Ecological Dynamics as an Accurate and Parsimonious Contributor to Applied Practice: A Critical Appraisal

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s40279-024-02161-7
Dave Collins, Howie J. Carson, Pär Rylander, Ray Bobrownicki
{"title":"Ecological Dynamics as an Accurate and Parsimonious Contributor to Applied Practice: A Critical Appraisal","authors":"Dave Collins, Howie J. Carson, Pär Rylander, Ray Bobrownicki","doi":"10.1007/s40279-024-02161-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With sport coaches adopting and working toward increasingly evidence-grounded approaches to practice, skill acquisition has appropriately become a critical area for consideration. As part of this growing interest in skill acquisition, the ecological dynamics approach has garnered attention amongst scholars and practitioners with myriad media (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, books, podcasts and social-media outputs) extolling its benefits. In doing this, however, the available guidance, advice and scholarship have typically positioned ecological dynamics as a direct competitor to existing or traditional cognitive approaches, advising against practical integration of approaches due to theoretical incompatibility. As a standalone approach, we are concerned that there are mechanistic and epistemological issues and inconsistencies that prevent experimental comparisons and limit its applicability, novelty and capability to comprehensively address real-world athlete and coach needs. Based on this, in this <i>Current Opinion</i> paper, we lay out these concerns and critically examine the clarity, coherence and consistency of the approach and its associated literature. In concluding, we also suggest that a more evidence-based and mechanistically driven approach that draws upon a wider set of theoretical perspectives can offer greater benefit to athletes, coaches and practitioners in real-world sport.</p>","PeriodicalId":21969,"journal":{"name":"Sports Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02161-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With sport coaches adopting and working toward increasingly evidence-grounded approaches to practice, skill acquisition has appropriately become a critical area for consideration. As part of this growing interest in skill acquisition, the ecological dynamics approach has garnered attention amongst scholars and practitioners with myriad media (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, books, podcasts and social-media outputs) extolling its benefits. In doing this, however, the available guidance, advice and scholarship have typically positioned ecological dynamics as a direct competitor to existing or traditional cognitive approaches, advising against practical integration of approaches due to theoretical incompatibility. As a standalone approach, we are concerned that there are mechanistic and epistemological issues and inconsistencies that prevent experimental comparisons and limit its applicability, novelty and capability to comprehensively address real-world athlete and coach needs. Based on this, in this Current Opinion paper, we lay out these concerns and critically examine the clarity, coherence and consistency of the approach and its associated literature. In concluding, we also suggest that a more evidence-based and mechanistically driven approach that draws upon a wider set of theoretical perspectives can offer greater benefit to athletes, coaches and practitioners in real-world sport.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生态动力学是对应用实践的准确和准绳性贡献:批判性评估
随着体育教练采用并致力于越来越多的循证实践方法,技能习得已适当地成为一个需要考虑的关键领域。作为对技能习得日益增长的兴趣的一部分,生态动力学方法引起了学者和实践者的注意,无数媒体(例如同行评议的文章、书籍、播客和社交媒体输出)都赞扬了它的好处。然而,在此过程中,现有的指导、建议和学术研究通常将生态动力学定位为现有或传统认知方法的直接竞争对手,由于理论不相容,建议不要将方法进行实际整合。作为一种独立的方法,我们担心存在机制和认识论问题以及不一致性,这些问题会阻碍实验比较,并限制其适用性,新颖性和全面解决现实世界运动员和教练需求的能力。在此基础上,在本《当前意见》文件中,我们提出了这些关切,并对该方法及其相关文献的清晰度、连贯性和一致性进行了批判性审查。综上所述,我们还建议采用一种基于证据和机械驱动的方法,借鉴更广泛的理论观点,可以为现实世界中的运动员、教练和实践者提供更大的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sports Medicine
Sports Medicine 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
165
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Sports Medicine focuses on providing definitive and comprehensive review articles that interpret and evaluate current literature, aiming to offer insights into research findings in the sports medicine and exercise field. The journal covers major topics such as sports medicine and sports science, medical syndromes associated with sport and exercise, clinical medicine's role in injury prevention and treatment, exercise for rehabilitation and health, and the application of physiological and biomechanical principles to specific sports. Types of Articles: Review Articles: Definitive and comprehensive reviews that interpret and evaluate current literature to provide rationale for and application of research findings. Leading/Current Opinion Articles: Overviews of contentious or emerging issues in the field. Original Research Articles: High-quality research articles. Enhanced Features: Additional features like slide sets, videos, and animations aimed at increasing the visibility, readership, and educational value of the journal's content. Plain Language Summaries: Summaries accompanying articles to assist readers in understanding important medical advances. Peer Review Process: All manuscripts undergo peer review by international experts to ensure quality and rigor. The journal also welcomes Letters to the Editor, which will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Supervision During Strength Training—the Interplay with Facilitation, Feedback and Attentional Focus: A Narrative Review Comment on: "Does Swimming Exercise Impair Bone Health? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Evidence in Humans and Rodent Models". Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map Response to Comment on "Does Swimming Exercise Impair Bone Health? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Evidence in Humans and Rodent Models". Superset Versus Traditional Resistance Training Prescriptions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Exploring Acute and Chronic Effects on Mechanical, Metabolic, and Perceptual Variables
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1