C. Harwood et L. Hardy, Persistence and effort in moving achievement goal research forward: A response to treasure and colleagues, J SPORT EXE, 23(4), 2001, pp. 330-345
In their response to our recent paper (Harwood, Hardy, & Swain, 2000), Trea
sure et al. (2001) claimed to have clarified our misconceptions and misrepr
esentations of achievement goal research. After first of all commenting on
the apparently rather emotive nature of their response, we logically deal w
ith each of their criticisms. Specifically, we present sound theoretical ar
guments to show that: (a) personal theories of achievement hold primacy ove
r achievement goals; (b) we are not "particularly confused" (or even a litt
le confused) in our understanding of conceptions of ability; (c) there are
excellent reasons for examining the possibility of a tripartite approach to
goal orientation and goal involvement; and (d) the issue of measurement in
achievement goal research needs to be carefully reconsidered. Further, in
response to the status quo offered by Treasure and colleagues, we call for
more innovative research that will help progress the impact of achievement
goal theory in competitive sport.