1. Reasons to be cautious of research in sport and exercise science Professor Scott Fleming

2. The overview • The fallacy of objectivity • The bias(es) of asking questions • Imprecision in operational definitions • Illogicality of inferences • The veneer of ethical propriety • Non-reporting of findings • The misuse of statistical gymnastics

3. Stages of the traditional view • Observation & experiment • Inductive generalisation • Hypothesis • Attempted verification of hypothesis • Proof or disproof • Knowledge (cf. Parry 2005)

4. Observers view things differently: • From other observers • From themselves at different times • Depending on sensitisation

5. Subjectivity and observation • An observation is undertaken • By someone using her/his senses • Experience of observing is subjective • The observation is described • Putting the private experience (observation) into the public domain (statement/writing) • Meaningful description requires shared understanding of vocabulary

6. Logical All people are mortal; Sachin Tendulkar is a person; Sachin Tendulkar is mortal. Absurd – False syllogism All people are mortal; My dog is mortal; My dog is a person. Highlighting flaws in argument

7. West Indians are good at cricket; ‘X’ is West Indian; ‘X’ is good at cricket. West Indians are good at cricket; ‘X’ is good at cricket; ‘X’ is West Indian. False syllogisms and cricket

8. India have a long history of producing world class spinners; Indians are good at spin bowling because they’re Indian; Indians are physiologically and psychologically better equipped for spin bowling. The French make good red wine; The French have natural ability at making red wine; The French are genetically better equipped to make red wine. Bogus reasoning

9. Popperian falsificationism: “countless confirming instances can never conclusively verify a general proposition, but a single counter example can conclusively falsify it”. (Parry, 1986, p.212)

10. Exceptions to the principle Yes • Use it (them) Is the research question worth asking? Other method (s) to answer the research question? Yes • May be OK to engage in deceptive methods and/or obviate the need for IC No No Forget it

11. Modified consent • Ex-post facto consent, • Proxy or presumptive consent, • Prior general consent (Holloway and Jefferson, 2000)

12. Assumptions about presumption • Acting in the ‘interests of subjects’,but… • ‘You can’t know’ • If you can’t find out • If you don’t try to find out • Especially if you have no reason to care • ‘It’s not the same’

13. Conclusion (i) • Knowledge is provisional • Scientific knowledge may be falsified. • This is how progress in science works. • We should welcome not fear falsification. • Only if some observation would refute it is it testable. • And only if it is testable is it scientific. (Parry, 2005)

14. Selected sources Chalmers, A. F. (1983) What is this thing called Science?, Milton Keynes; Open University Press (2nd ed.) Hale, T. (2001) Do Human Movement Scientists Obey the Basis Tenets of scientific Inquiry? Quest. 53 pp 202-215. Hughes, J. The Philosophy of Social Research, London; Longman. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago; University of Chicago Press (2nd ed.) Magee, B. (1982) Popper. London, Fontana Press. McNamee, M. J., Olivier, S., and Wainwright, P. (2006) Research ethics in exercise and health sciences. London: Routledge. McNamee, M. J. (2005) (ed.) Philosophy, and the sciences of exercise, health and sport: Critical perspectives on research methods. London: Routledge. Parry, J. (2005) Must scientists think philosophically about science? In M.J. McNamee (ed.) Philosophy, and the sciences of exercise, health and sport: Critical perspectives on research methods. London: Routledge, pp. 21-33. Woolgar, S. (1993) Science – the very idea. London: Routledge.