**4. Axis of tensions between practice and theory of SDP**

Several tensions can be noted between the needs of practitioners and their realities on the field with the possibilities of SDP research. The aim is to identify them and then propose a plan for action and research (**Table 2**).

First, we can observe a first axis of tension around program evaluation. On the one hand, SDP organizations are often asked by their donors to conduct program evaluations. This allows them to justify the rationale for their projects and to demonstrate the effectiveness of their actions. However, if these evaluations are not well planned, negative results can be found that compromise projects. SDP organizations often call on researchers to help them conduct their program evaluation because it is a time-consuming process. On the other hand, researchers need precise and specific criteria to conduct a relevant program evaluation. Unfortunately, few projects are able to provide evaluators with these very important indicators to conduct a fair and meaningful evaluation.

Second, SDP projects are rarely perfect in their planning and implementation because they face limited resources and highly changing contexts. As well, it is necessary for administrators to make constant adjustments to improve the implementation and realization of their projects. While SDP projects are criticized by researchers in demonstrating several nonsense between the aims and actions of the project, it remains true that researchers would also benefit from offering a support and collaboration service to try to solve the field difficulties encountered by the actors.

Thirdly, another axis of tension can be detected on the managerial aspects of SDP projects. On the one hand, the administrations of organizations are


#### **Table 2.**

*Tensions between practice and theory on SDP.*

increasingly developing with their projects. As they do so, they must strengthen their structure and organization, which is often dependent on the financial and human resources at their disposal. On the other hand, researchers have started to conduct several studies to better understand the managerial aspects of SDP organizations, and it would be relevant if these studies could strengthen the organizational aspects of SDP projects which often do not have much support.

Fourthly and for the time being, few differences have been made in SDP projects between those aimed at elite sport, competition, physical education, physical activity for leisure, or another theme such as health education through SDP. In our opinion, there is a very important tension about the purpose, use, and form that the SDP can represent and be truly in field projects. While several texts have been written to attempt to highlight these elements, few studies have attempted to go further in understanding what the SDP really is. This research seems essential to us to make the difference between the various forms of SDP and their multiple uses. This will eventually make it possible to identify new themes to investigate around the SDP.

Fifth, there are currently many questions around who are the people who work with the populations in SDP, what are their training or qualifications? While the research strongly recommends the use of sport supervised by qualified and trained personnel, few studies have focused on the profiles and the training of those people who work in the field every day. On this axis of tension, research must propose areas of response to strengthen field actions. And on this point, it is therefore necessary for researchers to go down to the field to see and understand the reality of the projects.

Finally, SDP fields are often dangerous and unsafe as they are located in humanitarian crisis or international development situations. These situations can change in a few minutes and working in this environment is therefore extremely unstable. They also face very complex realities in which it is necessary to take into account as many elements as possible in order to operate. Faced with the reality of this type of terrain, researchers must adapt their work. In particular, research methods and tools must evolve to adapt to a changing reality and to conditions that are sometimes very inappropriate for conducting a traditional research project. These adaptations are necessary to improve the quality of research in SDP's fields.

**35**

*Sport for Development and Peace: Current Perspectives of Research*

SDP research now offers a better understanding of the movement and allows practitioners to better orient themselves in their use of sport for development. However, the research also raised a set of concrete issues for field projects and some questions remain unanswered at this time. Following the results of the latest studies, six main areas of work should be considered to guide further research on SDP.

1.Provide a space for reflection (criticize vs. support): current research is often critical of SDP projects and too rarely supports or improves the action of actors in the field. However, it seems important to strengthen the work of the actors while continuing to question their actions and achievements. In this sense, the researcher must offer a space for joint reflection with the actors in

2.Use a collaborative or partnership approach to conduct research (be a facilitator): one of the roles of research is to help solve practitioners' problems. Specifically in the domain of SDP, field actors express difficulties and needs that must be listened in order to co-construct research projects. In this sense, the researcher should act as a facilitator to support the projects and the work of

3.Starting from the concrete angle of the field: to be able to fully understand the nuances of the context and/or the environment of the SDP actors, researchers are invited to be as close as possible to reality, and to step into the field as possible. This element is essential to build a relationship of trust with the actors to help them by understanding their background and endings as much

4.Seek interdisciplinary research: SDP themes are complex and often overlap with scientific knowledge from several research fields (e.g., sociology, psychology, and education). Researchers from several scientific disciplines must be open and work together as much as possible, in order to have the most precise and complex understanding of the phenomena that are difficult to capture from a single angle. Research must provide a better understanding of the multiple issues and the complexity of the issues, problems,

5.Propose better quality of research: it also seems relevant to us to question how to carry out better quality research on ephemeral or unstable fields, when access is considered complex and dangerous. This requires, among other things, the development of methods able to adapt and respond to the require-

ments of the domain as well as to the various fields of investigation;

[49, 50] or for life skills [51, 52], among others.

6.Clarify the uses of SDP: finally, it seems essential to us to question the type of sport for development and peace that is used in the various contexts of SDP. More specifically, is it competitive sport, physical education, physical activity, health education, or any other form? On this subject, Hills et al. [45] had opened up interesting avenues for reflection by mentioning sport + and + sport [46], sport for social inclusion [24], sport as a universal language [1, 24], sport as a diversion [47], as a replacement or alternative [48], as a hook

the actors while continuing to criticize them in his/her support;

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.89192*

the field;

as possible;

and realities;

**5. Future research perspectives on the SDP**
