In this post, we explore how sports science practitioners can navigate the tension between complexity and simplicity in their communication.
In our pursuit of clarity, we often gravitate toward simplicity. Yet the preference for straightforward answers can come at the cost of accuracy. This tension is a universal challenge for science communicators: how do we distill complex ideas into something both accessible and accurate?
When it comes to the challenge of balancing complexity with simplicity, weather forecasting serves as a compelling analogy. Meteorologists work with vast quantities of intricate data from complex systems, all of which they are tasked with turning into actionable insights.
A weather app, for example, reduces this data to an icon and two numbers—a high and low temperature. For most users, this simplicity suffices, helping them decide what to wear or whether to carry an umbrella. For others, like a farmer or a sailor for example, this surface-level information is inadequate; they require deeper analysis to make informed decisions. This highlights a key point: effective communication must match the needs of its audience.
The Art of Simplification
Albert Einstein once said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” This insight underscores the importance of deep understanding in effective communication, paired with the ability to translate such understanding into simplicity.
Similarly, physicist Richard Feynman’s four-step method for learning emphasises simplicity as a litmus test for comprehension:
1. Choose a concept to learn.
2. Teach it to yourself or someone else.
3. Identify gaps in your explanation where simplification becomes difficult.
4. Refine and simplify the content so that others can understand it.
Practicing this approach benefits both the communicator and their audience. For example, through my YouTube channel, I strive to simplify sports science concepts for a broad audience while refining my own understanding in the process.
Science is constantly being challenged to simplify its communication. If we cannot communicate insights with our audience/colleagues, then opportunity is missed. So how can you integrate teaching and learning into your own practices, to develop your communication?
Navigating Complexity in Sports Science
However, oversimplification can lead to errors. After all, we are frequently dealing with highly complex entities: injury, team sport performance, physiology, human beings. In some instances, simplicity is suitable, while in others it is inappropriate.
Take for example, the following questions, which I frequently hear:
“What technology should I use?”
"How should they do this exercise?"
“Which test(s) should I use?”
“What metrics should I use?”
“What number should my client/athlete hit?”
“What asymmetry should my client/athlete be within?”
“What exercise/sets/reps should I use?”
“How much should they improve?”
I get nervous when I hear this word “should”. It suggests simplicity, it suggests cause and effect. It leaves no uncertainty. I find myself wanting to answer "It depends" to all of these questions...
But maybe there's a framework we can use to guide our communication. My former colleague and good friend, Will Greenberg, previously published an editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine entitled 'Why 'best practice' is not always best in sport'.
We illustrate the application of Dave Snowden's Cynefin Framework to try to understand and respond to injury and performance decisions. We contend that the quest for so-called 'best practice' may often be misplaced, given the complexity of the problems we face.
Using the Cynefin framework, we can better understand the relationship between complexity and decision-making. Maybe we can also use it to reflect on and tailor our communication strategies.
- Simple (Best Practices): Clear, repeatable tasks with minimal variability. This is where best practice does exist and there are specific protocols that people should follow (i.e. there actually is a "should"!)
- Complicated (Expert Analysis): Scenarios requiring technical knowledge. Here experts can guide our approach. This could relate to questions around which metrics to use or what sets and rep scheme to employ.
- Complex (Emergent Patterns): Dynamic, evolving problems like injury prevention or performance adaptation. We can start with a framework but need to respond to the emergent pattern. This is when "it depends"!
- Chaotic (Novel Responses): Unpredictable crises, over-communication here is necessary.
Understanding and communicating within these domains requires flexibility and a willingness to adapt.
Tailoring Messages to Your Audience
An effective communicator must understand their audience’s needs and level of expertise.
Be wary of the “curse of knowledge”—the assumption that others know what you know. This bias can hinder effective communication, making it essential to view concepts from the perspective of a beginner.
The more we know about a subject, the harder it is for us to explain it to a beginner. Our knowledge interferes with our ability to make accurate assumptions about our audience. We find it difficult to imagine what it's like not to know. This is critical to remember when communicating sports science to key stakeholders!
I first spoke on this topic at VALDCon in Brisbane in 2024. I finished that presentation with my 5 science communication tips, where were:
Be clear, concise, and intentional
Tailor your message to the audience
Check for understanding
Avoid jargon
Beware the curse of knowledge
Simplifying complexity is more than just a skill; it is a responsibility for professionals working in data-rich fields like sports science. By tailoring communication to the needs of diverse audiences, we can ensure our insights are both actionable and accurate.
Great post, Jo! Applicable to a number of fields, not just sports, but history (my field) too.