Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports

James Malone, Liam Harper, Ben Jones, John Perry, Chris Barnes, Chris Towlson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of both academics and practitioners in relation to forming applied collaborative sport science research within team sports. Ninety-three participants who had previously engaged in collaborative research partnerships within team sports completed an online survey which focused on motivations and barriers for forming collaborations using blinded sliding scale (0–100) and rank order list. Research collaborations were mainly formed to improve the team performance (Academic: 73.6 ± 23.3; Practitioner: 84.3 ± 16.0; effect size (ES = 0.54), small). Academics ranked journal articles’ importance significantly higher than practitioners did (Academic: M rank = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = −3.18, p =.001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: M rank = 41.3; Practitioner 56.1; z = −2.62, p =.009, p < q). Some potential barriers were found in terms of staff buy in (Academic: 70.0 ± 25.5; Practitioner: 56.8 ± 27.3; ES = 0.50, small) and funding (Academic: 68.0 ± 24.9; Practitioner: 67.5 ± 28.0; ES = 0.02, trivial). Both groups revealed low motivation for invasive mechanistic research (Academic: 36.3 ± 24.2; Practitioner: 36.4 ± 27.5; ES = 0.01, trivial), with practitioners have a preference towards ‘fast’ type research. There was a general agreement between academics and practitioners for forming research collaborations. Some potential barriers still exist (e.g. staff buy in and funding), with practitioners preferring ‘fast’ informal research dissemination compared to the ‘slow’ quality control approach of academics. .

LanguageEnglish
Pages147-155
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Sport Science
Volume19
Issue number2
Early online date14 Jul 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Sports
Research
Quality Control

Cite this

Malone, James ; Harper, Liam ; Jones, Ben ; Perry, John ; Barnes, Chris ; Towlson, Chris. / Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports. In: European Journal of Sport Science. 2019 ; Vol. 19, No. 2. pp. 147-155.
@article{b21228ebd4754edab85a5c49c960feee,
title = "Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports",
abstract = "The purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of both academics and practitioners in relation to forming applied collaborative sport science research within team sports. Ninety-three participants who had previously engaged in collaborative research partnerships within team sports completed an online survey which focused on motivations and barriers for forming collaborations using blinded sliding scale (0–100) and rank order list. Research collaborations were mainly formed to improve the team performance (Academic: 73.6 ± 23.3; Practitioner: 84.3 ± 16.0; effect size (ES = 0.54), small). Academics ranked journal articles’ importance significantly higher than practitioners did (Academic: M rank = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = −3.18, p =.001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: M rank = 41.3; Practitioner 56.1; z = −2.62, p =.009, p < q). Some potential barriers were found in terms of staff buy in (Academic: 70.0 ± 25.5; Practitioner: 56.8 ± 27.3; ES = 0.50, small) and funding (Academic: 68.0 ± 24.9; Practitioner: 67.5 ± 28.0; ES = 0.02, trivial). Both groups revealed low motivation for invasive mechanistic research (Academic: 36.3 ± 24.2; Practitioner: 36.4 ± 27.5; ES = 0.01, trivial), with practitioners have a preference towards ‘fast’ type research. There was a general agreement between academics and practitioners for forming research collaborations. Some potential barriers still exist (e.g. staff buy in and funding), with practitioners preferring ‘fast’ informal research dissemination compared to the ‘slow’ quality control approach of academics. .",
keywords = "coaching, education, sports science, barriers, performance, survey, Coaching, sport science",
author = "James Malone and Liam Harper and Ben Jones and John Perry and Chris Barnes and Chris Towlson",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in European Journal of Sports Science on 14 Jul 2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "147--155",
journal = "European Journal of Sport Science",
issn = "1746-1391",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports. / Malone, James; Harper, Liam; Jones, Ben; Perry, John; Barnes, Chris; Towlson, Chris.

In: European Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, 07.02.2019, p. 147-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports

AU - Malone, James

AU - Harper, Liam

AU - Jones, Ben

AU - Perry, John

AU - Barnes, Chris

AU - Towlson, Chris

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in European Journal of Sports Science on 14 Jul 2018, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632

PY - 2019/2/7

Y1 - 2019/2/7

N2 - The purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of both academics and practitioners in relation to forming applied collaborative sport science research within team sports. Ninety-three participants who had previously engaged in collaborative research partnerships within team sports completed an online survey which focused on motivations and barriers for forming collaborations using blinded sliding scale (0–100) and rank order list. Research collaborations were mainly formed to improve the team performance (Academic: 73.6 ± 23.3; Practitioner: 84.3 ± 16.0; effect size (ES = 0.54), small). Academics ranked journal articles’ importance significantly higher than practitioners did (Academic: M rank = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = −3.18, p =.001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: M rank = 41.3; Practitioner 56.1; z = −2.62, p =.009, p < q). Some potential barriers were found in terms of staff buy in (Academic: 70.0 ± 25.5; Practitioner: 56.8 ± 27.3; ES = 0.50, small) and funding (Academic: 68.0 ± 24.9; Practitioner: 67.5 ± 28.0; ES = 0.02, trivial). Both groups revealed low motivation for invasive mechanistic research (Academic: 36.3 ± 24.2; Practitioner: 36.4 ± 27.5; ES = 0.01, trivial), with practitioners have a preference towards ‘fast’ type research. There was a general agreement between academics and practitioners for forming research collaborations. Some potential barriers still exist (e.g. staff buy in and funding), with practitioners preferring ‘fast’ informal research dissemination compared to the ‘slow’ quality control approach of academics. .

AB - The purpose of the study was to examine the perspectives of both academics and practitioners in relation to forming applied collaborative sport science research within team sports. Ninety-three participants who had previously engaged in collaborative research partnerships within team sports completed an online survey which focused on motivations and barriers for forming collaborations using blinded sliding scale (0–100) and rank order list. Research collaborations were mainly formed to improve the team performance (Academic: 73.6 ± 23.3; Practitioner: 84.3 ± 16.0; effect size (ES = 0.54), small). Academics ranked journal articles’ importance significantly higher than practitioners did (Academic: M rank = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = −3.18, p =.001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: M rank = 41.3; Practitioner 56.1; z = −2.62, p =.009, p < q). Some potential barriers were found in terms of staff buy in (Academic: 70.0 ± 25.5; Practitioner: 56.8 ± 27.3; ES = 0.50, small) and funding (Academic: 68.0 ± 24.9; Practitioner: 67.5 ± 28.0; ES = 0.02, trivial). Both groups revealed low motivation for invasive mechanistic research (Academic: 36.3 ± 24.2; Practitioner: 36.4 ± 27.5; ES = 0.01, trivial), with practitioners have a preference towards ‘fast’ type research. There was a general agreement between academics and practitioners for forming research collaborations. Some potential barriers still exist (e.g. staff buy in and funding), with practitioners preferring ‘fast’ informal research dissemination compared to the ‘slow’ quality control approach of academics. .

KW - coaching

KW - education

KW - sports science

KW - barriers

KW - performance

KW - survey

KW - Coaching

KW - sport science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049851006&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632

DO - 10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 147

EP - 155

JO - European Journal of Sport Science

T2 - European Journal of Sport Science

JF - European Journal of Sport Science

SN - 1746-1391

IS - 2

ER -