Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
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 is important. Clear expectations relating, but not limited to, time and resource(s) should be established. The philosophy of the researcher should be to develop not inform practice, as development is more synonymous with a successful integrated research-practice model. Involving stakeholders early in the research process is essential4 to increase adoption of research findings into the sports medicine field. The overall aim of applied research should be to provide useful, as opposed to (only) interesting findings.
The research-practitioner research process
Four fundamental barriers can challenge the integration of findings of applied research into practice (step 1, step 3, step 8 and step 9; figure 1). Appreciating the context, appropriateness and/or importance of the research question(s) may support the successful integration of research into practice.
Key steps and considerations to undertake and integrate applied research into practice.
The research question; appreciating the context
Research questions aim to understand the WHAT and/or the WHY. The WHAT should be the first (collaboratively designed, perhaps over coffee) question to appreciate the specific context for future research (example shown in figure 2).
A flow chart to collaboratively determining research questions, actions and outcomes in practice.
By first investigating the WHAT, researchers can establish the novelty of findings, which is a valuable start point for the development and evaluation of current practice. Understanding the WHAT can be done relatively quickly (in comparison to the WHY), so all are aware this can be integrated ‘this season.’ The two outcomes of the WHAT are (A) alignment with the literature (findings may not be published—although the practitioner has still benefited due to LEARNING within practice), or (B) novelty (researcher can share new knowledge via peer-review publication). Both outcomes benefit the practitioner.
We now collaboratively investigate the WHY by first evaluating the current literature to establish if (A) the answer is known; the practitioner still benefits with LEARNING taken place within practice, or (B) unknown; researchers can investigate this, while the practitioner is aware it may take a significant amount of time (and potential resource) to undertake high-quality applied research. These findings may be applied ‘next season.’ To successfully adopt this model in practice, an applied research model should be established.
A proposed applied research model
We have developed and implemented a model with various professional sports clubs, national governing bodies and schools to help integrate research and practice; the Carnegie Adolescent Rugby Research project. Currently, numerous researchers, research students, practitioners and management are involved in a collaborative approach to developing research and practice (figure 3).
The continuum of research and practice, accessing on-field and off-field brains to develop practice, applying the principles of Pasteur’s quadrant.5
To integrate research into practice, in addition to the employed practitioner (by the sporting organisation) or researcher (employed by the university), this model includes a number of joint-funded staff. These include joint-appointed and joint-funded research-practitioners in various positions such as: postdoctoral research fellows, PhD and MPhil students (whom all receive salaries or a bursary). Our model is overseen by academic staff who also work as practitioners, and performance staff (within the sporting organisations).
The researcher-practitioner will typically spend 30% of his/her time as a practitioner (eg, day-to-day activities, providing support to athletes or coaches, planning) and 70% as a researcher (eg, creating research questions, collecting, analysing and interrogating data, developing feedback mechanisms). If research questions are designed to develop practice, the sporting organisation also benefits from research time; a financial win-win for all. Omitted from this model is the senior management at both the university and sporting organisation, who fundamentally buy into the value of applied sports science research.
The proposed model (figure 3) is not restricted to only working in one sport or team, and some staff research across teams, whom compete against each other. Understanding how data are used and integrated back into practice reduces the sensitivity of (or not) sharing data (respecting the confidentiality and anonymity of participants and clients). Instead, competitive advantage is gained by the creative and innovative integration of the findings within current coaching systems and practices, as opposed to the specific data they hold.
For this model to be successful, in addition to collaboration between key individuals (eg, director of sport and an academic researcher), the positions shown in table 1 should be available to support various research questions (depending on complexity, time constraints, specialist skills) and also the integration of new and known knowledge, beyond a PowerPoint presentation to coaches.
Key positions, roles and challenges within the research-practitioner model
Summary
To integrate research into practice requires collaboration between on-field and off-field brains to deal with the unique challenges of research and practice. It requires commitment, time and excellent communication to develop high-quality evidence-based and efficient high-performance systems.
Footnotes
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.