Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38577241›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in sociology2024

Between nature and culture - Interpreting students' sexuality in physical education.

Nicola Böhlke, Benjamin Zander, Daniel Rode

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in sociology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nicola BöhlkeInstitute of Sport Science and Movement Pedagogic, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Benjamin ZanderInstitute of Sport Science, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Daniel RodeDepartment of Sport and Exercise Science, Paris Lodron University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: As sexuality in physical education (PE) is often treated as a taboo subject, social media platforms, online chats, and internet forums are emerging as spaces where it is negotiated more openly and broadly by current and former actors of the field. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the discursive construction of sexuality in PE in such online communication. Methods: In line with The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD) we investigate basic schemes of interpretation of sexuality with a heterogeneous sample of threads (17 threads from seven different online forums) on different PE situations in Germany. The threads are analyzed using grounded theory coding procedures. Results: Our discourse analysis reveals that the multifaceted and often controversial online discussions are structured by two dominant schemes of interpreting students' sexuality in PE, both of which are differentiated in complex ways: The online communication draws on - and by that reproduces - a nature and a culture perspective on constellations of body, sex, gender, and sexuality. We detail how from each perspective, different knowledge about these constellations, different everyday phenomena and problems in PE, and different norms for dealing with these phenomena and problems become important. Discussion: Discussing these results in the context of previous literature, we argue that it is important to address sexuality in a subject-specific approach and take the discursive knowledge and fundamental schemes of interpretation into account that shape the (im-)possibilities of addressing sexuality in PE.

Indexed as

discourse analysisinterpretive schemesonline researchphysical educationSexuality

Identifiers

PMID38577241
PMCPMC10993692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.