Intro

SPEAKER_02 0:08

Hello and welcome back to the Slicer Pie podcast. You know the deal by now. The pie is the psychologically informed environment, and what we're trying to do is the impossible task of defining what it is. And during that glorious failure, we'll at least hopefully further our understanding of what it might look like in sport, business, or any environment where performance and well-being are on the agenda. In today's episode, we have yet another repeat guest. In fact, Dr. Mustafa Sarka was the first ever guest of Slicer Pie way back in the COVID times of 2020. Mustafa is Associate Professor of Sport and Performance Psychology at Nottingham Trent University, as well as a consultant specialising in individual, team, and organisational resilience across many high performance domains. He's also a keen footballer and Liverpool fan, but he tells me he's from the Roy Evans and Gerald Julio era, not a more modern day glory hunter. So we'll let him off. If you'd also like to delve into his expertise on the topic of resilience, I'll leave a link to the first conversation with Mustafa in the show notes. But in this episode, we'll touch on another area which Mustafa is passionate about. So the Association for Applied Sports Psychology, or ASPS, annual conference is coming up this week from the 15th to the 18th of October in Montreal, where there'll be a host of great speakers and content. You should definitely check it all out if you can. And the link here is that Mustafa delivered the opening keynote to last year's 2024 ASP conference in Las Vegas. And it was titled Bridging the Research to Practice Gap in Sport and Performance Psychology. And very kindly, in this episode, Mustafa unpacks some of the context behind that keynote, as well as six suggested starting points for how we can bridge the gap as a profession, as an industry, and as individuals. Now, there's a rumour going round that at this week's ATP conference, we'll get a complimentary keynote entitled Bridging the Practice to Research Gap in Sports Psychology. So for all of you heading over to Canada for the conference this week, what better time to reflect on Mustafa's insights, experiences, and provocations from 2024? Or perhaps you've just returned back from the conference and looking to dig in deeper? Perhaps you've never heard of an Ask conference. Well, whatever your background and interest in this area, you are most very welcome to join us for the conversation. So let's get into the episode with Dr. Mustafa Sarka.

Interview

SPEAKER_02 2:59

Mustafa, welcome back to the podcast. How are you doing?

SPEAKER_00 3:02

Yes, good, thanks, Pete. Thanks for the invite, and yeah, looking forward to our conversation.

SPEAKER_02 3:06

Good stuff. I think casting my mind back to the good old COVID days of 2020 when I had a little bit more time in my hands to podcast. You might have been one of the first people I interviewed and might have even been the first episode published. So it's nice to come full circle and to speak again. So thank you very much for coming on. First of all, anything to talk about, anything to promote, anything to share? What have you been up to recently? Any recent papers, initiatives, websites, university courses worth talking about for the listeners? What are the most interesting things that you're working on at the moment that people should be paying attention to?

SPEAKER_00 3:51

Yeah, so I think I think from a university point of view. So I'm an associate professor of sport and performance psychology at Nottingham Trent University, and we have uh recently launched um a new uh MSc in sport psychology, which we're we're really excited about. Uh, we've got our first cohort uh this academic year, actually started teaching this week, so that that's been really, really cool. Yeah, and looking forward to to seeing how that goes. I guess from a uh a research point of view and and and papers, got one of our colleagues, Ben Ashdown, who is doing some work around this concept of resilience behaviours, the resilience behaviors in practice on field, in particular um academy youth football. Oh, interesting. Um, and that's now starting to be picked up by a variety of different kinds of football academies. And he's he's just recently published a uh a piece of work in in this year in the Journal of Applied Sports Psychology that's starting to kind of yeah investigate some of those uh particular behaviours. So that's probably the one I'd I'd I'd highlight at the moment.

SPEAKER_02 4:51

Awesome. Well, we'll we'll make sure we get the links to those and we'll post those in the show notes. And I love the fact that I've given you a platform to promote yourself and you've ended up promoting someone else, and that just shows the kind of man you are, Mustafa. Um so love that. So the theme for this episode that you sent over is bridging the research to practice gap, which seems like a very big, juicy topic to talk about, and I'm sure one with lots of nuance and spiky bits and different avenues to go down. So, out of all the the keynote topics that you could have picked for the ASP conference where you talked about this theme, why was this the one that you chose? Why did you prioritize this one?

SPEAKER_00 5:35

It was a combination of, I guess, me prioritising, but also being asked by ASP to talk about this particular topic, probably for a variety of different reasons. I think in particular, ASP. So, for those who are not familiar, this is the Association for Applied Sports Psychology.

SPEAKER_02 5:52

Thank you for doing that. Our terrible podcast hosting there. Just went straight into straight straight into industry acronyms and jargon without unpacking it. So thank you.

SPEAKER_00 6:02

No worries. And it's um it's an association, it's it's an international association, but actually that the conference that they hold uh tends to be uh predominantly in in America. They've actually the conference this year is in is in Canada. They host a kind of an annual conference and uh every year. One of ASP's kind of main, I guess, philosophies is this idea of being a scientist practitioner. And one of my observations, I've been really fortunate to be involved in ASP over the last probably 10 or 15 uh years, and I've attended the conferences and kind of seen the development of the work in the organization. And one of my observations was that although ASP talked about the importance of that kind of link between science and practice and being scientist practitioners, comments that I made was actually scientist practitioners often used with a small S for science or scientist and a big P for practice or practitioners. And I felt that that kind of balance between the science and the practice, particularly actually on in the conference program where I had attended maybe ASP 10, 15 years ago, where there were lots of kind of really rigorous research being presented, and actually over the years a lot of that research was starting to kind of fall by the wayside. I guess it was a little bit of a call, I guess, not only to ASP, but also to the to the field I think of sport and performance psychology to think about how we can ensure there is a kind of a balance between uh science and practice and and ensuring that as a field, I talked about this idea of us making sure that we we kind of have our unique selling point, our USP, in terms of the fact that as scientists practitioners, we base a lot of our work on the evidence. Yeah. Whereas a lot of people in the field, motivational speakers and people who kind of claiming to do kind of work in this space often don't have that kind of scientific uh kind of underpinning. So I guess that's where it's kind of stemmed from.

SPEAKER_02 8:06

Interesting that you've got that long view there from you know over a decade's worth of going to the conferences and seeing the the change slowly slowly happen. Has there always been a gap? Was it wide and then it got wider, or do you think it was closer and it it's got wider? And are there certain areas of sports psychology do you think where the the gaps are slightly narrower? And do you think there are areas where the gaps are slightly wider?

SPEAKER_00 8:33

Yeah, I think I think the gap's always been there. Uh it's a really interesting, it's a really interesting question about whether or not the gap was smaller and beforehand, and whether or not I think definitely the research to practice gap has grown. Yeah. And I think one of the things I I argued as well is that if we're not if we're not careful, and that's why I think from a timing point of view, hopefully it was a a good place to talk about this, is that if we're not careful, Richard Keegan from Australia has talked about the research to practice gap in 2017, so that was eight years ago. In my view, actually, it's going to keep growing if we don't act now. I say I say we purposefully because I think it is a collective responsibility between researchers and practitioners. No, no, no, not one, not kind of one particular group of people are to blame. And actually, if we want if we want this to ensure this is done in a sustained fashion rather than just being a quick fix, it should be everyone's business. In my view, anyway, I think I think it the gap has grown. If we're not careful, I think it's going to keep growing if we don't do something about it in the in the near, not too distant future.

SPEAKER_02 9:40

Okay, so rousing court to arms here. What's driving it? What's what in your view or what have you seen that is contributing to this gap?

SPEAKER_00 9:52

Yeah, really good question. And I think this is where I drew upon some of the work of Richard Keegan. He's done a done a really good paper on this and and also a really nice YouTube video as well. And I guess for me, it's been driven by the fact that and and one thing I should say, sorry, which we you know didn't mention earlier, we talk about the research to practice gap, but research and practice is a reciprocal relationship. So although there's a gap between, let's say, research impacting practice, there's also a gap between practice impacting research. Um, so I think that that's something to kind of just just mention.

SPEAKER_02 10:26

But yeah, it's not a one-way street.

SPEAKER_00 10:27

No, definitely not a one-way street. And actually, I talked, I said this at the at the keynote that I my lens is predominantly as a researcher because that's my my day-to-day. I'm really glad to see actually on the back of my keynote, there's going to be a practitioner from um a baseball who you know, a sports psychologist, um monumental performance consultant who's going to be you know talking at the next um ASP conference around actually the practice to research direction, which I think is also great, really important to look at. But yeah, going back to your kind of question, I think the reason why I think there's a gap between research and practice is ultimately researchers have traditionally written for other researchers. They're often rewarded. If you think about the system of academia, we're often rewarded the quantity of our publications, also, also the quality.

SPEAKER_02 11:21

Yeah, impact factor.

SPEAKER_00 11:22

Impact generally, apart, I would say in the UK, this is starting to come become a little bit better, but impact wasn't necessarily a massive thing until probably the last five or ten years. And often, as researchers, the research that we do, we tend to be very, very theoretically driven. We try to control for lots of different variables, try to make sure our research is as rigorous as possible. Whereas on the other hand, practitioners don't really have much incentive to actually read and cite research. They're they don't have the time to write, they don't have the time to actually disseminate and kind of take on board that information. Um, and often they're very much based on that you know, they're working in the real world, which is very, very messy and complex. It can't often be tested by a particular or used with a particular theory. There's lots of confounding variables that are happening, and they're often just working for, you know, rewarded by results and the reputation and the client, I guess, feedback and and testimonials. So I think that's where the gap kind of lies is that often the goals for both research and practitioners. I I I can I do view it that they can meet together, and we've got to one of the one of the ways to bridge that gap is to think about some of the more commonalities rather than looking at these differences. But I think that's where the gap is lying, is the fact that we're kind of working on two different goals and directions.

SPEAKER_02 12:47

When you paint the picture like that, it really is quite a common narrative, I think, when you look across different types of environment and organization where you have a set of circumstances where motivations and incentives are maybe in slightly different places. So if you look at a kind of a typical company or an organization where, let's say, the the CEO and the directors, their motivations are to make money and to sell the company, whereas the people who are the driving force for that company, their motivation might be actually the the industry that they're they're in and their passion for it and coming to work and doing doing meaningful meaningful work every day. You you can see that very commonly clash. I think that's quite interesting the way that you you unpack that. Just to kind of I know we're gonna go on to some of the the potential solves for this later, but just to actually kind of jump ahead and and talk about putting kind of end users at the heart of it so the people that are are using research, using information to better well-being performance in in their environments. That that does seem like a really interesting place to start when you're talking about this particular problem because you're actually putting both practitioners and researchers if you're kind of aligning the right objectives that everyone's working towards, people might be able to align kind of resources, motivations, and incentives slightly better than what you've just described.

SPEAKER_00 14:15

Yeah, and I think what's really important actually, Pete, in terms of that is actually involving end users actually throughout the research process. I think sometimes researchers often involve end users maybe at the start, they might when they're kind of figuring out maybe what questions to ask or kind of how to design a study, for example, or they might use or involve end users at the end in terms of I guess getting feedback or kind of translating findings. But I think I think a really crucial bit is actually to involve end users throughout that process, at the beginning, in terms of actually asking end users what some of their biggest performance questions are, then actually throughout the design of maybe the research study, and then obviously towards the back end in terms of getting feedback on, let's say, if an intervention has been done, feedback on the actual intervention about what weren't, what didn't work, what were some of the practical, you know, practicalities, logistical issues, barriers, et cetera. And I think a crucial bit, which I think we are doing better, we can still do a lot of more work, I think, as academics, but then actually translating those findings for end users afterwards, rather than it just going in a kind of a journal article or using kind of academic kind of jargon, it's kind of actually translating it from a way that they can see actually you know what the results were potentially, then how they can kind of be be used. And there are lots of frameworks that can be used for that. You know, again, lots of things around co-production, knowledge translation, this idea of implementation science. I I guess the one thing with that, and co-production I think has become a little bit of a buzzword. Yeah, I think we've just got to be really careful that we don't involve end users and use these frameworks just as a bit of a tick-box exercise. Yeah, that is just something that it's just I'm mindful of that researchers are now being told to you know co-produce the work with other with end users, and they they end up might might end up just doing it as a as a bit of okay, I've done it tick the box type of thing. So I think it needs to be used authentically in a genuine way where you want to understand the perspectives of how research can be beneficial for the end user, but then also get their perspectives throughout the study or the intervention.

SPEAKER_02 16:25

Yeah, it's interesting the point you make around translating findings for end users in palatable ways and in engaging ways and using different technologies and different frameworks. But that piece around involving users throughout the design is a really interesting one because again, again, you you can see this in a lot of different parts of business, uh, whether it's RD, whether it's research, whether it's customer experience feedback. Involving users throughout the design is a brilliant thing to do. It's also a headache because you're you have to align diaries, you have to align stakeholders, it can be more expensive. Um, and that's often a reason not to do it. But just reading between the lines here, just because it it's harder, probably is an indicator that maybe we should be doing it. And there's there could be fruits to bear by putting in that additional effort and putting in those additional steps to get input throughout.

SPEAKER_00 17:20

Yeah. And I think, yeah, you and you're definitely right there. I think involving end users is is going to take time, it potentially might take a little bit of resource as well. And obviously, I think that the best way to involve end users is throughout the different parts, as I said, the beginning, the middle, and the end. I guess if you're not used to or haven't had actually involved end users at all whatsoever, I think starting somewhere is is better than nothing. Yeah. Time-wise or resource-wise, hard to involve end users throughout the research process, start somewhere. But yes, I think the ultimate aim I would say is particularly if we want to bridge that gap in that kind of sustained fashion, then I think the more stages of the research process we can involve end users, in my view, the better.

SPEAKER_02 18:03

Great. Before we go on to some of the potential solves or the potential remediations for the gap, there was one thing in your slides that you sent across that I thought might be useful for the listeners in terms of to unpack a bit. This might be feel like sucking eggs for some people listening, but I think it's worth addressing language around evidence-based versus evidence informed. I think it'd be useful for you to kind of explain the difference between those those two notions for the listeners through your view and it its relationship to the overall topic of bridging the gap.

SPEAKER_00 18:39

It was something that I mentioned in the keynote, recognizing the majority of the audience that I was probably speaking to were actually practitioners, and noting that ASPA as an applied organization predominantly has a more of a practitioner membership than, let's say, academics or or researchers.

SPEAKER_03 18:55

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 18:55

I could understand the comeback to me would kind of be, well, you know, you want us to be more scientifically driven, but actually the reality of working in applied practice is that it's very, very messy, it's very, very complex, and we can't always be evidence-based. So I think I think for me the difference being is that with evidence-based, you are determining, let's say, the direction of your practice and let's say your intervention purely and solely on the evidence. Whereas I think for me, evidence-informed is the recognition that there are other things that then determine what approach that we potentially take. And I drew upon when I delivered the keynote, I came across a figure that I took with kind of permission from Dan Abrahams, who talked about this idea of evidence-informed coaching, and it was from the Chartered College of Teaching. And then I became aware actually of some research by Dr. Marie Winter, who's actually looked at this actually in a bit more detail around this idea of uh evidence-informed decision-making as kind of practitioner. Actually, they're kind of very much hand in hand.

SPEAKER_03 20:06

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 20:07

But ultimately, this idea of evidence-informed is the recognition that there are a number of things that are going to maybe impact the approach that you take with being a practitioner and the direction, let's say, or an approach to an intervention. You've got the needs of the client, that could be understanding the culture, the context, the group, the individual. You've also got then the experience of the practitioner, their expertise, their professional judgment, their kind of, I guess, tacit knowledge and experiences, their past experiences. And those two things I think are areas that practitioners I think are very good at generally doing basing interventions, interventions being informed by doing a really thorough needs assessment, as well as knowing, you know, from your own past experiences as a practitioner and your own professional judgment. The bit I was kind of highlighting that for me needs to kind of come through a little bit more is the third part of it. And this is often shown in a kind of a Venn diagram schematic, where you also, your intervention is also informed by the best available evidence from research. And that's the bit I think we uh I probably argue that we don't probably use or or draw from what I've seen anyway, practitioners drawing on some of that best available evidence from that research. And then those three things the the the evidence from the research, the needs assessment of the of the of the group or the individual, and then the kind of the coach experience in their own professional judgment decision making, then influences the what, the how, and the why. So, yeah, uh sorry, I know there's a little bit of a long winded answer, but hopefully that gives a a bit of an appreciation there between why I think it's we think about it as evidence informed because it's a little bit broader rather than just being solely, not very flexibly sometimes. If if we think about it as traditionally just being evidence-based.

SPEAKER_02 22:03

I think that's a succinct way of summarising those two notions. And I was helped immensely by the Venn diagram that you you sent across from the keynotes. So the first bubble being the best available evidence within the research and extant literature, the second bubble being your expertise and your experience, your judgment, and the third bubble being the culture, the context, groups, individuals, etc. The Ica guy-esque optimal place being at the centre of those three bubbles. You would have seen in my my notes that I sent across in preparation for the episode. My observation on the three bubbles coming together is that I think there's a bit of a I think it's right. I think it it makes complete sense on paper. I think there's a trap here that if someone was going to again tick a box to say that they're evidence informed and they're integrating the evidence base, is to start with the two bubbles around their expertise and judgment and their knowledge of the culture to make a decision and then use any evidence that they can find to support it, which I'm sure we've all seen before, right? That is equally a problem by bringing things together.

SPEAKER_00 23:19

Yeah, and I think you're right with that, Pete, in terms of I think we've got to be careful that does talking about it as evidence informed give practitioners the kind of the get out kind of clause to say actually, yes, it's been informed, but actually that's kind of been done deductively rather than actually from the start type of thing. So I think you're right, there is there is definitely that that danger. One thing I would say though is actually if, and this is where it goes back to not just research to practice, but actually practice back to research. A lot of the times I've been asked when I've done kind of some applied work, uh, more at the kind of I guess group level educational, let's say, talks or workshops, and yeah, coach a coach will tell me, or a practitioner will tell me, oh, if I use my kind of specific topic example, it's obviously I do a lot of work around resilience. Yeah, I'm now starting to do a little bit more actually in the youth sports space with with through kind of Ben Ashdown's work. A lot of the time practitioners and coaches will say, Okay, how do I do this, let's say, with an eight-year-old, a 10-year-old, a 12-year-old. But actually, and I say this quite openly, that we don't have the research, certainly at the moment, in or that there's been very little research looking at resilience in a youth sport context. A lot of the work that we are drawing upon is actually with with adults and particularly the kind of the elite level. So the reason I use that as an example is actually if there isn't the research there, then this is where it's a really nice opportunity for them practice to come back to researchers to say, I'm trying to find some evidence to back up or kind of inform what I'm doing, but I can't find any evidence. Should there be more research in that area to then help practitioners to then you know inform what they're doing? So I think for me, that's a really nice, hopefully, just a nice way of actually then where practice can then kind of inform research to say, look, we can't find anything, which we're trying to do this on the ground. These are some of the issues, or these are some of the topics or areas that we're looking to develop or intervene on the ground, but we just can't find find the evidence for that. And I think then that's where rather than just researchers doing, you know, often in a journal article, you know, future research, the future research section, I often make a point that sometimes is the future research section of a journal paper actually what practitioners, coaches, people on the ground want need and and want to see, or is it just what researchers want to be done in terms of future research?

SPEAKER_02 25:54

Oh, this would be interesting. I'd love I'd love to have a little look at all that additional hypothesis that's come out of that. Yeah, exactly. Why is why is that and who does it is it benefiting?

SPEAKER_00 26:05

Why why why yeah, like it might be useful for yeah, test this additional hypothesis and let's say in a different yeah, in the in this way, but actually, what practical impact is that actually going to have in in reality? If there isn't that available research evidence, I guess it's a call for a practitioner to shout that out and to say, look, can we start to do some more research in that area? Because we're noticing that actually these are some of the things that we are needing to intervene on the ground.

SPEAKER_02 26:33

And you know, scientific inquiry works in both ways, doesn't it? It you know, you you're either using you know evidence that you've you've seen in the past and form the future, or in absence of that, you could you can also make informed and logical judgments that are documented that that then become your future evidence. And and that's the benefit of reflective practice, right? So if you're making decision based off your knowledge of that culture or that environment or those groups or your previous experience working in a similar place, and there's an absence of very specific research that is going to back that up, you can always just do it and then publish that. You can because you might find that there are other practitioners in your domain or around the world that are also experiencing the same things. And if we all documented these things, whether it was through psychological journals that uh specifically deal with applied practice, or whether it was through blog posts or you know, a humble LinkedIn post or or whatever it was, then that's an additional applied practice reflection that can be that can be used, right?

SPEAKER_00 27:39

Yes, definitely. And I I one of the things I did encourage actually in the in the keynote, and again, I I take this with the caveat that I I appreciate as practitioners there isn't that kind of same level of incentive and and even the time necessarily to publish and write necessarily, you know, you know, to fork out the time to actually write. But I do think actually if practitioners can publish a little bit more about their practice, there is a really nice journal which actually ASP are affiliated to, which is the Case Studies in Sport and Performance Psychology journal, which is dedicated specifically to applied practice and case studies. But that's an again, a very, very, it's not you know this big 30-page manuscript of a traditional journal, and it's written in a very, very generally in an accessible manner. But I think if practitioners can publish more about their practice to give then practitioners some kind of experiences, but then also some researchers some understanding about some of the realities or kind of some of the challenges that they're they're facing on the ground, I think that would be be really useful. The other thing that you also mentioned was you know reflective practice and not directly related, but kind of linked to that is I one of the things I I mentioned was actually engaging with, and I talked about these as kind of critical friends, yeah, and engaging with what I called kind of research and practice buddies or mentors. So I'll have some kind of research mentors who will give me some mentorship and we'll have some reflection around the direction of the research, things like that. But for me in particular, because I'm traditionally or kind of more predominantly from a research background, I think it's really important, and I don't do this necessarily formally, but kind of slightly informally, I will have practitioners on the ground who I'll check in, some of them who are national, you know, in the UK, some of them who are international, who I will actually check in once in a while to say, actually, we're thinking about doing this research project. Is this something that you think is actually going to be useful or beneficial? Can you and can you potentially give us some feedback around maybe the design or actually the research question or you know, so I just think that engagement with critical friends, if you're a researcher, I think try to get yourself a practice buddy or a mentor. But equally, if you're if you're predominantly a practitioner, try to touch base with with the researchers who might who might have more time and more knowledge about the available evidence and then might be able to give you some direction around maybe what you can kind of draw upon. Um, so I think I think if that that feeds into that reflective practice that you mentioned, I think that for me would be a useful direction and useful next steps.

SPEAKER_02 30:18

Yeah, I like that. I like that kind of application of the critical. I suppose the idea of a critical friend, I've I've mostly come across within qualitative research, using other people to look at the the way that you've perceived some qualitative data and the way that you've coded it and to get another perspective on it. But I like extrapolating that into the field in general, whether it's on the academic side or on the practice side. I suppose kind of peer-to-peer supervision has become more and more popular, necessary, more common, with more and more people coming through the sports psychology qualification paths and also just the expense of having kind of supervision and people looking at the work that you're doing within uh one-to-one sessions. Obviously, the fact that we're doing more online now helps because it makes it slightly easier to record these things. And I know that you know I tend to share a lot of my one-to-one work with other peers in the industry in order to get their perspective on the decisions that I'm making and the questions that I'm asking within practice. And I've done that for other practitioners uh as well. So, this umbrella idea of a critical friend is definitely something that can be applied across lots of different use cases.

SPEAKER_00 31:30

Yeah, and exactly what you just said there in terms of I've I've taken that directly, similar to how you've kind of perceived that in terms of like the phrase critical friends, often used in that kind of qualitative research approach where you're kind of yeah, just getting a kind of a different perspective to kind of just see whether or not your interpretation, it's not necessarily about to see whether it is accurate or it's obviously different truths and kind of different interpretation, but it's more actually just kind of checking and challenge you, using someone to kind of check and challenge you a little bit in terms of your interpretation. And yeah, I kind of took that analogy and thought actually this could apply also to the to the idea of research and practice to work with people collaboratively, actually, to improve both the research to make sure it's more kind of applicable, but then also to practitioners to work with researchers to ensure that the work that they're doing is is evidence informed based on the available evidence that researchers are probably more likely to be aware of. Similar to what I said at the part about as to why there is a gap. The reason why there's a gap, we often talk about the kind of the differences in terms of motivations and incentives, but I think this idea of actually buddies and mentors is you're what you're doing is you're actually playing to people's strengths. What you want to do is you want to you want to kind of yeah, use what people are predominantly doing on a day-to-day basis and their kind of background expertise, etc. So I think for me this idea of critical friends in this context, anyway, is playing to play into people's strengths and and knowledge and experience.

SPEAKER_02 32:57

So we've talked about critical friends a little bit. We've talked about the use of integration of end users into research and designs and having them integrated throughout. We've talked a little bit about dissemination, but it's something probably we can talk a little bit more about. So we're floating nicely into your six uh points for how we can solve this issue, how we can address this issue, how we can close this gap. It's now a nice time to take a step back and talk about those six areas so so people can understand the six areas, and then potentially we can get into one or two of them before we before we get to the end of the conversation.

SPEAKER_00 33:34

Yeah, sure. Um I I I guess I should say that these six areas are not an exhaustive list. These are things I guess I've just reflected on.

SPEAKER_02 33:42

What? This is this isn't a panacea?

SPEAKER_00 33:46

Yeah, these are just things I've kind of just reflected on work from my, I guess, you know, experience with with research, but also kind of yeah, experience with working a little bit in practice as well. I think and the and the other thing I should also emphasize before I kind of mention is that some of these require, I think, a little bit of a long-term cultural shift in the way that we do things. So, i.e. they are gonna take a lot longer, but they're like more likely to lead to sustained change over time. Whereas some of them are what you might call quick wins, but those quick wins are likely to kind of be short-lived.

SPEAKER_03 34:24

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 34:24

So I think there's a little bit of a balance here with these six that's that's kind of yeah, has that balance between, yeah, there are things that you can probably do tomorrow, next week, next month, but that's some some of these might also require a little bit of a shift in terms of the system, and you know, that we talked there about motivations and and incentives as well. So I just thought I'd provide that as a little bit of a little bit of context. Yeah. But yeah, the six that I mentioned were firstly creating win-win situations. What I briefly mean by that is ensuring that collaboratively working together on common goals.

SPEAKER_04 35:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 35:00

Researchers and universities are often interested in publications and more recently things like impact. Obviously, practitioners and organizations are interested in kind of evaluating the effectiveness of intervention and ultimately making a tangible difference. I think the first bit is working towards those common goals, and that does require that's going to take time, you know, building those relationships between researchers and practitioners and organizations, and that requires a lot of trust. So that's number one.

SPEAKER_04 35:26

Yep.

SPEAKER_00 35:26

I think number two is this idea of having a foot in both camps. And what I mean by that is that we've talked a little bit about that in terms of that research practice buddies mentors bit, where you've kind of got, you know, got an appreciation for both worlds. Yep. This is where I would actually say, and we've been really fortunate at our at our universities with some of the work that we do, where we, as researchers, I think we need to better partner with teams and organizations when we're doing research. But ensuring that there is a win-win for both parties, that the team and organization get something from that research, yeah, and equally the researchers do as well. I think practitioners need to link a little bit more closely with researchers and universities. And one of the things I described in relation to this was the Scandinavian model, which is basically where a lot of practitioners in countries such as Sweden, Denmark are probably the two examples I can think about from the top of my head, where they actually have, let's say, within a national governing body, but then also within a university, there'll be, let's say, I don't know, 50% as a practice working as a practitioner, working within their kind of respective sports system, but also 50% in a faculty role with the university. Then they have access to things like journals and things like that, but then also they can work with faculty staff and do research and things like that. Now, I did make the point that that is a quite privileged position.

SPEAKER_03 36:51

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 36:52

Not everyone can kind of do that, even if it is 90-10 in one way or the other, I think that would be a useful model to anyway think about.

SPEAKER_04 37:02

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 37:02

Number three was involve end users in the research process. I think we've talked quite a little bit about that. Probably won't go into a huge amount on that, but I think crucially throughout the research process, using kind of frameworks that allow that to happen, like co-production, knowledge translation, etc., but ensuring that that's done authentically. Number four was being a champion for applied research. And I guess what I mean by that is that, and this is predominantly probably aimed a little bit more with practitioners in mind, yeah, providing a forum and a platform for end users to actually discuss research, whether that's I know, ask, for example, do a virtual journal club where you actually have the researcher doing the who's done the research, but actually then a practitioner who's applied some of that research and practice, and then have a bit of a discussion around that, which I think is quite a nice initiative.

SPEAKER_03 37:52

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 37:53

I think this is where, P, I talked about a need for cultural shift. And one of the things that I think can be really important, we're starting to see this in the UK a little bit, embedding and integrating evidence-informed practice as part of the norm with organizations. So organizations now are starting to have things like a head of a head of research or director of impact, which means that actually that gets embedded and integrated rather than it just being an add-on. Yeah. And then the other aspect of that is things like you know, match-funded PhDs, where an organization would match half of the university would match, and then there's a collaborative effort. Yeah. And also the things like knowledge transfer partnerships, KTPs, which again is all about showing how the research can actually have an end, a beneficial end outcome, tangible beneficial end outcome.

SPEAKER_02 38:46

That sometimes is government funded, right?

SPEAKER_00 38:49

Correct. Knowledge transfer partnerships is something that's been uh an innovate UK and government related, yeah. And again, I made I made the point I asked, but I obviously said I was coming to this from a I guess a UK-centric lens. So how this translates to other countries obviously needs a little bit of thought, but obviously I was talking about it from my I guess experience in the UK.

SPEAKER_04 39:08

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 39:09

Number five, we've talked a little bit about this in terms of yeah, better disseminating applied research and practice. This is where I do say researchers need to be responsible for this in terms of making sure that they don't just hide behind the journal article as the way to disseminate, but they think about how they might actually rewrite that for in a more user-friendly manner. I talked about obviously how practitioners should publish about their work. I think this idea of using kind of alternative or non-traditional formats, so online videos, blog posts, infographics, podcasts. Now, the danger, I guess, with an infographic, and I highlighted this briefly, is that they can be simplified too much.

SPEAKER_04 39:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 39:49

So that would be my only kind of caveat to that is making sure that that evidence-informed dissemination is still, you still retain some of the kind of the scientific underpinning without simplifying it too much, I think.

SPEAKER_02 40:02

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just to cut in there on the dissemination, I don't know whether you've come across uh Duncan Simpson and Greg Jun's podcast Performers, where they go through sporting autobiographies and biographies from very famous athletes, and but they they then go through the key beats of the book through a sports psychology and academic lens to talk about some of the themes from their journey, from their their narratives within the books, but then bring it back to theory, bring it back to models or to thoughts within the industry, which I thought was a really, really interesting way of bringing something that the public are really interested in, which is biographies and autobiographies and great stories, but actually matching that with psychological theory. So I thought that was a really good example, and something that I noted down when you you sent me the six points.

SPEAKER_00 40:58

Yeah, and I think for me actually, I mean Dun Duncan Simpson is a really nice example of a practitioner, predominantly practitioner-based, but actually, you know, research background. So I think for me that I I've I've come across I've come across the podcast, but actually not necessarily listen to to some of the kind of the particular episodes. But it did, I guess it I guess what I'm saying is that doesn't surprise me because I know that that Duncan and and obviously the team are very much kind of looking at that kind of that research to practice uh lens. So that's that's obviously really, really great to see. One of the other examples I gave in terms of that dissemination, I talked about this idea of kind of evidence-informed media dissemination because I think that's where, particularly when some of sometimes research goes into the media, yeah, that's where it can be kind of uh misrepresented, etc. And again, I don't, I'm sure users use, sorry, listeners will be familiar with this, but for those who are not, uh, one example that I gave was actually an online platform that's called the conversation, and their tagline is academic rigor, journalistic flair. There are more academics definitely doing this now, but I think that's where actually practitioners to actually look at articles in the conversation because they're very much written in a way that's accessible, but it's actually based on some, you know, the the rigor behind the academic stuff is there, you know, researchers will cite the research, but do it in a way that's very, very user-friendly.

SPEAKER_02 42:18

Yeah, it's interesting that, and I think you know, when you're talking about broadcast media, I think there's a real real issue to be solved there as well, because the the difficulty with things that are going out live or are recorded live and then and put out there, you're you are as a practitioner put on the spot, so there's no redoos. You know, we're recording this podcast now, and if there's anything we think isn't particularly responsible to put out to a public, we will work that out between us and make sure that that that's edited and in in a way that we are disseminating information responsibility, uh responsibly. Um, but there are no redoes when it comes to to broadcast. And I think that you know, I've had many, many, many outreaches from national newspapers, mainstream broadcast channels, and I turn all of them down because you know, I'm I'm one or two years into my career. I should not be put on Sky News, but I should not be put in front of a camera to represent our industry. So I quite often pass those on to other people, much, much more experienced than I do. But I do see from time to time people who are very early stage practitioners, you know, jump at the opportunity to do something of this because of course it's great for your own publicity, etc. But if that's going to happen, I think there should be a resource. I don't know who's providing that resource, whether it's the BPS, the HCPC, or whether it's another organization, just to give you a little bit of media training to let you know what might come up, how you deal with a situation where you don't necessarily know what to say, or whether you don't know the answer. Like how do you deal with that? Just to ensure that we are not giving the public the wrong information.

SPEAKER_00 43:53

Yeah, no, I I I agree with you. I think you're right. I think definitely media training for that kind of media dissemination. Really, really important. What's also really interesting, it's kind of linked to this a little bit. There's a journal actually, not in psychology, it's in nutrition, but they actually came up with it's the International Journal of Support, Nutrition, and Exercise Metabolism, where they're actually now getting researchers in who are publishing in that journal to provide what they call a non-technical summary.

SPEAKER_02 44:20

Oh, I saw this, yeah. Okay.

SPEAKER_00 44:22

And the idea of that really is to make sure that because often let's say, for example, a media outlet were to pick up a research article, they might kind of pick and choose a little bit or kind of interpret a little bit themselves what the research is saying. Yeah. But I think the idea of this non-technical summary, the actual title is like, yeah, to a new initiative to enhance the translation of sports science research and reduce the spread of misinformation. But I think that's the exact idea of that, is to ensure that actually research is accurately represented, which I think is interesting. So before we go on to the sixth one, the other area which I'm is not really an area that I'm massively very unfamiliar with, but I think it's in the light of where we're going. The one example that I gave was actually evidence-informed dissemination using AI. Actually, what we did prior to the keynote, I mentioned earlier on about the Ben Ashdower that was published.

SPEAKER_03 45:13

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 45:14

Ben actually put that paper into AI, and it gave a 13-minute podcast between people.

SPEAKER_03 45:24

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 45:24

And crazily like I was really, really skeptical about it, but actually it was a very, very accurate summary of what the article said. So I don't want to, I I said even in John McKee know, AI scares the hell out of me, and I'm still not kind of not using it a huge amount, but I think obviously the way that we're going that can we think about how AI might be able to be used, particularly to that bridge that kind of gap between some of the science. It needs to be used ethically and uh recognising, I guess, some of the limitations of it.

SPEAKER_02 45:54

I completely agree. And it it's a scary area in totality, but that specific use that you've just relayed. That's a fantastic use of it. Because you're taking something that's a large, large, large amount of information and then putting it into an engaging format, like a podcast, interview type format, but also doing that and saving a lot of time not having to do that yourself. And and you always have control to then when you get that output back from AI to decide whether that is an accurate reflection or whether to put it in the bin. And I think that for me that's a really good use because you've got control, it's time saving, and it's doing that piece that you talked about before in terms of dissemination and interesting a wider populace. So yeah, if you apply your ethics and your control to that in that sense, then that's a great use of it.

SPEAKER_00 46:48

And this is where maybe the critical friend comes back in, there in terms of when you, as you said, you get the output, you see what it's like, and maybe if you're not as familiar with the paper, you reach out to the kind of the the authors and actually say, actually, is this an accurate representation? So that's where maybe the critical friend bit comes back in and says, actually, yeah, is this is this accurate, basically.

SPEAKER_02 47:08

There we go, weaving back through some of the other sources. I like it.

SPEAKER_00 47:11

The last one for me, which is something it seems a little bit of an add-on or kind of seems something really kind of specific, but something I'm really, really passionate about. I think it is important in terms of bridging the gap. I think there's a responsibility for both researchers and practitioners to ensure that psychological terminology is accurately represented.

SPEAKER_02 47:29

Okay. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 47:30

I think there's a big role here about clarifying myths and misconceptions. So I gave a couple of examples of Amy Whitehead and Jenny Koe's books around the myths of sports coaching, myths of sport performance. We published a kind of a couple of chapters around resilience and psychological safety, which are turning into being kind of these buzzwords.

SPEAKER_03 47:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 47:48

I think there's a responsibility there to ensure that what we're seeing on the ground in terms of, let's say, with coaches or with you know people working in practice, you know, we don't have to be so technical in terms of academic definitions and the kind of the maybe some of the jargon around that, but certainly translating that in a way that that's practical but also still means that we don't lose the essence of what that terminology is about.

SPEAKER_04 48:12

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 48:12

And I I use an example from the the White Review where actually resilience was being described as the ability to suffer. Yeah. Um, and obviously that has that's had huge consequences then in terms of coaching practice and or coaching curriculum, and then obviously the the okay, this was one small part of it, but still, yeah, had an impact in terms of the sport. So I think that for me was just an illustration as to why I think practitioners might think, well, why is this important? But the the dangers of me of when terminology is not accurately represented, I think can kind of have some quite negative consequences there. Yeah, I agree. Create win-win situations, uh, have a foot in both camps, involve in users in the research process, be a champion for applied research, better disseminate applied research and practice, and then lastly just ensure terminology is is accurately represented.

SPEAKER_02 49:05

Great. And there was no there was no uh what's the word I'm looking for? There was no temptation to create a catchy acronym for your six pieces, or did you just decide in the end I'm gonna keep it simple this time? Just six. I don't need a catchy acronym to bring it all together.

SPEAKER_00 49:22

I I did, I was thinking about that in terms of either catchy acronym uh acronym or maybe basically a logo for each of the six. And yeah, I think uh I'm not the most creative when it comes to these things. Maybe I should have used AI actually for that.

SPEAKER_02 49:34

There we go. That's a nice call to action. Any creative listeners, if you could think of a catchy acronym for the six areas, uh feel free to reach out to Mustafa. Good stuff. Well, let's see if we can bridge from the heart of this discussion to the closing pieces now. So I think the some of the pieces here that you you've talked about have very natural kind of knock-on effects for the pie, the psychologically informed environment. Are there any kind of specific pieces here or specific or or general perspectives that you have on psychologically informed environments uh through the lens of the research to practice gap, or just or just views in general on what the the ingredients that go into a pie might be?

SPEAKER_00 50:17

Psychologically informed environments, I think, are kind of multi-level. I think the multi-level part is really important in terms of thinking about the environment as kind of I guess making up the individual within that environment, but then also some of the kind of I guess group team level considerations, as well as a kind of more organizational level considerations. So I think that's really that's something that's that's really important. And then I guess a reflection on how closing the gap can be beneficial. I think one area that we really need to look at here, and I think the reason why I'm so passionate about closing this gap for the purposes of creating better psychologically informed environments is for me it's all about impact. How is the work, and this is actually thinking more broadly, kind of sport performance psychology, how is the work that we are doing having an impact in practice? I don't like to use the word measure, it's not necessarily about measuring it, but how do we evidence it? How do we show it's having an impact? And I and I think by for me, a reflection overall is that if we start to close the gap, we are hopefully then going to be in a better position, we're actually having an impact. I I just I just fear that there's so much good research out there that is just not being seen. And equally, there are so many really good practice ideas that we are not researching. So I think for me, the idea of that closing the gap and then creating that psychologically informed environment is that we will ultimately be more psychologically informed in a way that's going to be impactful. I think for me that's really important that we hopefully create a system. Some of these things that we've just talked about, P, over the last 45 minutes or or so are things that will hopefully allow allow us to be more impactful in the field, I think.

SPEAKER_02 52:18

Yeah, I really like that. And I think you you mentioned before one of the things that practitioners that are working within environments quite often say is they're they're messy, they're intricate, they're they're nuanced. So the ability to close the gap and allow both researchers and practitioners to collaborate on getting surfacing some of this really interesting, messy, kind of nuanced information and reflection from environments out there to be then kind of used as information to use future decisions is a very obvious knock-on effect, positive knock-on effect on creating better environments from closing the practice to research and vice versa gap here.

SPEAKER_00 53:00

You know, you asked earlier on about you know what is the gap and where's the kind of gap come from. I think as a final I guess thought around this is that we've known, or you know, this research to practice gap, practice to research gaps, but this is this is not new. This has been talked about for the last 10-15 years. And I guess my concern is something that I mentioned in my in my keynote as well. And again, this is coming from Richard Keegan, who mentioned this in 2017, and I mentioned the exact same line in 2025, is that history's brought us to this point. I phrased it in this way, again, taking from Richard's work, that history has brought us to this point. So, do we choose to repeat history or do we choose to change it? I guess urge that best listeners to think about are there even one or two things that you can kind of do, either whether or not you're predominantly a researcher, predominantly a practitioner. Ideally, you want to have a balance between some of these things being quick wins, i.e., things that you can kind of do today, tomorrow, next week, next month.

SPEAKER_03 53:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 53:59

But also, I think for senior leaders within the profession, again, whether that's on the more academic side or on the more practice side, are there some things, kind of cultural shifts in terms of changes and directions around making sure that say an organization does have someone like a director of impact or a head of research? Are there things that we can kind of do for that? Because I really did hope, and again, one of my things I said to Ask was I don't we don't want to be talking about this another five years down the line.

SPEAKER_03 54:25

Yep.

SPEAKER_00 54:26

Five years down the line in 2029, 2030, we hopefully we'll have a keynote from someone who talks about the fact that this gap is it's not going to completely be completely closed, but it's closing at least, and what have been some of the lessons learned that we've we've had through that. So I just thought I'd I'd mention that as a as a little bit of a yeah, a final thought.

SPEAKER_02 54:46

Yeah, in 2030 we'll be looking back, going, how how did all this stuff help? Hopefully. Hopefully, all being well. Yeah. Um, and some yeah, some nice takeouts and a rallying cry there for for those listening to think about those quick wins and those longer term pieces. So, very quickly before we go, final question. And we're collecting these as a little treasure trove in Aladdin's cave of trinkets, of resources, of things to look at, things to watch, things to read from everyone who comes on. Is there a book, a podcast, movie, TV show that has impacted you the most personally or professionally that you you think is worth sharing?

SPEAKER_00 55:25

When you said that across I was kind of reflecting on this, and some of these are a little bit more kind of, I guess, related to the field. Some of these are just things that I've like I've just really enjoyed, and they're not really actually directly kind of relevant. I think bookwise, bookwise, I think the long win by by Kath Bishop.

SPEAKER_02 55:41

That's brilliant. I second that. Fantastic book. Kath's been on the podcast, she's amazing.

SPEAKER_00 55:46

Yeah, really, really good book. I'm kind of aware, I've always been a big proponent about thinking about a broader definition of success, but the way that she kind of talked about that and was great. I thought I thought that you know that that for me was a is a really important resource, I think. Podcast-wise, again, not necessarily in specific episodes, but I think the sport psych show, 80% mental. I saw a podcast from John uh Michi around racism and and combating racism. And John's very, very articulate, and Peter has a great host as well. And I think, yeah, that's certainly made me think about various things. TV show wise, this is us. I've I've really enjoyed that as a series, which came out a few years ago.

SPEAKER_02 56:27

Oh, you I mean, you've got to um you've got to prep yourself for watching that TV show. You do. That's uh you need the you you need the clean for that one. That's a hard hitter.

SPEAKER_00 56:37

It's a long commitment, that one. A long commitment. But I think for me, and again, this is where I said it's not really related to the field, but I think just some of the family dynamic stuff I thought there was just fascinating. It wouldn't be really interesting to see that. Yeah, I guess my all-time favorite film has been the Shorshank Redemption, which is probably a bit of a cliche one, but hope is a really interesting kind of concept for me, and I I could watch that all the time. So yeah, for me, that that would be one. But yeah, I've I've not been so I don't really watch a huge amount in terms of shows-wise, in terms of actually related to sport and performance psychology. I do whenever now I kind of come across things in the media, I always I'm always looking at media-related stuff from a from a psychology, psychologically informed lens. But yeah, maybe maybe I should be doing more if we are watching programmes which have that kind of part. But yeah, that's kind of mine uh things that yeah, I think have had a I've had a personal impression, I guess.

SPEAKER_02 57:29

Yeah, I like it when things have a transferable influence as well. So you you've mentioned some of the aspects of those TV and film shows that you like personally, but also there might be a little element there that makes you think about things differently professionally. Martin Turner has talked a couple of times on the podcast about the matrix uh and some of its metaphysical and and philosophical uh kind of aspects. So I think all of this stuff can be drawn back to what we do in in some ways when reflected on. Um I have to say, you know, the long wind, this is us, Shaw Shank Redemption, Mustafa, we'll have to catch up at next time we see each other at a conference and talk more about TV and films and and uh and books because you're you're you're singing from the same hint sheet here. I love all of those ones that you you mentioned, and and thanks so much for sharing those. Um thanks so much again for coming on. Um you talked about the the conference in 2030. Maybe we should schedule another podcast interview for 2030 because we're already at a nice five-year cadence at the moment, having done one in 2020 and 2025. But thanks so much for coming on again and sharing all of your experience and your suggestions as well for how to improve the field. It's much appreciated.

SPEAKER_00 58:41

No, no worries at all. Thanks for having me, Pete. And yeah, hope it was uh useful and interesting for the listeners.

SPEAKER_02 58:46

Good man. Thanks, Mustafa. Take care.

Full time reflection

SPEAKER_02 58:49

Well, some stirring and rousing stuff there from Mustafa. And what I especially like about this conversation is there is something for everyone in here. If you are a researcher or academic, there are some handy tips and provocations for getting closer to applied practice and making our research more digestible, engaging, and ultimately impactful. And for applied practitioners, a timely reminder that our ability to be helpful, to instigate positive changes and to add value to teams, organizations, and individuals is only as strong as the research base that we have to inform our practice. Now, the main thing that I'll reflect on, and you might be able to tell this is something I have an interest in from the episode, is the tightrope we can walk with regards to the terminology evidence informed. Now, in short, the trap or bad habit that I've witnessed in my professional life is deciding what we want to do anyway and finding research to back up our pre-made decisions. And funnily enough, it's something I've seen countless times in almost 20 years of marketing, advertising, and sports marketing activation. The creative team might come up with a brilliant idea. It feels instinctively interesting and exciting, perhaps even award-winning. Don't we all want awards? And then the strategic function, of which I've been a part of, is tasked to find a justification for why this idea is commercially the right answer for the brief or the business problem versus strategy, diagnosing the problem, surfacing relevant insights, and then setting the direction for creativity or marketing levers to be pulled. Now, to be clear, I love the premise of an instinctive and organic moment of insight. Applying the scientific method, these solutions, ideas or interventions are just as a valid a starting point. Without this method, we wouldn't know about gravity or have access to penicillin. But what I advocate for is whether it's sports psychology or business or perhaps it's another area that you might relate to if you're listening, is to utilize research to scrutinize and test and refine these moments of insight, not merely bluntly justify them. And that's what I would say separates evidence informed from backfilling and creative justification. So that's all from me. If you're going to or you are at the conference, or you've just been to the conference, I hope you found the time to enjoy this year's keynote and perspective on Mustafa's talk from the applied practitioner side, and that you'll ensure you reach out to Mustafa if you have any thoughts, builds, or ideas on his six areas to help bridge the gap. So there we have it, another episode in the can for 2025. Stay tuned for more insights from the world of professional football before we round out the year. In the meantime, take care, and if you have been, thanks for listening.