Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Applied researchers (eg, academic researchers, PhD students) strive to undertake research that can inform practice in sport, and evidence ‘impact.’ Conversely, practitioners (eg, coaches, physiotherapists, clinicians, sports scientists) strive to apply relevant up-to-date research findings to develop or optimise practice, adopting ‘evidence based practice.’ Despite the researcher and practitioner within a discipline having similar overall aims (eg, improve athletic performance, reduce injury risk, optimise return to play practices), their primary roles appear different due to various contextual factors.1 2 Researchers are able to work slowly, dedicating time to solving complex problems, whereas practitioners working in the field are required to work fast, to provide day-to-day support to coaches and athletes.1 The differences in how the researcher and practitioner work can be problematic and challenge the alignment of their respective priorities within their roles (eg, timescales required to deliver outcomes, specific expertise and experience, resources). Here we share a model demonstrating how the ‘working fast1 on-field brain3’, ‘working slow1 off-field brain3’ and ‘research-practitioner2’ can work together to undertake and integrate research into practice and solve the above problems.
Strategies for undertaking and integrating research into practice
The alignment of (applied) research questions, expectations and usability of outcomes into practice …
Contributors BJ wrote the manuscript. BJ, KT, SE, SH, PM, JDJ, GR, SIM, RM, RH, NP, MC and AR conceptualised the editorial. All authors approved the final version.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.