that currently exists, but the model "needs
more conceptual development relative to subject matter content" (Greendorfer,
1987, p. 63).
• 1
The French Connection
In the Francophone world of physical education, the Canadian Roch
Meynard introduced the term kinanthropologie in 1966. Kinanthropologie consists
of an etymological combination of the Greek words xiveiv (to move), avSQui-Ko^
(man), and X070S (science), thus indicating the science of man in movement. The
term was adopted as the title of an intemational francophone journal, edited in
Li^ge (Belgium), from 1969 to 1974. The journal Kinanthropologie started with
clearly formulated epistemological aspirations:
Situated at the cross-road of numerous and diverse disciplines ranging from
the biological sciences to the human sciences, kinanthropology has largely
profited from their contributions. However, having come of age, the discipline
must prevent itself being invaded and should fight against annexational
tendencies. The specificity of Kinanthropology—as a science—resides in the
consideration of its proper center of interest: man in the situation of movement,
in the nature of the problems posed and in a particular approach to
these problems. {Kinanthropologie, 1969)
In spite of these cross-disciplinary ambitions, the joumal has been almost
exclusively oriented to kinesiology and biomechanics. Needless to say, kinanthropology
was not the only neologism proposed in the French language, but it
had the benefit of a larger scope than, for instance, the concept oi Fsycho-cinitique,
or science of human movement, introduced by Jean Le Boulch (1966, 1971) at
about the same period.
From the very beginning of the French debate, Sheedy (1967, 1974a,
1974b), a Canadian, produced several philosophical contributions for the establishment
of a so-called Theory of Physical Education:
For us, the discipline of physical education falls within anthropology and
therefore within the sector of the human sciences. . . . The anthropology
mentioned . . . cannot be exclusively physical, social or cultural. It is part
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 239
of the admittedly daring project of the integration of the knowledges of and
about man. (Sheedy, 1974b, pp. 245-246)
Although Sheedy has laid the theoretical foundations for an integrating
science of humans in movement, he himself seems to have remained skeptical
and unproductive when it came to the specific and factual construction of such
a cross-disciplinary science. "We are trying to integrate . . . but who is going
to do the integration? Who is the superman or super-scientist who will be competent
to pick all that [knowledge from other disciplines]?" (Sheedy, 1974b, p. 228).
This role was more or less played by Bouchard (1974), who prepared a
paper for the intemational seminar on Concepts in Physical Education and Sport
Sciences (Simri, 1974) at the Wingate Institute in Israel.^ In his truly intemational
overview, Bouchard came to the conclusion that the term physical education "is
not only partially inadequate for identifying our professional endeavors within
the educational system, but also completely inadequate for identifying our disciplinary
activities" (Bouchard, 1974, p. 20). He listed about 30 different propositions
made between 1953 and 1974 concerning the distinction between the
discipline and the profession. These propositions included (apart from several
classic denominators like Sport Science(s), Htiman Movement Science(s), Human
Kinetics,' Kinesiology, and Kinanthropology) more exotic terms, for instance,
Anthropocin^tique, Homokinetics, Anthropokineticology, or Gymnologie.
Bouchard himself identified physical activity as being the central thematic object
of our discipline and therefore proposed the concept of Physical Activity Sciences;
These Physical Activity Science . . . must integrate a certain amount of
knowledge generated by other domains of study and research. The Physical
Activity Sciences can be qualified as cross-disciplinary sciences. (Bouchard,
1974, pp. 125-126)
Physical Activity Sciences functioned as the official title of the 1976 preOlympic
scientific congress in Quebec (Landry & Orban, 1978), but since then,
it appears that the term has not gamered much academic and public support. In
France the epistemological discussion has continued and has been stimulated especially
by the publications of Parlebas (1971), who edited a lexicon of the socalled
Science of Motor Action:
The field of motor activities possesses a specificity; this orientation which
implies the construction of an original object, has its consequences on the
content of both the curriculum and the institutional organization. It represents
without doubt the sole answer for the future [in order] to prevent parcelling
and vassalage. (Parlebas, 1981, p.xi)
One of the latest results of the discussion in France is the appearance in
1987 of a new joumal entitled Science et Motricitd. This joumal is edited by the
Association of Researchers in Physical and Sports Activities, which has accredited
itself with a piuridisciplinary vocation:
Science et Motriciti thus defines itself as a joumal of science, technique
and culture. . . . In the forms of sport or leisure, motor activity represents
the common denominator which should facilitate the dialogue. {Science et
Motriciti, 1987).
240 RENSON
Germany: Sport Science or Sport Sciences?
The term Sport Science {Sportwissenschaft) made its first appearance as
such in the German Democratic Republic (Erbach, 1964, 1966). In the Federal
Republic of Germany, the starting shot for the debate on the scientific status of
the discipline was fired by Schmitz (1966), who addressed the problem by asking
the question of whether one should speak of a "science" of physical education
or of sport (Schmitz, 1966). Willimczik (1968) subsequently picked up the gauntlet
and provided a thoroughly elaborated formulation of epistemological criteria that
need to be fulfilled in order to justify a so-called sport science. He mentions,
among others, an independent body of knowledge, specific terminology and
research methods, and specific organization. Without waiting for all these criteria
to be met, a joumal called Sportwissenschaft appeared in 1971 on the eve of the
1972 Munich Olympics. Grupe explained that it had been decided to use Sport
Science as opposed to Sport Sciences as "an aim to strive for . . . as a plea for
sport science in the sense of an "integrative science," which processes and
summarizes the relevant findings from other scientific disciplines and integrates
them from a specific perspective into a coherent body of knowledge, at the same
time—however—carrying out substantial research of its own" (Grupe, 1971,
p. 17). The mechanisms of integration and the precise meanings of the interdisciplinary
and the cross-disciplinary nature of this science were, however, not
considered. It seems, therefore, that the choice of the singular was more of a
strategic than an epistemological argument in order to prevent the premature
fragmentation of this Sport Science into isolated subdisciplines.
Willimczik (1974), the early architect of an epistemological blueprint, did
not share the same optimism and belief in a singular Sport Science when he
reviewed the trends in scientific concepts in Germany up to 1974:
This period—the period of development of sport science—is correctly referred
to as a multidiscipiinary period. . . . Cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary
sport sciences [sic] which involve a close co-operation between the various
disciplines, although these are formulating the problems already, are still an
unrealized aim. Therefore for the present time it is justified to speak about
sport sciences. In the future when the sport sciences have developed to a totality
we may have to speak of a sport science. (Willimczik, 1974, p. 16)
This opinion was shared by Ries and Kriesi (1974), who qualified the Sport
Sciences as applied sciences because they rely on a great number of stmcturally
diverse basic sciences. Six years later, Willimczik (1980) reviewed the situation
of sport science from a comparative perspective. Although he used the singular
term Sportwissenschaft, he had to adinit that not much progress had been made
conceming two criteria of a discipline: (a) specific research methods, and (b)
organized knowledge (theory). Subsequently Willimczik (1985) attenuated this
statement. He claimed that interdisciplinary sciences, such as sport science, are
not subject to tbe philosophic criterion of uniqueness with regard to specific
research methods and theory constmction. Rather their meaning is justified through
the reintegration of specialized disciplines and through practical relevance.
Haag (1979), using the singular, classified Sport Science in the category
of theme-oriented sciences as opposed to discipline-oriented sciences. According
to Haag, the theme-oriented sciences (e.g., Communication Science(s), Sexological
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 241
Sciences . . .) share the characteristics that they are interdisciplinary, involve
relationships to several other discipline oriented sciences, often suffer from lack
of recognition within traditional higher education, and at present, have a relatively
small pool of well-trained personnel, research expertise, and opportunity for
research. In a recent reconsideration, Haag and Morford (1987) have further
explored the complex nature of sport theory—Sportwissenschafien—in the context
of physical education teacher training. They concluded that.
There is a theme and a disciplinary (theory field) approach in order to stmcture
the body of knowledge of sport theory to be taught during the study. . . .
Since 'Sportwissenschaften" Iplural] is a cross-disciplinary scientific field to a
certain extent the study of the respective relation sciences has to be considered
as part of the study curriculum. (Haag & Morford, 1987, pp. 94-95)
Although the plural (multidiscipiinary) and the singular (cross-disciplinary)
concepts of Sport Sciences/Sport Science are constantly confused, the singular
term Sport Science has quickly caught on and has systematically replaced the
term Physical Education in the German speaking countries." Whether this change
of name has solved the problem of the epistemological identity remains open for
discussion. Lenk (1979, p. 4) concluded that sport science remains a "multidisciplinary
aggregation science," while Heinemann (1985), who shares this
opinion, further stated:
Integration remains . . . problematic because problem formulation, problem
observation and problem processing are separately solved by each (sub-)discipline
and a common concept is still lacking to organize and integrate research,
(p. 44)
Human Movement: A Field of Study in Great Britain
A fourth tendency was clearly expressed in Great Britain when in 1973 the
publication Human Movement—A Field of Study (Brooke & Whiting, 1973)
appeared:
Human Movement Studies and the application of knowledge about human
movement extends far beyond the bounds of the practical field of physical
education. (Whiting, 1973, p. ix)
In this attempt to justify human movement as a field of study. Curl (1973)
tried to answer the question of whether the possibility of a unifying framework
exists that wiii hold together and integrate the various disciplines that contribute
to the field. He concluded that such a field of knowledge can profitably be
organized and unified by some central object and that human movement is such
a center of interest, "a natural organic unity." The claim of organic unity in
Curl's (1973) account was, however, severely criticized by Renshaw (1975) in
the very first issue of the Joumal of Human Movement Studies. The editors of
this journal. Whiting and Whiting (1975), stipulated that the journal's concern
was "with information which serves to illuminate and integrate the diverse perspectives
of the phenomenon of Human Movement" (p. 2) and that although
242 RENSON
human movement derives its meaning from its context, "it is with the movement
in context that this Journal is concerned and not with the context itself" (p. 3).
Thus, it was made perfectly clear that a delimited approach was chosen: human
movement rather than humans in movement! All in all, the "human movement"
movement seemed to gain little impetus after Brooke and Whiting both left the
United Kingdom.
Another new joumal was created by Whiting in 1982 after he had moved
to the Netherlands. The name changed into a singular Human Movement Science,
and it was also recognized that some exchange with the professional area was
worth taking into account:
What needs to be strived for is a particular form of what Wilberg (1972)
describes as "generated knowledge." That is, knowledge which arises in
those fields of professional operation which focus on the influencing of human
movement. (Whiting, 1982, p. 4)
This tendency to design a disciplinary Human Movement Science arouses
some feelings of d6ja vu—d6ja entendu, especially when one considers the
pioneering work earlier accomplished in this field by scholars such as Meinel
(I960) or Buytendijk (1966). Sports Science gained status with the three BSc
degrees in Sports Science at Liverpool Polytechnic in 1975. This had no links
with physical education at all; instead it was taught as an interdepartmental course
with departments in both Science and Engineering Faculties contributing to it.
There was, strangely enough, no contribution from Physical Education, which
was within the Faculty of Education.
Moreover, another interdisciplinary tendency has appeared in Great Britain
with the establishment of the Society of Sports Sciences in 1977. This society
launched the Joumal of Sports Sciences in 1983, which embraces the disciplines
of anthropometry, behavioral sciences, biochemistry, biomechanics, ergonomics,
and other interdisciplinary perspectives, physiology and psychology. Quite different
from the pluralist German Sportwissenschaft(e) concept, this British society
expresses some reservations about the human sciences, except for those human
sciences "where scientific methods are applied to sport and exercise" (Reilly,
1983, p. 1). The Society of Sports Sciences (S.S.S.) becanie the British Association
of Sports Sciences (B.A.S.S.) in 1984, an amalgamation of S.S.S., the British
Society of Sports Psychology, and the Sports Biomechanics Working Group.
The Low Countries: Crossroads and Parting of the Ways
Situated at the cultural crossroads ofthe major European countries, the Low
Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands) have always been a meeting place and
melting pot of different ideas and tendencies. This position has, therefore, resulted
in the adoption of both centripetal (integration) and centrifugal (fragmentation)
concepts in tbe academic approach to physical education.
Physical education acquired academic status in Belgium probably earlier
than in any other country in the world. As early as 1908, a Higher Institute of
Physical Education was founded at the State University of Ghent (Laporte, 1984).
Due to the fact that in the early part of this century Swedish gymnastics were
considered the cornerstone of "scientific" physical education, the institute was
incorporated in the faculty of medicine. The same procedure was followed when
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 243
Other universities opened their doors to physical education programs: Lifege, 1931;
Leuven-Louvain, 1942; Brussels, 1945 (University Libre) and 1961 (Vrije Universiteit).
Because ofthe strong emphasis on biomedical and health sciences, these
institutes also started training programs in physical therapy called kinesitherapy.
Students obtain a licentiate degree after four years of study and after the submission
of a licentiate thesis. Research qualifications and a doctoral thesis are required
for a PhD in Physical Education or Motor Rehabilitation.
The new developments in the academic and the professional area of physical
education in the 196O's have stimulated a claim to a more independent academic
status. In Leuven, a first major step was made in 1976 when the Institute of Physical
Education became a department in the faculty of medicine (Ostyn, 1977). In
1985, the Institute gained equal rights with the Faculty of Medicine and the Institute
of Pharmaceutical Sciences, the three together composing the Group of Biomedical
Sciences (Ostyn, 1985-86). This process of growing independence has
obviously stimulated a more explicit formulation ofa proper academic field and
area for research. Together with specializations within the physical education
curriculum, such as training/coaching, adapted physical education, leisure and
recreation studies, and health education, postgraduate programs have emerged
in physical anthropology*, ergonomics, training/coaching, adapted physical education,
and sport management.
In contrast to Belgium, physical educators in the Netherlands are trained
in teacher colleges: the so-called Academies for Physical Education in Amsterdam,
Amhem, Groningen, The Hague, and Tilburg. Rijsdorp, who obtained a PhD
in physical education in Belgium (Leuven), was the first to obtain the status of
professor extraordinary in the science of physical education at the State University
of Utrecht in 1969. However, this initiative did not result in the creation of a
specific training program and degree.'
Rijsdorp's monograph, Gymnologie (1971), can be viewed as one ofthe
first and most extensive efforts to identify and integrate "the science of motor
action in an agogicai framework" (Rijsdorp, 1974). He qualifies gymnology as
being both a human science, focusing on the motor activities of humans, and an
agogicai science, assuming constant interaction between a so-called auctor
(teacher/coach) and an actor (pupil/athlete). Although the term gymnology itself
has been denounced on etymological grounds (Simri, 1974, p. 110), Broekhoff
(1980, p. 93) has recognized the integrative possibilities of Rijsdorp's concept,
but also its limitations:
As a coherent field of scientific investigation, gymnology is at present still to
be considered as a concept which will have to prove its usefulness in practice.
. . . The possibilities of a coherent, scientific approach of physical education
will depend in the first place on the creativity and the ingenuity for finding
new ways to solve old problems.
In an epistemological essay, Renson (1975) perceived Rijsdorp's framework
as too strongly educationally oriented and, therefore, too narrow to encompass
the total picture of humans in movement. Renson proposed a
two-dimensional taxonomy with a (multi-)disciplinary approach by the sport
sciences on one axis and a cross-disciplinary approach of kinanthropology on the
other. This model is further elaborated later in this discussion.
After several years of discussion and planning, a so-called Inter-faculty of
Physical Education was finally created in the Netherlands at the Free University
244 RENSON
of Amsterdam in 1971. The term interfaculty was chosen to stress the multidisciplinarity
of approaches, which would focus on "the intentional influencing
of human movement in the areas of movement education, sport and recreation,
psychomotor therapy, physical therapy and rehabilitation" (Hoogendam, 1981,
p. 3). Professional preparation in these areas was not considered an academic
task; it was even argued that physical exercises, connected with such a training
program, would be a risk to introduce a "corpus alienum" (sic) into the world
of academe (see Hoogendam, 1981, p. 46)! This interfaeulty has become a fullfiedged
Faculty of Movement Sciences in 1987.
Thus, different developments have occurred in Belgium and the Netherlands
that contrast two diverging models. On one hand, the Belgian model has a longstanding
academic tradition heavily based on the biomedical sciences. This tradition
has always stressed its biocultural anthropological conception: the study and
education of humans in movement. However, the link between theory and practice,
or between so-called basic and applied sciences, has too often been a
symbolic hyphen, not a well-designed bridge. On the other hand, there is the
Dutch model which, because of a different historical and structural context,
has institutionalized the divorce between the discipline (Faculty of Human Movement
Studies) and the profession of physical education (Academies of Physical
Education).
Parts of a Puzzle: Four Major Conceptual Trends
An overview of the major conceptual trends, authors, terminology, and
journals comprising the epistemological discussion is given in Table 2. Four
conceptual trends can be identified in this synopsis. Traditionally, a discipline
is characterized hy (a) a particular focus or object of study, (b) a specialized method
of inquiry, and (c) a unique body of knowledge. The study of human movement,
not humans in movement, has been claimed as such a unique scientific domain,
a field of knowledge not explored by other disciplines.
A multidisciplinary approach consists ofthe study of one central topic, for
example, sport, from separate disciplinary perspectives, without a unifying
concept. It is vertically oriented and, therefore, the outcome is the sum of various
disciplinary approaches, or the so-called applied sciences (Hebbelinck, 1966, 1967;
Ries & Kriesi, 1974; Van Peursen, 1980). Knowledge is borrowed from parent
disciplines and applied to the practical problems of physical activity or physical
education. The spon sciences or physical activity sciences represent this conceptual
trend.
An interdisciplinary approach consists of the interaction between two or
more different disciplines in the form of the communication of ideas leading to
the mutual integration ofthe respective fields. Since an integrative paradigm is
lacking, the orientation remains vertical and thematical integration is only partial.
The concept of sport science can be viewed as such an interdisciplinary attempt.'
A cross-disciplinary science is oriented horizontally because it transcends
traditional disciplinary boundaries. Although certain portions are borrowed from
the traditional disciplines, a unifying concept exists which generates its thematically
integrated subject matter. Such a cross-disciplinary approach is informed
by, though not subordinated to, the propositions and theories of the traditional
disciplines. Kinanthropology is presented here as a holistic, integrated, crossdisciplinary
science of humans in movement.
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 245
1
3 C
£ 5
B o
c <
O u
u -^
? *"
o o>
o E
II
2?
D. *
o
u
>
o
o
E
ai
•^ 2
c
o
O
3
O
o
e
c
.9 o
— O
« 3
« fl <" S
^ ^»8 «
.c .c .E S.
Q. Q. ^ CO
(D CO o
o o « >i
'.s ~: >• P
O (0 (0
o y y
o
Q.
O
£ CO CO . . „
*; y o u o
« g, g, g, 8
.E .c j= x: o
^ a. a. tl. CO
- * "^
K « ®
X
2 ^ 1 ^
(D
c c c c c c
d) d) d) d) d) (U
o o o o p o
CO CO n M M in
r r t t t tr
o o o o o o
a a a a a Q.
Vi Ui lo oi en m
to M d) c ^.
i 2 i S
t5 5 I
Ui
3 .B
E
o 3
E
(0
O
m
o
Q.
O d) .g « n
S 2 <o 2 ©
u. u. U Li. O O
246 RENSON
c
. 9 CO
1
1
CO
I-
3 3
c t:
Q) Q
"5 .Q.
<D O 4}
E E E
(D 0) a>
> > >
o o o
E E E aa
9S.
CO
W (0
a tn
o:
<o
01
_c
Z
5
CO
CC
tn
-
971
ti
fC
a>
c
oCO
o
o
c
3 m
• o
c
«
3
Q.
U
c
o
O
CO
c
ipl
X)
c
ffi
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 247
Kinanthropology: An Integrated Paradigm for
the Stndy of Humans in Movement
A Cross-Disciplinary Science
At the outset, the term physical education is inappropriate to identify the
academic study of humans in movement with its various professional applications.
Etymologically, the term kinanthropology adequately refers to cross-disciplinary
study of humans in movement. Kinanthropologists, or specialists in the area of
humans in movement., represent the holistic physical education tradition. Epistemological
and professional arguments for this claim are presented in a twodimensional
model in Figure 1. The disciplinary approaches are positioned on the
vertical axis and the cross-disciplinary approach of kinanthropology is positioned
on the horizontal axis. The different disciplines on the vertical axis range from
the natural sciences through the human sciences. Human kinetics (or human movement
science) falls midway on the scale as a natural hridge. Whereas the suhdiscipline
of kinesiology links with the natural sciences, motor leaming links with
the behavioral sciences. Kinanthropometry occupies a position in hetween. The
different sport sciences are presented as applied disciplines on a parallel vertical
axis. It should be mentioned that, just as sport sciences, one can speak of rehabilitation
sciences when knowledge ofa parent discipline is applied to the process of
rehabilitating people. The term physical activity sciences {Bouchard, 1974). therefore,
seems to be a more appropriate common denominator for this multidisciplinary
or interdisciplinary vertical category.
Kinanthropology, the science of humans in movement in the context of sport,
play, dance, physical exercise, work, or rehabilitation, is featured as a crossdisciplinary
science on the horizontal axis. Instead of mere application of knowledge
borrowed from so-called parent disciplines, this holistic approach integrates
the physical-organic, the motor, and the behavioral components. These three
components, represented in Figure 2 as an integrated triad, form the fundamental
subject matter of the science of humans in movement (Renson, 1987).
Five different approaches or areas of specialization are identified within
the cross-disciplinary science of kinanthropology {Renson, 1980):
1. Developmental kinanthropology studies the dynamic processes of physical
growth, motor development, and sport socialization in their mutual inter-
action.
2. Differential kinanthropology studies the structure of physical, motor, and
behavioral characteristics in their mutual interaction as well as the differentiation
of these factors between different groups or categories.
3. Social-cultural kinanthropology studies to what extent social and cultural
determinants affect physical, motor, and behavioral aspects in their mutual
interaction.
4. Clinical kinanthropology studies the therapeutic applications of human movement
in the interrelated areas of physical, motor, and behavioral disorders.
5. Agogicai kinanthropology" studies the educational process in the interrelated
areas of physical/health education, movement/safety education, and sport/
dance/outdoor education.
Each ofthe five kinanthropological subdisciplines focuses on the physicalmotor-behavioral
trinity, although from a somewhat different perspective. The
248 RENSON
a ro
c 0
(0 "
2 5
2
o
Si
1^
O Q.
cA 'o
is
1^
« 3>
ffi > p
o E e
5£^
o ro
6o.
"a.
O w
11
3 S
I*
"S i "P 5 *•8 ^ E ? P o
in •= fl) •&• e i !
si "™ > ffi n u
CL j= 2 (0 C/> O
5 5 UJ
£ o •.
"re ^ >,'S
8 9 a S
in "o re Cl
>* >* t re
J= in g TJ
Q. CL £ <
i g
ai
4»
s
o
B
.a
m 2 i 8
O E TO ^
in O 3 to
^ • t TO ^
^ s * ^^
u. a. w CT
J? t: a.
uiQ.tr
TO i "
o a
m m
-S m ^
re u •:>
X m
.y|fe|(0
c 6 w ;
.c .c .2 J : ,
o. o m CL .
1^
g £ ^
V) C t
ffi TO £
c e o
2" >' »,
Q. Q. v> 11
2 ffi -S
10 S F
J3
rex:ffi
J3
TO
ffi
.D
re.c
o
TO
ffi
re
ffi
00 00 00
c r t
TO (D TO
D o ffi
"- TO *•
O S *
t Q. C
o E o
- ,9^ o ,9-
2 !3
O TO
"5 4! S>,i3 C —
= 5 * S ^
CL a (2 o UJ J3 i
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 249
SOCML-CULTU/ML KINANTHROPOLOQY
BEHAVIORAL COMPONENT
HUMAN SCIENCES
OeveLOPUENTAL KINANTHROPOLOGY t ^CLINICAL KINANTHROPOLOGY
DIFFERENTIAL
KINANTHROPOLOGY
PHYSICAL ORGANIC COMPONENT
NATURAL SCIENCES
MQOGICAL
4 KINANTHROPOLOGY
MOTOR COMPONENT
HUMAN KINETICS
Figure 2 — The kinanthropology triad and five different approaches, or kinanthropologicaJ
subdisciplines.
perspectives are, however, complementary and constantly interact. A holistic
kinanthropological approach necessitates both specialization on one hand, and
teamwork on the other, and is, therefore, essentially both disciplinary and crossdisciplinary
in nature. Indeed, human kinetics or the science of human movement
can be viewed as the disciplinary entrance and physical activity sciences
as the multi- and interdisciplinary entrances of the kinanthropology model (see
Figure 1).
A Problem of Integration
The cross-disciplinary "horizontal" science of kinanthropology cannot be
isolated from the disciplinary "vertical" physical activity sciences, from which
knowledge is borrowed. However, without integration through one of the five
mentioned kinanthropological approaches, then knowledge runs the risk of being
sectarian—disciplinary and fragmented. It will often remain irrelevant for or unapplicable
to human beings in a movement context.
This can be clarified by an example from the sphere ofthe social sciences
in which the disciplinary sport sociologist is confronted with the cross-disciplinary
sociocultural kinanthropologist. Sociologists can develop a genuine interest in
sport as a social phenomenon. They thus study sport as a means to better understand
the structure and functions of society (statics) and sociocultural change
(dynamics). This way, sport plays more or less the role of the test rabbit, and
it can generate relevant knowledge for testing sociological theories. One would
expect that in this case the knowledge gained would be transmitted to the sports
250 RENSON
field for application in an effort of "social engineering." Nevertheless, in order
to translate this sociological knowledge into practice, to make it operational for
the sportsperson, kinanthropological knowledge is also required. Indeed, whereas
the sport sociologist is in the first place interested in a better understanding of
society (socio-logy) via sport, the sociocultural kinanthropologist endeavors to
gain an insight into humans in movement within their social and cultural context.
The sociocultural kinanthropologist, therefore, tries to integrate knowledge from
the social sciences to the study of humans in movement. The kinanthropologist
thus selects from the sociological body of knowledge, but also draws from cultural
anthropology, social psychology, and history. The aim is to unravel the sociocultural
factors that determine the physical-organic, the motor, and behavioral
component of humans in movement. Armed with this cross-disciplinary knowledge,
he/she then strives to create better sociocultural conditions (appropriate
sport organizations, physical education programs, sport facilities, etc.). The sport
research area provides an excellent meeting ground for "close encounters of a
scientific kind" between the sport sociologist and the sociocultural kinanthro-
pologist.
Obviously this complex study matter requires, alongside the fundamental
knowledge of the kinanthropological text (humans in movement), specialized
knowledge ofthe sociocultural context. Moreover, it is essential for sociocultural
kinanthropologists to engage in an ongoing dialogue with their colleagues in
developmental, differential, clinical, and agogicai kinanthropology in order to
construct a true holistic picture of humans in movement.
The viability of the kinanthropology paradigm and the benefits of crossdisciplinary
research were demonstrated in two major projects undertaken at the
University of Leuven. The team that carried out both the Leuven Growth Study
of Belgian Boys (Ostyn et al., 1980) and the Leuven Growth Study of Flemish
Girls (Beunen et al., 1982), was composed of research workers who looked at
physical fitness from several kinanthropological perspectives. Physical fitness
evaluation included anthropometric dimensions, physiological and motor ability
tests, sport and physical activity inventories, health knowledge, personality
assessment, and sociocultural information. These data sets were, however, not
broken down into isolated disciplines of physical anthropology, exercise physiology,
motor fitness, sport psychology, sport sociology, and so on. Rather, a
cross-disciplinary bio-cultural approach, as Malina (1980) qualifies it, was adopted.
The impact of the social determinants, for instance, was not limited to the
sociological area of sport participation, but also included the social differentiation
of physical growth and motor characteristics (Renson et al., 1980).
Academic Education, Research, and Professional Perspectives
With regard to educational programs, the following citation of Brooks seems
to express the current opinion:
Undergraduate students are required to take courses such as anatomy,
chemistry, physiology, physics, statistics, history, psychology, anthropology,
and sociology to prepare them for advanced, upper-division course work in
physical education [which we would replace by the term kinanthropology].
. . . When students apply knowledge of other disciplines to understand human
movement, then the approach is cross-disciplinary. (Brooks, 1981, p. 5)
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 251
This shows that Brooks expects the students themselves to perform the difficult
integration task. However, a laissez faire attitude, a most common observation
in P.E. training programs, leads to a lack of epistemological insight among the
students in the specific scientific status of their own (cross-)discipline.
Academic education in kinanthropology supposes a well balanced and
systematically built up curriculum. It should start with a relevant selection from
the disciplinary Natural Sciences and Human Sciences (see first vertical column
in Figure 1), followed by the disciplinary Human Movement Sciences (kinesiology,
kinanthropometry, and motor leaming) and the applied Physical Activity
Sciences (see second vertical column in Figure 1) to be completed by the integrated
kinanthropology paradigm (developmental, differential, sociocultural, clinical,
and agogicai). Incipient specialization in one of these five kinanthropological fields
can start at the graduate level (optional courses or thesis), but true specialization
seems to be indicated at the postgraduate level.
Concerning the research structure of a kinanthropology department, both
the disciplinary and the cross-disciplinary tendencies should be represented. The
three major components of Human Movement Science (kinesiology, kinanthropometry,
and motor leaming) as well as the (applied) Physical Activity
Sciences offer a good basis for the establishment of specialized research labs or
seminars. In order to actualize the holistic integrative premises on the other hand,
transdisciplinary research units (departments) can be established and trandisciplinary
research projects can be started in the different kinanthropological fields
(see Figure 1).
Each ofthe five kinanthropological approaches outlined in the model provides
specific professional outlets. Developmental kinanthropology opens professional
perspectives in physical performance evaluation and guidance. Differential
kinanthropotogy is applied in training and coaching. Social-cultural kinanthropwlogy
forms the basis for sport and recreation management. Clinical kinanthropology
leads to the professional areas of physical therapy, psychomotor rehabilitation,
and adapted physical education. Agogicai kinanthropology is translated into the
practice of physical education (in the strict sense ofthe word) and health education,
movement and safety education, and sport/dance/outdoor education.
A Problem to Overcome: Terminology
Whereas Brooks (1981) states that a discipline stands or falls in its accomplishments
and not in its name, it is our opinion that a unifying paradigm and
a common denominator is a sine qua non in order to profile the specific crossdisciplinary
body of knowledge of humans in movement and its various professional
possibilities. "Nomen sit omen" is an appropriate Latin expression: Let
the name kinanthropology be an omen to overcome the anachronistic neglect of
our academic and professional identification. Just like physicists, biologists,
psychologists, sociologists, and so on, there is a need for an internationally uniform
and etymologically sound identity. Whether active in research, teaching, or
therapy, the heirs apparent to the legacy of physical education should stand up
and make known their common denominator: kin-anthropo-logy!
References
BEUNEN, G., Simons, J., Ostyn, M., Renson, R., Van Gerven, D., Claessens, A.,
Vanreusel, B., CoUa, R., & Schueremans, C. (1982). The Leuven growth study of Flemish
252 RENSON
girls: Study design and data quality control. In J. Simons & R. Renson (Eds.), Evaluation
of motor fitness (European research seminar, 1981 pp. 59-75). Leuven: Institute of Physical
Education.
BOUCHARD. C. (1974). Les sciences de Taetivit^ physique: Un concept fondamental
dans notre organisation disciplinaire et professionnelle. Mouvement, 9, 117-129.
BRESSAN, E. (1979). 2001: The profession is dead—Was it murder or suicide? Quest,
31; 77-82.
BROEKHOFF, J. (1980). Het probleem van de lichamelijke opvoedlng, In Gymnologisch
Instituut (Ed.), Lichamelijke opvoeding in perspectief (Uitgave ter gelegenheid van het
afscheid van Dr. K. Rijsdorp, pp. 77-95). Lochem: De Tijdstroom.
BROOKE. J.D., & Whiting, H.T.A. (Eds.) (1973). Human movement-A field of study.
London: H. Kimpton.
BROOKS, G.A. (1981). What is the discipline of physical education? In G.A. Brooks
(Ed.), Perspectives on the academic discipline of physical education: A tribute to G.L
Rarick (pp. 3-9). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
BUYTENDUK, F.J.J. (1966). Algemene theoriedermenselijke houding en beweging (Aula
175, p. 603). Utrecht: Spectrum.
CURL, G.F. (1973). An attempt to justify human movement as a field of study. In J.D.
Brooke, & H.T.A. Whiting (Eds.), Human movement—A field of study (pp. 7-17). London:
H. Kimpton.
D'AMOURS, M.C. (1984). Leisure sciences and leisure studies: Indicators of interdisciplinarity.
Leisure Sciences, 6, 359-373.
ERBACH, G. (1964). Gedanken zur Einordnung der Theorie der Korperkultur als Lehrund
Forschungsdisziplin in das System der Sportwissenschaft. Theorie und Praxis der Kdrperkultur
(Sonderhefl), 74-82.
ERBACH, G. (1966). The science of sport and sport sociology: Questions related to
development—Problems and structure. Intemational Review of Sport Sociology, 1, 59-73.
GREENDORFER, S.L. (1987). Specialization, fragmentation, integration, discipline,
profession: What is the real issue? Quest, 39, 56-64.
GRUPE, O. (1971). Eioleitung in die "Sportwissenschaft". Sportwissenschaft, 1, 7-18.
HAAG, H. (1979). Development and stmcture of a theoretical framework for sport science
("SportwissenschafI"). Quest, 31, 25-35.
HAAG, H., & Morford, W.R. (1987). Sportlehrerausbildung im intemationalen Vergleich.
In H. Rieder & U. Hanke (Eds.), The physical education teacher and coach today: Vol.
I (AIESEP—Weltkongress 1986, pp. 71-95). Koln: Bundesinstitut tur Sportwissenschaft.
HARRIS, D.V. (1981). Physical education: A house divided. The Academy Papers, No.
15, 32-35.
HEBBELINCK, M. (1966). Essai d'appr&iation de l'&iucadon physique en tant que science
appliquee. Mouvement, 1, 151-156.
HEBBELINCK, M. (1967). An essay on the appreciation of physical education as an applied
science. FIEP-Bulletin, 37(3-4), 3-13.
HEINEMANN, K. (1985). Entwicklungsbedingungen der Sportwissenschaft. Sportwissenschaft,
IS, 33-45.
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 253
HENRY, F.M. (1964). Physical education: An academic discipline. Proceedings ofthe
67th Annual Conference of NCPEAM, 6-9.
HENRY, F.M. (1978). The academic discipline of physical education. Quest. 29, 13-29.
HOFFMAN, S. (1985). Specialization -I- fragmentation = extermination: A formula for
the demise of graduate education. Joumal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
(August): 19-22.
HOOGENDAM, A.C.J. (1981). De voorgeschiedenis en ontwikkeling van de interfaculteit.
In J.C. Dona, A.P. Hollander, A.C.J. Hoogendam, & J.H.A. van Rossum (Eds.), 10
jaar interfaculteit lichamelijke opvoeding (pp. 9-82). Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.
KINANTHROPOLOGIE. (1969). Editorial, 1(1).
LANDRY, F. & Orban, W.A.R. (Eds.) (1978). The intemational congress of physical
activity sciences. Miami: Symposia Specialists.
LAFORTE, W. (1984). 75jaar lichamelijke opvoeding aan de RUG (uit het verleden van
de R.U.G. 17). Gent: Archief R.U.G.
LAWSON, H.A. & Morford, W.R. (1979). The crossdisciplinary structure of kinesiology
and sport studies: Distinctions, implications, and advantages. Quest, 31, 222-230.
LE BOULCH, J. (1966). L'education par le mouvement. Paris: Les 6ditions sociales fran-
caises.
LE BOULCH, J. (1971). yers une science du mouvement humain: Introduction a la psychocinitique.
Pads: Les 6iiUons sociales fran^aises.
LENK, H. (1979). Sportwissenschaft aus wissenschaftstheoretischer Sicht - Einordnung und
Perspektiven. In H. Eberspracher& A.H. Trebels (Eds.), Sportwissenschafiliche Forschmg
als Praxisproblem (pp. 42-45). Bad Homburg: Limpert.
LOCKE, L.F. (1977). From research and the disciplines to practice and the profession:
One more time. Proceedings ofthe NAPECW/NCPEAM National Conference, 34-45.
MALINA, R.M. (1980). A multidisciplinaiy, biocultural approach to physical performance.
In M. Ostyn, G. Beunen, & J. Simons (Eds.), Kinanthropometry II (Intemational series
on sport sciences 9, pp. 33-68). Baltimore: University Park Press.
MEINEL, K. (I960). Bewegungslehre: Versuch einer Theorie der sportiichen Bewegung
unter pddagogischem Aspekt. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.
MEYNARD, R. (1967). Kinanthropologie. Unpublished manuscript.
NOWAK, F. & Seidler, H. (Eds.) (1981). Wissenschaft-Sport (Bericht uber die Gesprache
zwischen den Wissenschaften und dem Sport, Sehielleiten 1981). Wien: Oesterreichische
Bundessportorganisation.
OJEME, E.O. (1984). Has the name jdiysical education outlived its usefulness? The Physical
Educator, 41(4), 190-194.
OSTYN, M. (1977). Het ILO in de nieuwe beheersstnicturen van de Leuvense universiteit.
Hermes, 11, 179-182.
OSTYN, M., Simons, J., Beunen, G., Renson. R., & Van Gerven, D. (Eds.) (1980).
Somatic and motor development of Belgian secondary schoolboys. Leuven: Leuven University
Press.
OSTYN. M. (1985-1986). Nieuwe status van het ILO in de beheersstnicturen van de K.U.
Leuven. Hermes. 18, 347-348.
254 RENSON
PARK, R.J. (1981). The emergence of the academic discipline of physical education in
the United States. In G.A. Brooks (Ed.), Perspectives on the academic discipline ofphysical
education: A tribute to G.L Rarick (pp. 20-45). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
PARLEBAS, P. (1971). Pour une 6pist6mologiede I'^ducation physique. Education physique
et spon, 110, 15-22.
PARLEBAS, P. (1981). Contribution d un iexique comments en science de l'action motrice.
Paris: INSEP.
RARICK, G.L. (1967). The domain of physical education. Quest, 9, 49-52.
REILLY, T. (1983). Joumal of Sports Sciences. Editorial, 1, 1-2.
RENSHAW, P. (1973). The nature of human movement studies and its relation with physical
education. Quest, 20, 79-86.
RENSHAW, P. (1975). The nature and study of human movement: A philosophical examination.
Joumal of Human Movement Studies, 1(1). 5-11.
RENSON, R. (1975). Sport en wetenschap. Kultuurleven, 42. 518-533.
RENSON, R. (1980). Proposals for classification of projects into 19 "special fields. "
Strasbourg: Council of Europe (Committee on Sport Research), DS-SR(80)10, 1-9.
RENSON, R. (1987). Selection and rationale for the Eurofit motor ability tests. In Council
of Europe (Ed.), 5th European Research Seminar on Testing Physical Fitness (Formia
1986. pp. 86-114). Strasbourg: Committee for the Development of Sport.
RENSON, R., Beunen, G., De Witte, L., Ostyn, M,, Simons, J., & Van Gerven, D.
(1980). The social spectrum of physical fitness. In M. Ostyn, G. Beunen. & J. Simons
(Eds.), Kinanthropometry II (International series on sport sciences. Vol. 9, pp. 104-118).
Baltimore: University Park Press.
RIES, H. & Kriesi, H. (1974). Scientific model for a theory of physical education and
sport sciences. In U. Simri (Ed.), Concepts of physical education and sport sciences
(Proceedings of an international seminar, 1974, pp. 175-198). Netanya: Wingate Institute
for Physical Education and Sport.
RIJSDORP, K. (1971). Gymnologie (Aula 464). Utrecht: Spectrum.
RIJSDORP, K. (1974). Gymnology: The philosophy and science of motor action in an
agogicai framework. In U. Simri (Ed.), Concepts of physical education and sport sciences
(Proceedings of an intemational seminar, 1974, pp. 25-33). Netanya: Wingate Institute
for Physical Education and Sport.
ROSE, D.A. (1986). Is there a discipline of physical education? Quest, 38, 1-21.
ROSS, S. (1974). Disciplines, sub-disciplines and the discipline of physical education.
In U. Simri (Ed.), Concepts of physical education and sport sciences (Proceedings of an
intemational seminar, 1974, pp. 87-107). Netanya: Wingate Institute for Physical Education
and Sport.
ROSS, S. (1978). Physical education: A pre-discipline in search of a paradigm. International
Joumal of Physical Education, 15(2), 9-15.
ROSS, S. (1981). The epistemic geography of physical education: Addressing the problem
of theory and practice. Quest, 33, 42-54.
SAGE, G.H. (1969). Is the term physical education obsolete? Gymnasion, 6(1), 10.
SCHMITZ, J. (1966). Das Problem einer "Wissenschaft" der Leibesubungen oder des
Sports. Die Leibeserziehung, 4, 118-127.
A QUEST FOR IDENTITY 255
SCIENCE et motriciti. (1987). Editorial, 1(1).
SHEEDY, A. (1%7). Etude taxonomique de l'dducation physique. Mouvement. 2, 143-170.
SHEEDY, A. (1974a). Pour et vers une theorie de I'^ducation physique. Mouvement, 9,
131-148.
SHEEDY, A. (1974b). Towards a theory of physical education. In U. Simri (Ed.), Concepts
of physical education and sport sciences (Proceedings of an intemational seminar,
1974, pp. 213-264). Netanya: Wingate Institute for Physical Education and Sport.
SIMRI, U. (1974). The confusion in the terminology of physical education. In U. Simri
(Ed.), Concepts of physical education and sport sciences (Proceedings of an intemational
seminar, 1974, pp. 109-120). Netanya: Wingate Institute for Physical Education and Sport.
THOMAS, J.R. (1985). Physical education and paranoia—synonyms. Joumal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, November-December, 20-22.
THOMAS, J.R. (1987). Are we already in pieces or just falling apart? Quest, 39, 114-121.
VAN PEURSEN, C.A. (1980). Enkele notities bij de wetenschap van de lichamelijke
opvoeding en sport. In Gymnologisch Institut (Ed.), Lichamelijke opvoeding in perspecHe/(uitgave
ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van Dr. K. Rijsdorp, pp. 267-278). Lochem:
De Tijdstroom.
WHITING, H.T.A. (1982). Editorial: The way ahead. Human Movement Science. 1, 1-6.
WHITING, H.T.A. & Whiting, M.G. (1975). Joumal of Human Movement Studies. 1(1),
1-4.
WILBERG, R.B. (1972). A suggested direction for the study of motor performance by
physical educators. Research Quarterly, 43, 387-393.
WILLIMCZIK, K. (1968). Wissenschafistheoretische Aspekte einer Sportwissenschafi.
Frankfurt am Main: W. Limpert.
WILLIMCZIK, K. (1974). Trends in the scientific concepts pertaining to physical education
and sport sciences. In U. Simri (Ed.), Concepts ofphysical education and sport sciences
(Proceedings ofan intemational seminar, 1974, pp. 9-23). Netanya: Wingate Institute for
Physical Education and Sport.
WILLIMCZIK, K. (1980). Der Entwicklungsstand der sportwissenschafUichen WissenschaftstheoHe.
Sportwissenschafi. 10, 337-359.
WILLIMCZIK, K. (1985). Interdisziplinare Sportwissensehaft—Fordeningen an ein
erstarrtes Konzept. Sportwissenschafi, 15, 9-32.
WRENN, J.P., & Love, A.M. (1973). Whither thou goest, physical education? The Physical
Educator, 30(3), 139-141.
ZEIGLER, E. (1983). A proposal for the reunification of our professional and scholarly
dimensions. CAHPER Joumal, 50(2), 17-19.
ZEIGLER, E.F. (1985). The urgent need for sport and physical education to reach consensus
on a taxonomy of knowledge. American Academy of Physical Education. 6(2), 8-9.
Notes
'In a reexamination of his 1964 paper, Henry (1978, p, 19) admitted, "I am uninformed
as to what changes have occurred in Europe, Britain [sic] and other parts of
the world."
256 RENSON
^Unfortunately Bouchard did not participate in the seminar, but his paper appeared
in the French Canadian journal Mouvement.
^Faculties of Human Kinetics were already established in anglophone Canada in
the early 1970s, mainly in the province of Ontario.
•"Nevertheless, it should be mentioned here that at the occasion of an Austrian conference
on Science-Sport, the plural term Sportwissenschafien was constantly used (Nowak
& Seidler, 1981).
*A postgraduate program in Physical Anthropology was created in 1983. The program
is organized by the Leuven Institute of P.E. and is accessible to students from the
Biomedical Sciences. It reflects the strong anthropological emphasis in the Belgian P.E.
tradition.
*In 1985 an undergraduate program and diploma in Movement Sciences was created
within the Faculty of Psychology at the State University of Utrecht.
'The concept of interdisciplinarity was extensively discussed in the article "Leisure
Sciences and Leisure Studies: Indicators of Interdisciplinarity" by D'Amours (1984).
'Agogicai is derived from the Greek verb ayeiv, which means "to educate, to provide
direction."