a School of Health Sciences , Liverpool Hope University , Liverpool , UK.
b Human and Health Sciences , University of Huddersfield , Huddersfield , UK.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2019 Mar;19(2):147-155. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
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 = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = -3.18, p = .001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: M = 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.
这项研究的目的是探讨学术界和从业者在团队运动中形成应用协作体育科学研究的观点。93 名曾在团队运动中参与过合作研究的参与者完成了一项在线调查,该调查侧重于使用盲目的滑动量表(0-100)和排名列表形成合作的动机和障碍。研究合作主要是为了提高团队表现而形成的(学术界:73.6±23.3;从业者:84.3±16.0;效果大小(ES)=0.54,小)。学术界对期刊文章的重要性评价明显高于从业者(学术界:M=53.9;从业者:36.0;z=-3.18,p=.001,p<q)。然而,从业者认为一对一的交流更为优先(学术界:M=41.3;从业者 56.1;z=-2.62,p=.009,p<q)。在员工认同方面发现了一些潜在的障碍(学术界:70.0±25.5;从业者:56.8±27.3;ES=0.50,小)和资金(学术界:68.0±24.9;从业者:67.5±28.0;ES=0.02,微不足道)。两组对侵入性机制研究的动机都较低(学术界:36.3±24.2;从业者:36.4±27.5;ES=0.01,微不足道),从业者更喜欢“快速”类型的研究。学术界和从业者对形成研究合作有普遍的共识。仍然存在一些潜在的障碍(例如员工认同和资金),从业者倾向于比学术界的“缓慢”质量控制方法更偏好“快速”非正式的研究传播。