国内外“专项(性)”研究对比

Mapping Knowledge Comparison of Specific(ity) at Home and Abroad

DOI：10.12064/ssr.2021092501

英文关键词:specificity map knowledge sport specific performance training science

基金项目:

作者	单位
廖开放	上海体育学院体育教育学院,上海 200438
黎涌明	上海体育学院体育教育学院,上海 200438

摘要点击次数: 1725

全文下载次数: 1538

中文摘要:

旨在运用知识图谱对国内外体育科学领域“专项(性)”知识域进行比较，为我国体育理论与实践领域认识“专项(性)”提供参考。对2 458篇文献的分析发现：国内外“专项(性)”/“Specific(ity)”相关研究存在明显差异，国外的“Specific(ity)”并不完全等于国内的“专项(性)”。国内相关研究主要涉及竞技体育，集中于对“专项体能”等问题的宏观探讨和理论阐述；国外相关研究同时涉及竞技体育和健康促进，集中于运用实证法对康复、运动/锻炼/练习、足球等问题具体而微的探究。国内对“专项体能”的关注似乎难以得到国外“Specific(ity)”相关研究的支撑。建议我国运动训练理论与实践领域跳出“专项与否”的争论，尝试从动作和能量代谢角度来重新认识比赛、训练和测试的生物学特征。

英文摘要:

This paper aims to provide reference for understanding "Specific(ity)" in the field of sports theory and practice in China by comparing "Specific(ity)" knowledge field at home and abroad. The results from 2458 articles demonstrated that there are obvious differences between domestic and foreign researches on "Specific(ity)", and that "Specific(ity)" used abroad does not match the "专项(性)" completely in China. The literature in China mainly involves competitive sports, with the focus of sport-specific physical fitness from the perspective of macro discussion and theoretical elaboration. While the foreign studies involve both competitive sports and health promotion, with the focus of the specific and small exploration of rehabilitation, exercise, football and other issues from empirical perspective. The hot issues about "sport specific performance" in China seem difficult to be supported by the evidences of "Specific(ity)" studies abroad. It is suggested that domestic sports scientists and practitioners should get rid of the controversy of "specific(ity) or not" and try to re-understand the biological characteristics of competition, training and testing from the perspective of movement and energy metabolism.

查看全文查看/发表评论下载PDF阅读器

关闭