Search Results

Systems thinking has been developed and used in many fields such as management, economics, and engineering in the past few decades. Although implicit elements of systems thinking may be found in some coaching biographies and autobiographies, a critical and explicit work on systems thinking that examines its principles and its relevance to sport sciences and coaching is yet to be developed. The aim of this Insight paper is to explore systems thinking and its potential for modelling and analysing team performance by (a) explaining how systems thinking is used in other fields, (b) highlighting the importance of conceptual analysis and critical thinking next to data collecting practices, and (c) contrasting systems thinking with the common approaches to modelling and analysing team performance.

The primary purpose of this article is to expand the discussion about the role of science, clinical thinking, the state of the discipline, and the manner in which evidence-based practice may aid in the development of the field of sport psychology. Rejecting pseudoscientific principles and embracing sound scientific standards of research and practice will result in an increasingly fresh and vibrant field from which greater innovation and evolution can occur. This innovation will inevitably lead to a renewed commitment to theory building, as the evolving scientific database will drive new ways of thinking about the myriad of issues presented by athletic clientele. By embracing the evidence-based practice philosophy, not only will sound scientific advancements emerge, but most importantly, the overall well-being of our athletic clientele will be enhanced.

As sports scientists, we claim to make a significant contribution to the body of knowledge that influences athletic practice and performance. Is this the reality? At the inaugural congress of the Australian Association for Exercise and Sports Science, a panel of well-credentialed academic experts with experience in the applied environment debated the question, Does sports-science research influence practice? The first task was to define “sports-science research,” and it was generally agreed that it is concerned with providing evidence that improves sports performance. When practices are equally effective, sports scientists also have a role in identifying practices that are safer, more time efficient, and more enjoyable. There were varying views on the need for sports-science research to be immediately relevant to coaches or athletes. Most agreed on the importance of communicating the results of sports-science research, not only to the academic community but also to coaches and athletes, and the need to encourage both short- and long-term research. The panelists then listed examples of sports-science research that they believe have influenced practice, as well as strategies to ensure that sports-science research better influences practice.

Two sport psychologies have emerged—academic sport psychology and practicing sport psychology—which presently are on diverging courses because of an unjustified belief in orthodox science as the primary source of knowledge. To support this contention, the basic assumptions of orthodox science are examined, with the doctrine of objectivity singled out as fallacious and especially harmful in that it attempts to remove the person from the process of knowing. Polanyi’s (1958) heuristic philosophy of knowledge, which places humans in the center of the process of knowing, is recommended as an alternative approach for the study of human behavior. This alternative approach reveals the inadequacy of the laboratory experiment which has been invented primarily to pursue the doctrine of objectivity. Next, the Degrees of Knowledge theory is proposed as an alternative way to view the reliability of knowledge. This view, within the heuristic paradigm, places great significance on experiential knowledge. Recommendations for an improved science of human behavior emphasizes the idiographic approach, introspective methods, and field studies. Also, recommendations are made for a more progressive approach to applied research, and the significance of knowledge synthesis from applied research. The two sport psychologies will converge when orthodox science and the doctrine of objectivity are replaced with the heuristic paradigm and its emphasis on experiential knowledge.