Show simple item record

dc.contributor.creatorPerry, John
dc.contributor.creatorMalone, James J.
dc.contributor.creatorHarper, Liam D.
dc.contributor.creatorJones, Ben
dc.contributor.creatorBarnes, Chris
dc.contributor.creatorTowlson, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-07T14:29:13Z
dc.date.available2019-03-07T14:29:13Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationMalone, J., Harper, L., Jones, B., Perry, J. L., Barnes, C., & McLaren-Towlson, C. (2018). Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports. European Journal of Sport Science. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10395/2702
dc.descriptionPerspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports.en_US
dc.description.abstractThe 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: Mrank = 53.9; Practitioner: 36.0; z = -3.18, p = .001, p < q). However, practitioners rated one-to-one communication as more preferential (Academic: Mrank = 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.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francis [Routledge]en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries19;2
dc.rights.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632en_US
dc.subjectCoachingen_US
dc.subjectEducationen_US
dc.subjectSport Scienceen_US
dc.subjectBarriersen_US
dc.subjectPerformanceen_US
dc.subjectSurveyen_US
dc.titlePerspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports (Pre-published version)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.supercollectionall_mic_researchen_US
dc.type.supercollectionmic_published_revieweden_US
dc.description.versionYesen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record