Moving from an adversarial approach to consensus-building in science communication

In a recent issue of Sports Medicine – Open Cassidy et al. (2025) published an alternative format of the classic letter to the editor. The topic of that letter – how best to train agility – is likely to be of interest to many members of the Irish Sport and Exercise Sciences Association; how they wrote the letter should be of interest to all members. In this blog I will first outline the purpose and traditional format of a letter to the editor before explaining the new collaborative approach that Cassidy and colleagues took, the challenges such an approach faces and the opportunities it offers.

The letter to the editor is a classic example of an adversarial approach to progressing knowledge (Nuzzo, 2021). A paper is published, a reader or a group of readers disagree with some of the methods taken used or the interpretations made, and they write to the editor of the journal outlining their objections. The author of the original paper is invited to respond. Such exchanges can be extremely valuable in clarifying key methodological or conceptual points. Through an educator’s lens, these exchanges can be powerful tools, helping trainee sport scientists develop their position on contemporary debates as well as fostering the thought processes and critical reasoning inherent in the scientific endeavour (Nuzzo, 2023). Consider Lisa Barnett and colleagues’ (2016) exemplary response to an argument against emphasizing fundamental movement skills in children’s motor development (Almond, 2014; Pot & van Hilvoorde, 2014), carefully articulating each of the original objections and providing their counterpoints. Unfortunately, these exchanges do not always live up to their potential. It is not uncommon for a response to incompletely address the objections raised in the original letter. Sport science is complex; there will be disagreements, and we should not expect a simple exchange of letters to resolve deep-rooted conflicts. However, the reader of an exchange of letters – especially students or early career researchers – is often left uncertain of much other than ‘people are disagreeing’ (Cleather, 2020). Having read both sides, readers of exchanges of letters should at least be able to see how a resolution might be achieved.

In his thought-provoking book Subvert – a critique of how (sport) science is conducted and how it could be done – Dan Cleather raises additional arguments against this typical adversarial exchange. Public conflicts are likely to engage the ego of competitors, resulting in both parties ‘digging in’. Such a mindset leads to participants focusing on the weaker areas of their opponents’ arguments while avoiding a discussion of the shortcomings of their own approach. This approach is unlikely to lead to consensus or clarity for the reader new to the topic. So what is the alternative?

Where possible, Cleather (2020) proposes moving towards a consensus building approach to resolving scientific disagreements. Rather than exchanging public letters, authors have their debate in private and then collaborate to produce a single letter. Within this letter, each party can ensure that the ‘other side’ is clear on their position and, sometimes with the aid of a neutral third party author, that all objections have a fair hearing. In many cases, it is unrealistic to expect a consensus to result from this initial exchange, but Cleather suggests: “cooperation can still move a debate forwards in a way which adversarial exchanges cannot. At the least, such effort should seek to define the precise nature of the problem and establish the areas of agreement and debate … and provides a roadmap to the solution of the conflict for those who follow” (p. 229).

Cassidy et al. (2025) have produced an illustrative example of such a letter. With Fransen acting as the neutral third party, Cassidy and Kadlec each presented their positions in turn. The format allowed for the clarification of terminology and articulation of assumptions, particularly in relation to contextual considerations vital to understanding how theoretical frameworks are operationalised in practice. Each of the unresolved disagreements can be shaped – collaboratively – into specific, testable hypotheses to guide future empirical research.

There are of course barriers to adopting such a consensus building approach. Collaboration on the frontiers of knowledge around topics in which people are personally invested requires considerable intra- and interpersonal skills to navigate successfully. Furthermore, scientists do compete over ideas and there are rewards for ‘the first’ to break new ground. Such competition can be a healthy driver of progress, but scientific progress is likely to be enhanced if consensus building approaches – occasionally termed adversarial collaboration (Clark & Tetlock, 2023) – also form part of the literature. Congratulations to Cassidy et al. for illustrating what a more collaborative approach to scientific research might look like.

I will leave the final word to Cleather (2020):

“We should be bold in our hypotheses, unafraid to challenge authority and use appropriate rhetoric to draw attention to our work. We do so with the aim of provoking a response, and we hope to draw the most erudite opponents to the conflict. On the other hand, once the battle has been joined, we should quickly offer a parley. Our aim is to make our opponents our collaborators, and to direct the emotion and energy roused by the conflict into a stimulating and productive working relationship.” (p. 230).

References

Almond, L. (2014). Serious flaws in an FMS interpretation of physical literacy. Science & Sports, 29, S60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2014.08.121

Barnett, L. M., Stodden, D., Cohen, K. E., Smith, J. J., Lubans, D. R., Lenoir, M., Iivonen, S., Miller, A. D., Laukkanen, A., Dudley, D., Lander, N. J., Brown, H., & Morgan, P. J. (2016). Fundamental movement skills: An important focus. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35(3), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2014-0209

Cassidy, J., Kadlec, D., & Fransen, J. (2025). Exploring convergence and divergence in seemingly contrasting perspectives on training perceptual-cognitive abilities for sports performance through moderated dialogue. Sports Medicine – Open, 11(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00904-y

Clark, C. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2023). Adversarial collaboration: The next science reform. In C. L. Frisby, R. E. Redding, W. T. O’Donohue, & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), Ideological and political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions (pp. 905-927). Springer International Publishing.

Cleather, D. (2020). Subvert!: A philosophical guide for the 21st century scientist. KMA Press.

Nuzzo, J. L. (2023). Letter writing assignment for exercise physiology students. Advances in Physiology Education, 47(2), 346–351. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00258.2022

Pot, N., & van Hilvoorde, I. (2014). Fundamental movement skills do not lead necessarily to sport participation. Science & Sports, 29, S60–S61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scispo.2014.08.122