Sport Science - a leaky umbrella

Few of us who are interested in sport will have failed to come across the term sport science, be that in an article relating to how top athletes train or in the advertising campaign for one of the many sports drinks currently on the market.  To those unaccustomed to the discipline this probably translates to the simple 'science of sport' or put more simply, how we make our athletes run, jump and throw faster, higher and further.  For those of us working within the sport science industry however the term may at times feel more like a lead weight than something which encapsulates our multifaceted discipline.  Let me explain why.

When the term sport science first came into our vocabulary it was probably as a result of the influence of 3 main disciplines, namely physiology, biomechanics and psychology, the founding disciplines within the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.  All are still to a greater or lesser extent incorporated within many sport science degrees and performance program's.  Over the years however there have been a number of new players on the scene, all with their own inherent merits; to name but a few performance analysis, skill acquisition, strength and conditioning and performance nutrition.  If you were to trawl through the performance program's of institutes and professional clubs you may find practitioners with an identified role in one or more of these areas.  What is more likely however is that you will meet the 'sport scientist' responsible for the whole gamut.  With such a broad spectrum of knowledge it is perhaps no surprise that certain areas become marginalised whilst others flourish.  This represents a problem for the practitioner who must keep abreast of a growing amount of research and literature but also for the athlete who may be unlucky enough to require expertise in an area which is not being catered for.  Perhaps the biggest problem however with this umbrella term is its connotations for coaching staff.

A couple of weeks ago a coach declared to me that he 'does not need sport science'.    Opinions of this nature are not uncommon.  Conversations with coaches in various sports have highlighted a range of opinions relating to sport science from the complimentary to the downright disparaging.  In these situations it is easy adopt a standpoint of blame however to do so ignores the issue at hand.

Spot science or simply science if you prefer is embedded in the way that we prepare athletes for competition be that in a contemporary or traditional manner.  Few coaches would question the efficacy of a warm up or undertake large periods of blocked practise in order it develop a skill.  Both have strong foundations and supporting evidence in their respective fields of research which has successfully integrated into the coaches practise, be that consciously or unconsciously.  To categorise sport science as a singular entity and dispel it as useless therefore is to ignore many of the benefits it brings to athlete preparation.

Sport science can also be said to suffer from its title in other ways, specifically regarding the connotations surrounding the very word 'science'.  If we take the dictionary definition of the term we see phrases such as 'systematic study' and 'experimentation and observation'.  At no point do we see the phrase 'proof giving' as this is not and never has been its function.  As our understanding, methodology and equipment improve we see changes in the way information is interpreted, that is to say that science evolves and it is this trait which is perhaps its strongest quality.  Of course this is no use to the coach who wants answers now, in the same way that a judge must decide whether the defendant before them is guilty or not.  The decision is permanent, and hopefully (although history tells us that this is not always the case) correct.  Ensuring that coaches understand this process as part of their coach education program is vital in allowing them to maximise the impact of sport scientists with whom they work.  I would suggest however that at present and in a number of NGB's this is simply not the case.  It is perhaps this absence which allows guru's to make their name proffering cure all solutions and proven performance enhancing strategies, many of which may work in the short term but are rarely beneficial longitudinally.  After all if something has been proven to work all the time there is little or no requirement to evaluate or reflect on it, elements that as psychology has taught us are essential for development and growth.

Coach education also needs to address the skill set of being able to understand and identify which facets of scientific support are of most relevant I their team or athlete and how these can be integrated.  Few roles in society require the myriad of skills that coaching does; a normal day may involve the psychology of learning, man management, delivery, data analysis and team leadership.  And for many of or coaches this is a part time role.  As such education resources must better equip coaches to manage the support environment and where possible clubs and NGB's should actively assist in the process.  This may centre on the simple question relating t whether the information is 'nice to know or need to know' (thanks to Ailsa Niven for the quote).  It is perhaps in this area that sport psychology can have its greatest impact especially where developing a culture of learning is concerned.

Practitioners themselves have a role to play and must develop skills in identifying what the most relevant facet of support is and in what way to best integrate any data they may collect to the benefit of the coaching process.   Nobody likes to be bombarded with information, in fact retail research tells us that customers have been shown make less purchases when confronted with a greater amount of choice.  At times the work we do may not seem particularly cutting edge however if it is what is needed then it should be pursued with fervour and guile.  In doing so we may find it easier to explain and evaluate the impact of our work.  Of course for the practitioner wishing to enhance their credentials in the scientific community this may not help their research or academic profile.  Clearly then being a successful sport scientist is not synonymous with being a successful scientist, unfortunately.

I hope in the preceding paragraphs I have successfully managed to extol the benefits of science in sport, if not necessarily sport science. As we move forward it seems that perhaps the traditional umbrella term may be 'leaking' and in need of a re-think, comments and suggestions on alternatives would be warmly welcomed.