Thread by @InformedinSport

Greater humility is warranted when we consider where true expertise resides and where the meaningful insights that move things forward come from.

Spoiler: academic research rarely drives cutting edge practice.

Empirical study is not restricted to the research setting
🧵👇 1/6

The most meaningful work that leads to discovery is often done in the field.

To use the example of injury rehab/return to sport, there is a lag between what is studied in research and practices at elite level that are pushing the boundaries and advancing our understanding 2/6

Moving beyond sport, the inventions and innovations that lead to scientific discovery most often come from the field.

Academic research generally follows (and serves an important function in validating discoveries and practices in the field) more than it leads 3/6

A great example highlighted by @mattwridley is the steam engine:

Invention and innovation came from the ingenuity of craftsmen (a blacksmith) and engineers.

Technology developed in the field led to scientific understanding of thermodynamics, NOT the other way round! 4/6

Academic bias means we tend to dismiss what they don't yet understand

i.e. for research findings to be legitimate we must be clear on the mechanism

This is the reverse of how discovery proceeds. We should rather seek to find out what works, then figure out why and how! 5/6

Greater humility would also foster better collaboration. Rather than assuming we have the solution let’s establish what research questions those in the field want to answer. Likewise, cutting edge practice in the field might better inform the interventions employed in studies 6/6