« The Soviet settler colony: Nicole Eaton, German Blood, Slavic Soil: How Nazi Königsberg Became Soviet Kaliningrad, Cornell University Press, 2023
What unites settlers? Peter Silver, Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America, W. W. Norton, 2008 »

Reconciliation for sport: Britta Peterson, Meredith Wing, Audrey R. Giles, Rochelle Stewart-Withers, Valentina Ly, ‘Rendering the invisible visible: reflexivity and flexibility in a scoping review on sport for reconciliation’, Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 2025

28Aug25

Abstract: Numerous scholars have argued that sport is a vessel through which to enforce settler-colonial domination; however, sport can also represent a domain in which to support Indigenous-settler reconciliation. Nevertheless, differing understandings of reconciliation, particularly within diverse global contexts, can lead to ambiguity in its definition and application. Therefore, as part of a broader project on sport for reconciliation (SFR), we conducted a scoping review to examine the ways in which the term SFR is used in the academic literature. Through the scoping review process, we screened 2201 articles by title and abstract and conducted a full-text screening of 181 articles. Only four articles met our inclusion criteria. While scoping reviews typically focus on findings, we seek to centre the process itself, emphasising reflexivity and flexibility, two aspects often promoted yet rarely presented and made visible in practice. In response to this gap, we examine the tensions we experienced regarding the implications of exclusion, which were amplified by our understanding of colonialism. We argue that engaging in reflexivity can (re)conceptualise exclusion criteria, shifting from the binary of inclusion and exclusion to a critical investigation of what something is not. Subsequently, we propose a sixth step to Arksey and O’Malley (2005) scoping review methodology, ‘implications of excluded articles and reflexive insights’. We recommend this step be completed before the optional consultation stage. By centring reflexivity and flexibility, we offer a nuanced (re)conceptualisation of both SFR scholarship and the use of scoping reviews, particularly in research shaped by and grounded in colonial logics.


Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Closed