This article was downloaded by: [Michigan State University] On: 01 March 2015, At: 01:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what a
Edward M. Winter & Alan Nevill a
b
The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
b
University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Published online: 15 Jan 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Edward M. Winter & Alan Nevill (2014) You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what, Journal of Sports Sciences, 32:1, 1-1, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2013.870698 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.870698
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2014 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.870698
EDITORIAL
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 01:46 01 March 2015
You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what
It is just over two years since Professor Brian Whipp PhD DSc passed away on 20 October 2011. His contributions to the physiology of exercise were profound and appropriately, they have been enduring. His work on tolerance to exercise advanced not only our knowledge and understanding of underlying mechanisms but also continued long-standing traditions characterised by the work of A. V. Hill of ingenuity. Brian played lead roles in the development of breath-by-breath gas-analysis systems that today, tend to be taken for granted. Moreover, Brian’s personal qualities inspired many. He was fastidious, probing and exacting. He was also immensely supportive and many can count themselves fortunate to have benefitted from his tutelage. It is perhaps fitting then to mark the anniversary of Brian’s passing by recounting one of his many sayings. We have chosen the one that heads this editorial. In research, the process is driven by the research question. The question should be a good one. So how do we know if it is “good”? There are perhaps two metrics (Winter, 2011) against which “goodness” can be judged. Answering the question should (1) advance knowledge and understanding or (2) change practice. If we can do both, we really have done well. In the context of advancing knowledge, care has to be taken when claiming “newness”. This has been
highlighted in previous editorials (Nevill, 2001; Winter, 2008). Moreover, preparations in the UK for the REF2014 must include statements about the “impact” that work has made. Principally although not necessarily, this is evaluated in the context either of how outcomes of research have changed or are likely to change practice. So, it is important to report not only what a study has found but also, the implications of the finding, or of course, findings. Outcomes should be stated clearly, simply and unequivocally. Hence, Brian’s “so-what?” We would do well to heed Brian’s advice. EDWARD M. WINTER The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK ALAN NEVILL University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK
References Nevill, A. M. (2001). What is sufficient “new knowledge” to justify a publication? Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 233–234. Winter, E. M. (2008). Sport and exercise science: Just how new is new? Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1247–1248. Winter, E. M. (2011). Editorial. Challenges face by editors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 327–328.
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.892337) © 2014 Taylor & Francis
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what a
Edward M. Winter & Alan Nevill a
b
The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
b
University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Published online: 15 Jan 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Edward M. Winter & Alan Nevill (2014) You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what, Journal of Sports Sciences, 32:1, 1-1, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2013.870698 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.870698
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 2014 Vol. 32, No. 1, 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.870698
EDITORIAL
Downloaded by [Michigan State University] at 01:46 01 March 2015
You’ve told me what you have found, but you haven’t told me the so-what
It is just over two years since Professor Brian Whipp PhD DSc passed away on 20 October 2011. His contributions to the physiology of exercise were profound and appropriately, they have been enduring. His work on tolerance to exercise advanced not only our knowledge and understanding of underlying mechanisms but also continued long-standing traditions characterised by the work of A. V. Hill of ingenuity. Brian played lead roles in the development of breath-by-breath gas-analysis systems that today, tend to be taken for granted. Moreover, Brian’s personal qualities inspired many. He was fastidious, probing and exacting. He was also immensely supportive and many can count themselves fortunate to have benefitted from his tutelage. It is perhaps fitting then to mark the anniversary of Brian’s passing by recounting one of his many sayings. We have chosen the one that heads this editorial. In research, the process is driven by the research question. The question should be a good one. So how do we know if it is “good”? There are perhaps two metrics (Winter, 2011) against which “goodness” can be judged. Answering the question should (1) advance knowledge and understanding or (2) change practice. If we can do both, we really have done well. In the context of advancing knowledge, care has to be taken when claiming “newness”. This has been
highlighted in previous editorials (Nevill, 2001; Winter, 2008). Moreover, preparations in the UK for the REF2014 must include statements about the “impact” that work has made. Principally although not necessarily, this is evaluated in the context either of how outcomes of research have changed or are likely to change practice. So, it is important to report not only what a study has found but also, the implications of the finding, or of course, findings. Outcomes should be stated clearly, simply and unequivocally. Hence, Brian’s “so-what?” We would do well to heed Brian’s advice. EDWARD M. WINTER The Centre for Sport and Exercise Science, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK ALAN NEVILL University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK
References Nevill, A. M. (2001). What is sufficient “new knowledge” to justify a publication? Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 233–234. Winter, E. M. (2008). Sport and exercise science: Just how new is new? Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 1247–1248. Winter, E. M. (2011). Editorial. Challenges face by editors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 327–328.
This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.892337) © 2014 Taylor & Francis
