This piece is centered on my journey as an applied researcher, but also ties into some key points made during a recent keynote presentation by IRFU’s Medical Director Rod McLoughlin, at the inaugural SHPRC conference held at PESS.
Applied and traditional research in sports science represents two distinct approaches to the development of knowledge. Whilst they both may have the same overarching goal of contributing to sporting performance, they often come with their approaches to the problem, as well as unique challenges. However, better collaboration between universities and practitioners is needed to help navigate these challenges and create research that is both scientifically rigorous and applicable in the applied world.
Traditional research, often conducted in universities, may focus on expanding conceptual understandings of a field, which may take a long time to achieve. In sports science that could be trying to expand our understanding of the complex mechanisms behind adaptation and performance. Some of the challenges faced by researchers in this space are gaining access to athletes, as well as addressing criticisms on the lack of real practical impact that their work can have.
Applied research, on the other hand, is primarily focused on problem solving, often in the immediate to short term. This can involve using current scientific knowledge to address problems that are relevant to a sport, single team or individual. One of the main challenges faced by applied researchers is getting buy-in from key stakeholders, finding ways of taking measurements using methods that are non-invasive, yet valid and reliable, as well as financial constraints. Furthermore, applied research is often criticised for its lack of scientific rigor, despite the potential practical applications.
Often what we can end up with when we compare the traditional vs applied approach is:
Interesting and novel research that isn’t practically useful vs very practical studies that aren’t scientifically rigorous.
Balancing these two approaches was something I struggled with whilst trying to conduct my own research in professional football. One bit of research I was trying to conduct was to comprehensively map responses to football training and matches using more complex approaches (such as metabolomics, genomics, and proteomics). It was hoped this approach would provide more greater insights into the individual variation in response to training sessions with different physiological and biomechanical demands. These demands could be quantified externally, but understanding the internal responses to these demands was an unsolved problem.
However, having multiple blood samples taken from players was not something that goes down well in football clubs! The pragmatic solution to this problem was to use fingertip capillary blood samples, which are less invasive and easier to collect than venous blood samples. However, the trade-off is this method isn’t considered the gold standard approach. Furthermore, we could only analyse metabolomic responses due to the high cost of analysis. This is a small example of the often-necessary trade-offs associated with trying to conduct research in the applied world. These decisions are often termed ‘delimitations, as they are based on the researcher’s decision to exclude certain aspects to make a study more feasible.
Another part of my research was to understand if the methods used to measure adaptive responses in football research were driven by pragmatic approaches (such as those found in the applied approach), or more conceptual approaches? (such as those found in the traditional approach). A review of over 450 papers found that much of the research conducted in football has focused on measuring responses using simple to use, cost effective, pragmatic approaches (e.g a running or jump test). These findings are understandable due to points previously made on the challenges of applied research. However, these approaches often limit our insights into the mechanisms driving adaptive responses and changes in performance.
I believe this is where researchers in universities have a big role to play in shaping future research in the applied world, as often they have better access to the specialist knowledge, funding and equipment needed to conduct more sophisticated research. Furthermore, as sports science research develops, more collaboration will be needed across many disciplines of biology in order to understand the complexities associated with adaptation and performance. This once again puts universities in a strong position to help shape future research. However, practitioners have access to players and often have a better understanding of the challenges associated with translating research to practice. Therefore, better collaboration between those conducting research in universities and practitioners in sports organisations, can bridge the gap between traditional and applied research and push sports science forward.
My advice for younger researchers looking to conduct research in the applied world is to connect with practitioners as a starting point, find out what problems need solving, and work back from there. This may allow for better development of a research question that satisfies both the traditional and applied approach. Blending both the traditional and applied approach through collaboration and shared understanding of the challenges associated with both approaches, should result in better quality research that is welcomed by practitioners, whilst still meeting scientific rigor.
Dr. Adam Sullivan is a Research Assistant in the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, UL, as well as an Applied Sports Scientist/Strength & Conditioning coach.
Contact: Email adam.sullivan@ul.ie @adam89sullivan LinkedIn
PESS News & Information 