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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig 1

(adapted from Coutts [1])

References

  1. 1.

    Coutts A. Challenges in developing evidence-based practice in high-performance sport. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(6):717–8.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bishop D. An applied research model for the sport sciences. Sports Med. 2008;38(3):253–63.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cardinale M. Commentary on “towards a grand unified theory of sports performance”. Hum Mov Sci. 2017;56:160–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jones G. How the best of the best get better and better. Harv Bus Rev. 2008;86(6):123–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097082.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Buchheit M. Houston, we still have a problem. Int J Sport Physiol Perform. 2017;12(8):1111–4.

    Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Stoszkowski J, Collins D. Sources, topics and use of knowledge by coaches. J Sports Sci. 2016;34(9):794–802.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kilic K, Ince M. Use of sports science knowledge by Turkish coaches. Int J Exerc Sci. 2015;8(1):21–37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097082.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Murray A, et al. Recovery practices in Division 1 collegiate athletes in North America. Phys Ther Sport. 2018;32:67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugh H. K. Fullagar.

Ethics declarations

Funding

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fullagar, H.H.K., McCall, A., Impellizzeri, F.M. et al. The Translation of Sport Science Research to the Field: A Current Opinion and Overview on the Perceptions of Practitioners, Researchers and Coaches. Sports Med 49, 1817–1824 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01139-0

Download citation