Centralizing an ecological sport psychology through science-practice dialectics

Robert J. Schinke , Yufeng Li , Yang Ge , Liwei Zhang , Qiang Gao , Elizabeth A. Steadman , Yu-Bu Wang , Liye Zou
{"title":"Centralizing an ecological sport psychology through science-practice dialectics","authors":"Robert J. Schinke ,&nbsp;Yufeng Li ,&nbsp;Yang Ge ,&nbsp;Liwei Zhang ,&nbsp;Qiang Gao ,&nbsp;Elizabeth A. Steadman ,&nbsp;Yu-Bu Wang ,&nbsp;Liye Zou","doi":"10.1016/j.ajsep.2024.10.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There has been considerable discussion for more than 50 years of how scientists and practitioners in elite level sport can work collaboratively to ensure that evidence-based practice augments the sport performance and human development of elite amateur and professional athletes. The bridging of these two, often disparate competencies, science and practice, though considered at the conceptual level, continues to be scarcely evidenced within the international sport science community. Much of the research that frames the experiences of elite athletes and their consequent needs, is heavily influenced by scientists, often without direct reciprocity to bridge science, theory, and applied context. The knowledge influencing these interventions has derived from qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews, surveys, and focus groups, as well as a breadth of psychometric assessments. Though these approaches to gathering robust data are a necessary part of inquiry, they often produce decontextualized data collection strategies and results, which can lead to generalized, ineffective practices in sport performance environments. Within this submission, the first author cooperated with an international team of scientist-practitioners who are well versed in elite sport to delineate ecologically sound science-practice reciprocity. The authors consider the strengths and weaknesses of conventional qualitative research strategies in terms of their utility and the parlance of evidence into intervention and world-class performance. Two emerging, context driven approaches to inquiry are proposed; arts-based methods and an idiosyncratic approach to ethnography to encourage the reader toward an expanded selection of inquiry approaches from which better understanding and intervention can be generated. This contribution conclude with summary points to open further possibilities for innovative science to practice approaches.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100129,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology","volume":"4 3","pages":"Pages 88-93"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667239124000303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been considerable discussion for more than 50 years of how scientists and practitioners in elite level sport can work collaboratively to ensure that evidence-based practice augments the sport performance and human development of elite amateur and professional athletes. The bridging of these two, often disparate competencies, science and practice, though considered at the conceptual level, continues to be scarcely evidenced within the international sport science community. Much of the research that frames the experiences of elite athletes and their consequent needs, is heavily influenced by scientists, often without direct reciprocity to bridge science, theory, and applied context. The knowledge influencing these interventions has derived from qualitative methods, such as semi-structured interviews, surveys, and focus groups, as well as a breadth of psychometric assessments. Though these approaches to gathering robust data are a necessary part of inquiry, they often produce decontextualized data collection strategies and results, which can lead to generalized, ineffective practices in sport performance environments. Within this submission, the first author cooperated with an international team of scientist-practitioners who are well versed in elite sport to delineate ecologically sound science-practice reciprocity. The authors consider the strengths and weaknesses of conventional qualitative research strategies in terms of their utility and the parlance of evidence into intervention and world-class performance. Two emerging, context driven approaches to inquiry are proposed; arts-based methods and an idiosyncratic approach to ethnography to encourage the reader toward an expanded selection of inquiry approaches from which better understanding and intervention can be generated. This contribution conclude with summary points to open further possibilities for innovative science to practice approaches.
通过科学实践辩证法集中研究生态体育心理学
50 多年来,关于精英体育领域的科学家和从业人员如何开展合作,以确保循证实践能 够提高业余和职业精英运动员的运动表现和人类发展,已经进行了大量的讨论。科学与实践这两种往往互不相干的能力之间的联系,虽然在概念层面上得到了考虑,但在国际体育科学界仍然很少得到证实。很多研究都是以精英运动员的经历和他们的需求为框架,这些研究深受科学家的影响,但往往没有在科学、理论和应用背景之间建立起直接的互惠关系。影响这些干预措施的知识来自定性方法,如半结构式访谈、调查和焦点小组,以及广泛的心理测评。虽然这些收集可靠数据的方法是探究的必要组成部分,但它们往往会产生脱离实际的数据收集策略和结果,这可能会导致在运动表现环境中出现普遍、无效的做法。在这篇论文中,第一作者与一个由精通精英体育的科学家和实践者组成的国际团队合作,探讨了生态合理的科学与实践互惠关系。作者考虑了传统定性研究策略的优缺点,包括其效用以及干预和世界级表现的证据。作者提出了两种新兴的、以情境为导向的调查方法;基于艺术的方法和人种学的特异方法,鼓励读者扩大调查方法的选择范围,从中获得更好的理解和干预。最后,本文总结了一些要点,为创新科学实践方法提供了更多可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信