In Search of Convergence: A Co-citation Analysis of Three Sport Management Journals

Responding to a series of articles in sport management literature calling for more diversity in terms of areas of interest or methods, this study warns against the danger of excessively fragmenting this field of research. The works of Kuhn (1962) and Pfeffer (1993) are taken as the basis of an argument that connects convergence with scientific strength. However, being aware of the large number of counterarguments directed at this line of reasoning, a new model of convergence, which focuses on clusters of research contributions with similar areas of interest, methods, and concepts, is proposed. The existence of these clusters is determined with the help of a bibliometric analysis of publications in three sport management journals. This examination determines that there are justified reasons to be concerned about the level of convergence in the field, pointing out to a reduced ability to create large clusters of contributions in similar areas of interest.

Grand Bahama Club Flying Citation, 1958

A Citation from the Grand Bahama Club that reads, "This Citation is awarded to Dorothy Rungeling for having flown a single engine plane across the waters of the Gulf Stream to Grand Bahama Island. In Witness Whereof we have hereunto set our hands this 19th day of August 1958."

Limiting rights, Canadian style : the Supreme Court of Canada, American jurisprudence and section 1 of the Charter /

The addition of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms represented a fundamental shift in Canadian governance. Many saw the tabling of such a document as a further, even fmal, step towards the Americanization of the Canadian polity. While the Charter's presence has significantly altered the relationship between citizens, government and the courts, it has done so by maintaining the traditional values and experiences that has been the hallmarks of Canadian constitutionalism. This is in contrast to the fears harboured by critics suggesting that the Charter was a further Americanization of the Canadian Polity, notwithstanding the very different natures of the American Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter. Analyzing American Supreme Court precedent use by the Canadian Supreme Court has demonstrated that such an Americanization has not, in fact, occurred. In the present analysis of American precedent use in section 1 limitation of rights cases, the citation of these precedents are at best episodic, at least on the quantitative level. Qualitatively, the Canadian Supreme Court generally uses American jurisprudence to further support broad definitions of 'great rights' . As for the more intricate details of rights limitations and the process involved in detennining how Charter rights are limited, one would be hard pressed to find even cursory references to American case law.