Scholars have expressed concern about stagnation in physical education research. Specifically, they have claimed that physical education researchers have been investigating the same topics, presenting the same solutions, and at times fail to build on–or in some cases, even acknowledge–existing scientific findings. These are serious assertions that call into question the enterprise of researching in physical education. In this paper, we evaluate the merits of these claims. Through a Bernsteinian reading of four illustrations, the thesis we develop is that physical education has a horizontal knowledge structure. This knowledge structure affects the ways that scholars make scientific contributions, or in other words, how they develop knowledge. Understanding the connection between the knowledge structure and how knowledge is developed draws attention to: (1) the modest ways in which researchers typically make contributions, (2) the routine nature of repetition in research, and (3) the responsibilities researchers have to acknowledge the work of other researchers. We suggest that more generally, a Bernsteinian interpretation of the examples may help researchers acknowledge and accept slow disciplinary development and gain clarity regarding how and in which areas they can contribute in the future.