MIRR - Mary Immaculate Research Repository

    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • FACULTY OF ARTS
    • Department of Psychology
    • Psychology (Peer-reviewed publications)
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • FACULTY OF ARTS
    • Department of Psychology
    • Psychology (Peer-reviewed publications)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of MIRRCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Resources

    How to submitCopyrightFAQs

    Perspectives of applied collaborative sport science research within professional team sports (Pre-published version)

    Citation

    Malone, 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.
    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Main article (189.8Kb)
    Date
    2018
    Author
    Perry, John
    Malone, James J.
    Harper, Liam D.
    Jones, Ben
    Barnes, Chris
    Towlson, Chris
    Peer Reviewed
    Yes
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Malone, 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.
    Abstract
    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: 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.
    Keywords
    Coaching
    Education
    Sport Science
    Barriers
    Performance
    Survey
    Language (ISO 639-3)
    eng
    Publisher
    Taylor & Francis [Routledge]
    License URI
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632
    DOI
    10.1080/17461391.2018.1492632
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10395/2702
    Collections
    • Psychology (Peer-reviewed publications)

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
     

     


    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback