Almost half a century ago, the psychiatrist George L. Engel published a seminal paper in Science outlining “The Need for a New Medical Model.”1 In that paper, Engel proposed a biopsychosocial (BPS) framework for general medicine, combining biomedical variables with psychological and social factors. Until that time, he argued, biomedical dogma required that “all disease, including ‘mental’ disease, be conceptualized in terms of derangement of underlying physical mechanisms.”1(p.130) To overcome this reductionist approach that focused only on the physical, Engel posited that BPS thinking “aims to provide a conceptual framework suitable for developing a scientific approach to what [humans] have to tell us about their ... experiences.”2(p.523) He highlighted the importance of integrating “outer observation” and “inner experiencing,” that is, assimilating objective and subjective information to understand the requirements for what he termed “being scientific in the human domain.” Engel2 refers to humanness as a unique asset to be taken advantage of:
That we humans are able to participate actively in our own study by looking inward and contributing information otherwise not available [eg, when studying sick, diseased, or dying animals or plants] should be a great scientific advantage. (p. 522)
The BPS model has been adopted in various areas of health and psychology research, but we are yet to really embrace the concept in academic sport science. This is perhaps surprising, given the “humanness” of our discipline and reliance on both quantitative and qualitative research approaches in a multidisciplinary field of study. Rather than integrating our research methods and traditions, we tend to view and teach the “hard” and “soft” sport-science subdisciplines differently and independently (eg, as anatomy, physiology, nutrition, biomechanics, performance analysis, coaching, psychology, sociology, etc). Moreover, our system encourages us to specialize. So rather than being described as “sport scientists,” we are pigeon-holed as, for example, physiologists, biomechanists, psychologists, or sociologists. Research expertise is developed in one specific subject area. and the generalist is considered less expert than the specialist.
Sport science has humanness at its heart, and “being scientific in the human domain” is highly pertinent in our education, research, and practice. Moreover, the ability to understand the complexities of sport performance, and providing impactful knowledge to stakeholders in sport, requires an interdisciplinary approach (ie, where multiple disciplines interact and work collaboratively). To account for biological, psychological, and sociological factors that characterize athletes and those surrounding them, a BPS framework is suggested (Figure 1). This approach would facilitate integration of sport-science subdisciplines in our educational curricula and research methods. While subdiscipline-specific studies that focus on isolated phenomena are certainly relevant and necessary, so, too, are studies that combine outer observation and inner experiencing (ie, objective and subjective information). This duality is especially important when studying athletes, who function as holistic and complex systems.
—A biopsychosocial framework in an athletic context.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 19, 7; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0164
A crucial next step in the development of sport science, if we are to better serve the athletic community, is to embrace interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and develop appropriate scientific methods to conduct this type of integrative work. To this end, a BPS framework is proposed, and a more comprehensive range of research and problem-solving methods is necessary. An immediate challenge is to clearly define such a framework and develop appropriate methods for solving complex problems and conducting high-quality interdisciplinary research in the context of sport science. Moreover, this work must be recognized by our community as “real science,” and the dissemination of such studies must be supported and facilitated. For example, sport-science societies, journals, and conferences are oftentimes categorized by subdiscipline, and within each subdiscipline we have strong research traditions and accepted methodological principles. Our academic traditions have thus far prevented us from embracing the BPS model or any other formal interdisciplinary approach to sport-science research. However, the demands of performance sport are multifaceted, and with that comes a need to develop interdisciplinary research and expertise. As William Shakespeare famously postulated, “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.”
To publish in high-impact journals, to receive recognition, to be promoted—that is, to excel as an academic—usually occurs through siloed specialization. However, to excel as applied sport-science researchers and practitioners requires a change in mindset and adaptations to our current systems. A reductionist approach contributes to the widely acknowledged challenges in performance sport, where researchers and coaches are frequently reported to “speak different languages.” Separating our work into subdisciplines and working in siloes, not least to prioritize scientific over practical impact, limits the applicability of our education and compromises the usefulness of our research in sport-performance settings. By proactively considering the interacting biological, psychological, and sociological factors that athletes face as they navigate their sporting environments, we can provide a more effective holistic approach to sport-science research and practice. The International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance is an ideal platform for disseminating scientific research that combines biological components with other interdisciplinary (eg, psychosocial) factors that relate to performance across all sports.
