Sports Medicine

, Volume 49, Issue 12, pp 1817–1824 | Cite as

The Translation of Sport Science Research to the Field: A Current Opinion and Overview on the Perceptions of Practitioners, Researchers and Coaches

  • Hugh H. K. FullagarEmail author
  • Alan McCall
  • Franco M. Impellizzeri
  • Terry Favero
  • Aaron J. Coutts
Current Opinion


Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the collated integration of practitioner expertise, athlete values and research evidence aimed to optimise the decision-making process surrounding sport performance. Despite the academic interest afforded to sport science research, our knowledge of how this research is applied in elite sport settings is limited. This current opinion examines the existing evidence of the translation of sport science research into the field, with a tailored focus on the current perceptions of practitioners, researchers and coaches. Recent studies show that practitioners and researchers report they ascertain sport science knowledge differently, with coaches preferring personal interactions compared with coaching courses or scientific journals. The limited peer-reviewed research shows that coaches perceive their knowledge is greater in fields such as tactical/technical areas, rather than physical fitness or general conditioning. This likely explains coaches’ greater perceived value in research dedicated to technical and tactical expertise, as well as mental training and skill acquisition. Practitioners place a large emphasis on the need for research in physical fitness areas, which is likely due to their occupational focus. There are many perceived barriers of sport science research application, including funding, time, coach/player/staff ‘buy in’ and research questions that may not apply to the setting. We contend that researchers and practitioners may benefit in producing research, ascertaining knowledge and disseminating findings in alternative methods that better align with coaches’ needs. In addition, educational strategies that focus on real-world context and promote social interaction between coaches, practitioners, organisational personnel and researchers would likely benefit all stakeholders.



The authors would like to thank Job Fransen for his insight into the revised version of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was provided that contributed to the development of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Hugh Fullagar, Alan McCall, Franco Impellizzeri, Terry Favero and Aaron Coutts declare that there are no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Coutts A. Challenges in developing evidence-based practice in high-performance sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(6):717–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malone J, et al. Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;19(2):147–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop D. An applied research model for the sport sciences. Sports Med. 2008;38(3):253–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reade I, Rodgers W, Spriggs K. New ideas for high performance coaches: a case study of knowledge transfer in sport science. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2008;3(3):335–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brink M, et al. What do football coaches want from sport science? Kinesiology. 2018;50(Suppl 1):150–4.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sands W, McNeal J, Stone M. Plaudits and pitfalls in studying elite athletes. Percept Mot Skills. 2015;100(1):22–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cardinale M. Commentary on “towards a grand unified theory of sports performance”. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;56:160–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones G. How the best of the best get better and better. Harv Bus Rev. 2008;86(6):123–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reade I, Rodgers W, Hall N. Knowledge transfer: how do high performance coaches access the knowledge of sport scientists? Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2008;3(3):319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldsmith W. Bridging the gap? Now there is a gap in the bridge! ASCA Newsletter. 2000;3:2–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerr R. Integrating scientists into the sports environment: a case study of gymnastics in New Zealand. J Sport Soc Issues. 2012;36(1):3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sarmento H, et al. What performance analysts need to know about research trends in Association Football. Sports Med. 2017;48(4):799–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones B, et al. Accessing off-field brains in sport; an applied research model to develop practice. Br J Sports Med. 2017. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams S, Kendall L. Perceptions of elite coaches and sports scientists of the research needs for elite coaching practice. J Sports Sci. 2007;25(14):1577–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burgess D. The research doesn’t always apply: practical solutions to evidence-based training-load monitoring in elite team sports. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(Suppl 2):S2136–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Banerjee S, Morley C. Professional doctorates in management: toward a practice-based approach to doctoral education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2012;12(2):173–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ardern C, et al. Unravelling confusion in sports medicine and sports science practice: a systematic approach to using the best of research and practice-based evidence to make a quality decision. Br J Sports Med. 2019;53(1):50–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buchheit M. Houston, we still have a problem. Int J Sport Physiol Perform. 2017;12(8):1111–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haynes B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. Br Med J. 1999;319(7211):652–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McCall A, et al. Can off-field “brains” provide a competitive advantage in professional football? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(12):710–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eisenmann J. Translational cap between laboratory and playing field: new era to colve old problems in sport science. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2017;2(8):37–43.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Halson S, Nichols J. When failure is not an option: creating excellence in sport through insights from special forces. Int J Sport Physiol Perform. 2015;10(2):137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Santos S, et al. Coaches’ perceptions of competence and acknowledgement of training needs related to professional competences. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(3):62–70.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mesquita I, Isidro S, Rosado A. Portuguese coaches’ perceptions of and preferences for knowledge sources related to their professional background. J Sports Sci Med. 2010;9(3):480–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stoszkowski J, Collins D. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(9):794–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waterman H, et al. Facilitating large-scale implementation of evidence based health care: insider accounts from a co-operative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chapple R, et al. Integrating science into management of ecosystems in the Greater Blue Mountains. Environ Manag. 2011;48(4):659–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kilic K, Ince M. Use of sports science knowledge by Turkish coaches. Int J Exerc Sci. 2015;8(1):21–37.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Starling L, Lambert M. Monitoring rugby players for fitness and fatigue: what do coaches want? Int J Sport Physiol Perform. 2018;13(6):777–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weston M. Training load monitoring in elite English soccer: a comparison of practices and perceptions between coaches and practitioners. J Sci Med Football. 2018;2(3):216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jones B, et al. Accessing off-field brains in sport; an applied research model to develop practice. Br J Sports Med. 2017. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Akenhead R, Nassis G. Training load and player monitoring in high-level football: current practice and perceptions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;11(5):587–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buchheit M. Want to see my report, coach. Sport science reporting in the real world. Aspetar Sports Med J. 2017;6:36–42.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Halperin I. Case studies in exercise and sport sciences: a powerful tool to bridge the science-practice gap. Int J Sport Physiol Perform. 2018;13(6):824–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Murray A, et al. Recovery practices in Division 1 collegiate athletes in North America. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sport and Exercise Discipline Group, Faculty of HealthUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Arsenal Football ClubLondonUK
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentUniversity of PortlandPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations