Science Friction
Anyone who has played team sports will be familiar with the notion of a ‘kangaroo court’. It is a place where team mates admonish their peers for behaviour that contravenes the written (and unwritten) code at their club. Some of the most heinous crimes I have been privy to include excessive on-pitch celebrations, failing to switch off a mobile phone during team meetings and, (wait for it) wearing the incorrect T-shirt on match days. My own misdemeanour? After being awarded a penalty (in a game of Rugby Union), indicating to my team mates that we should take the two points on offer. The scoring system in Rugby Union, it seemed, was different to that in Rugby League. I shall spare you the details of my punishment.
For those less versed in such practises I would recommend watching Keith Wood, the legendary Irish hooker, resplendent in a green wig, preside over the sentencing of players in the documentary, Living with the Lions.
The critique once confined to team meetings and dressing rooms is now administered online, shared with anyone and everyone whether we like it, or not.
Photo by Florian Klauer on Unsplash
Unregulated critique is ubiquitous in sport affecting coaches, officials, administrators and athletes. More recently, members of the support team have found themselves thrust into the limelight and the subject of online debate. Digital technology has made research more accessible which, in the main, is a good thing. It has, however, opened new channels for critiquing and questioning the work of others, often with no check or balance. Social media gives everyone a voice, no matter how well or ill-informed. It is not uncommon to read disparaging comments about clubs, their support staff and the work undertaken from people who ought to know better, or, perhaps, actually, who don’t know any better!
Few academic publications make a dent in the public consciousness. Between 2020 and 2024, according to Google Scholar, there were 27,300 articles published on the topic of sport. That equates to 568 a year or 47 a month. To keep up to date you would need to read more than one article a day whilst finding time to consume the huge back catalogue of work pre 2020 (this totals around 6.2 million publications, give or take). Occasionally, however, a body of work grabs the public interest. Take ice baths for example. Sporting teams have been using these for longer than I care to mention whilst academics have been investigating the topic since at least the 1960’s. Public interest, however, was peaked by authors like Wim Hoff who prompted the media and others to look for scientific evidence detailing their effectiveness. A similar pattern was evident for research investigating the acute to chronic workload ratio that found fame and notoriety outside of academia. For the unaccustomed, this was a body of research that had a simple message (and apologies is this is overly concise); avoid, where possible, sudden changes in workload for which athletes have not been suitably prepared.
So, how do some topics traverse the gap between academia and public understanding? In part, by social and the popular media. Whilst this can be a good thing, especially if it is your work that is propelled into the public consciousness, when new and perhaps contradictory evidence comes to light, it may not reach the same audience. For example, reviews looking at the veracity of the acute to chronic workload ratio (such as the one linked here https://osf.io/preprints/sportrxiv/e8kt4) have permeated the applied community in the same way the original research did.
The review is comprehensive and delves explores the data to a greater degree than I have afforded manuscripts as a reviewer (at this point I hope the readership is nodding its collective heads rather than tutting in disdain). Reviews are important. They remind us not to accept ideas without due consideration whilst allowing our views to be challenged when new and contradictory evidence comes to light. Changing one’s mind is something we should all be prepared to do. Unfortunately, this is rarely conveyed in publications other than those aimed at an academic audience, perhaps as a result of the complexity and expertise required to conduct such work. This isn’t just a problem for interested members of the public. How many sporting organisations provide online access for their staff to academic journals? Better keep those old university email addresses active and current!
Consequently, social media is both a curse and a blessing. On one hand it can communicate key messages, providing a platform to synthesise and summarise complex data in an easy to digest format. The reader can elect to skim and take at face value, or, use as a starting point to explore the topic more broadly. On occasion, I have found myself reading about topics I would not necessarily have been interested in thanks to X (formally twitter). On the other hand, when complex issues are communicated in this forum, often with the aim of attracting clicks and shares, it is tempting to overstate the practical applications of the original data. Further, if new research comes to light that questions the conclusions made in the original studies, will the author of the post choose to revisit this and update their followers?
When ideas and concepts are popularised without the opportunity for dissenting voices to protest, complex topics coalesce into binary arguments between what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Readers are encouraged to pick a side with insufficient information to make an informed view.
I have experienced this writing for The Conversation, an online publication for academics to talk about their research with the public. My article was on bio-banding (link here for those who are interested https://theconversation.com/bio-banding-is-footballs-big-idea-for-developing-young-talent-and-why-it-might-not-work-64988), the practise or organising sporting competition by biological rather than chronological age. With the benefit of hindsight, I would write it differently having accumulated more knowledge and experience of the topic. That said, the comments posted missed the nuance and complexities I had hoped to convey in the article. The question of whether bio-banding is useful for your sport is nuanced and cannot be distilled into a binary ‘good’ or bad’ response. It reminded me of a scene in the movie, Notting Hill. Will Thacker (played by Hugh Grant) suggested to Anna Scott (played by Julia Roberts) that it would help if someone writing a book about Turkey (the country) had actually visited, at least once in their lives. Many of the comments on social media are made by those with only a moderate understanding of the topic at hand and, seemingly, without having actually read the material on which they have an opinion.
This issue has real world implications. When those who rely heavily on social media for new sources of knowledge find themselves working in an applied setting, there is a danger that ill informed decisions will ensue. It is why qualified and experienced sport scientists and medical practitioners are so important. They bring with them a wealth of experience, often a background in research, and appreciate the complexities of preparing athletes for competition. It is rare you will find someone with such experience who believes the answer to any question related to sport science and medicine is a simple one. They assimilate their own knowledge and experience with that of others to make informed decisions whilst being cognisant of the environment. Without using the much maligned phrase ‘it depends’, skilled practitioners offer a solution that balances objective data and situational constraints.
If viewed in a positive light, social media represents a new form of investigative journalism. As scientific publications increase exponentially, it provides an opportunity for informal checks and balances that calls out inconsistencies and methodological flaws in published work whilst promoting studies of a seminal nature. Such critique be delivered faster than is possible by traditional print or online journals. This is exemplified by an account on X titled ‘the good, bad and ugly of football research’, the discovery of which was greeted with a mix of excitement and trepidation. Similar to the feeling that the old kangaroo court evoked, I was interested to see whose research they would classify as ‘bad’ whilst being terrified that it might actually be my own.
A more cynical view is that social media facilitates spurious messages that go beyond the reach of the original data being cited whilst providing a platform for attacks on the professional reputation of others. Many academics, coaches and practitioners who engage in publishing their work will pay little attention to social media, and I am not suggesting they should. However, even those disinclined to engage with the medium may find their resolve tested when their work is publicly questioned online. Whether we agree or not, the growing importance that universities place on ‘altmetrics’ suggests the use of social media to promote one’s work is here to stay.
Is there a solution? Perhaps. Firstly, the online journal Sport Performance and Science Reports has been a great addition to the field. It offers an outlet for practitioners, researchers and coaches to publish their work using a streamlined review process providing the raw data is also submitted. The key is that it isn’t limited to those in academia and so provides a conduit for anyone with data, a story to tell and a reasonably honed writing style to submit. Further, because of the streamlined publication process it necessitates its readers to engage more actively and thoughtfully with the content they are consuming.
Admittedly there are downsides. For example, the unchecked dissemination of spurious, or worse, fabricated data, something which can happen when the traditional peer review process is employed. These challenges can be overcome by an engaged readership who approach scientific enquiry with a critical eye. Could more of the established journals follow suit? Yes. It already happens at the foot of rejection letters when we are encouraged to consider submitting to a partner publication for which there is a fee, and presumably, a less rigorous review process. If repositories supported by new technology make publishing easier and affordable would it make the industry better or worse? Ill let you make your own mind up on that one.
The media also has a role to play. As much as we can blame technology, it is individuals who publish the content (bots notwithstanding). We all have a responsibility to temper our online persona to better reflect how we speak to, and treat people in person. When publishing data there is a natural desire for it to be impactful and adopted, in some form or other, by the applied community. Despite this, we should not allow ourselves to embellish the importance of our work when promoting it online. One of the great aspects of academia is the requirement to present ones data conferences in either abstract, presentation or poster formats. This is the check and balance we need to keep conclusions and recommendations consistent with the data. Many of use will have had our ambitions tempered by more experienced colleagues when presenting data at a conference and have become better researchers as a result. Perhaps this represents an opportunity for a budding entrepreneur. An online conference where individuals from across the sport science can share posters or abstracts with an online community and receive professional and constructive feedback.
Where social media accounts are used to attack individuals, the best advice is that of St. Francis of Assisi (who lived in the 1200’s!), ‘seek first to understand, before being understood’. A historical ‘brake’ to counter the acceleration of technology that is well worth considering.
