Exploratory Study on Scholars in Exercise and Sport Sciences in Italy

Abstract

In Italy, several changes to academic and professional standards and rules in kinesiology and sport have recently occurred. On the university side, no data collection has started regarding these changes and effects on specific scholars. The aim of this study was to evaluate the opinions of Italian university scholars in Exercise and Sport Sciences regarding recent disciplinary reclassifications, the emergence of the kinesiologist as a formal profession, and related curricular updates. Specifically, this study aimed to measure scholars’ views on the usefulness of unification, hybridization with other fields of knowledge, interdisciplinarity with pedagogy, the distinctiveness of undergraduate education in light of the new kinesiologist profile, and the inclusion of Technical and Laboratory Activities (TLA) credited through the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). These aspects were explored through an eight-question survey offering three multiple-choice answers. An exploratory survey was distributed to a defined population of 261 Italian scholars (48 full professors, 137 associate professors, and 76 researchers). A total of 83 responses were collected: 14 full professors, 45 associate professors, and 24 researchers (response rate: 31.8%). Descriptive statistics and inferential analyses (Chi-Square tests, Cramér’s V, and Pearson/Spearman correlations) were conducted. Results indicated that 72.3% perceived overlap between pedagogical and medical disciplinary groups, and 85.5% considered practical/laboratory activities essential to the kinesiologist’s role. Significant differences in keyword-sharing perceptions across academic ranks emerged (p = 0.012; V = 0.3), and a near-significant trend was found regarding the importance of discipline-aligned research (p = 0.058; V = 0.3). Full agreement was found on the use of updated scientific evidence in lectures (100%), and 81.9% supported standardized education for the kinesiologist profession (Q6). Positive correlations were observed between support for keyword sharing and belief in its usefulness for promoting interdisciplinarity among full professors (r = 0.58, p = 0.02), associate professors (r = 0.68, p < 0.01), and researchers (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Conversely, negative correlations emerged between the importance placed on practical activities and support for interdisciplinarity among associate professors and researchers, with values ranging from r = −0.31 to −0.46. The results are significant and tended toward autonomy from pedagogy, training aligned with the bachelor’s and master’s degree kinesiologist, and interdisciplinarity inherent in typical Exercise and Sport Sciences (ESS) keywords. This study should be replicated to increase the sample and to expand the ad hoc questionnaire to other issues. These findings highlight the need for greater alignment between academic training, disciplinary definitions, and professional practice through shared epistemological frameworks and updated descriptors that reflect scientific and labor market developments.

1. Introduction

Over the last few decades, kinesiology and sport sciences have gained increasing recognition internationally as multidisciplinary fields essential to health promotion, physical activity, and performance enhancement [1,2,3,4]. In Italy, the formal integration of kinesiology and sport sciences into the university system occurred only about 25 years ago, with structured academic pathways including a bachelor’s degree in sport sciences and three master’s degrees focusing on sport sciences, preventive and adapted physical activity, and sport management [5]. These programs are classified under the academic scientific disciplines of physical training and sport sciences, reflecting a growing alignment with international frameworks emphasizing evidence-based practice and interdisciplinary approaches [6,7]. Despite this formal academic recognition, the Italian context has historically been characterized by a separation between sport practice, education, and research development. For example, prior to recent reforms, institutions such as the Higher Institutes of Physical Education primarily trained physical education teachers, while organizations like the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI) managed sports activities without a significant research mandate [8]. Recently, the profession of the kinesiologist, defined as a graduate holding a master’s degree in kinesiology, was also officially recognized. This role is distinct from that of the “sports worker” trained through CONI’s professional courses [9]. Additionally, the ATECO Commission of the Italian National Institute of Statistics [10] has recognized kinesiology as an independent economic activity, aligning it with European economic activity classifications [11].

This recognition is in addition to the pre-existing classifications related to the economic activities of sports workers. University degree programs have also been updated [12,13], and the curricula have been adapted to the new educational and professional requirements of the kinesiologist profile, including a dedicated training component in Technical and Laboratory Activities (TLA): 25 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) credits in the bachelor’s degree and 20 ECTS in each of the three master’s degrees [14].

The update of academic rules has been finalized by placing the Exercise and Sport Sciences (ESS) solely within the medical field, encompassing the two academic scientific disciplines of physical training and sport sciences [15,16]. This marks a shift from their previous classification within the pedagogical field for over two decades, thus providing new momentum to research activity in the medical area. Such reclassification has sparked debate on disciplinary identity, interdisciplinarity, and training coherence, issues also highlighted in the recent international literature on the evolution of sport sciences curricula [17,18,19]. Nonetheless, hybridizations with technology and informatics and interdisciplinary connections with pedagogy remain relevant through the typical ESS keywords, such as sport, movement, physical education, sports physical activity, and exercise. A recent study [20], published in the official journal of the Italian Society of ESS, Sport Sciences for Health, highlighted the presence of overlapping phrases, particularly one relevant to the scientific disciplinary group of (SDG) 11PAED02 (Educational Research, Didactics, Special and Experimental Pedagogy), and shared keywords across multiple SDGs. These findings suggest the importance of engaging the relevant scientific community to appropriately share a study’s results and seek its feedback.

These changes have influenced the opinions and perceptions of scholars in the field, yet no prior initiative has been taken to gather their feedback or reflections. Despite these transformations, the literature lacks empirical data on scholars’ perceptions of such changes within the Italian academic system. Currently, there has been no targeted effort to collect data, even for the purpose of disseminating these transformations. Therefore, it is considered valuable to directly assess the current opinions of scholars as disciplinary-qualified educators and active contributors to the development of research. The aim of this study is to evaluate opinions on the usefulness of unification, hybridization with other disciplines, interdisciplinarity with pedagogy, the distinctive nature of university education in light of the new kinesiology profession, and the added ECTS credits for TLA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Data Collection

The selection of participants was based on the CINECA institutional database, which includes comprehensive records of academic staff in Italian universities. Eligible participants were scholars officially affiliated with the academic disciplines of physical training sciences and methodology (code M-EDF/01) and sport sciences and methodology (code M-EDF/02), holding a permanent position as full professor, associate professor, or researcher. A total of 261 individuals were identified: 48 full professors, 137 associate professors, and 76 researchers.

The survey was distributed via institutional email addresses using Google Forms, selected for its ease of use, accessibility, and secure data storage. An initial email explained the purpose, voluntary nature, and confidentiality of this study. The survey remained open for three weeks, with one reminder sent after ten days to maximize the response rate. Respondents gave informed consent by proceeding with the questionnaire. Participation was anonymous, and no personal or identifiable information (e.g., email, IP address) was collected. The estimated completion time was approximately 3 min. The survey instrument consisted of 8 closed-ended questions with three response options (“Yes,” “No,” “I don’t know”), addressing various aspects related to disciplinary identity, interdisciplinarity, curriculum uniformity, and research alignment in Exercise and Sport Sciences. Prior to distribution, the questionnaire was piloted with five academic experts not included in the final sample to ensure clarity and relevance. Minor revisions were made based on their feedback, primarily to refine the wording of items for consistency and comprehension. A detailed description is provided in Appendix A.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

A post hoc power analysis was conducted for the Chi-Square test used in the disaggregated analysis of the responses by academic role (n = 261; α = 0.05; df = 4). The statistical power to detect a moderate effect size (Cramér’s V = 0.2) exceeded 85%, indicating that the sample size was adequate for the main comparisons. The statistical analysis was conducted at three levels: aggregated descriptive, disaggregated descriptive, and inferential. The aggregated descriptive analysis provided an overview of the overall opinions of the sample regarding central themes such as the perceived overlap between GSDs, the usefulness of ASD unification under M-EDF, the relevance of laboratory practice, and the importance of research in the field of ESS. Response percentages were calculated for each answer option (“Yes,” “No,” “I don’t know”) for each item. The disaggregated descriptive analysis distinguished responses by academic role (full professors, associate professors, researchers), allowing for the identification of any perceptual differences among the three categories. These differences were analyzed using the Chi-Square test (X²), with Cramér’s V used to estimate the strength of association (low if <0.2; moderate if 0.2–0.4; strong if >0.4). The use of questionnaires as a data collection tool in academic and sports contexts has proven particularly effective in the recent scientific literature, especially for investigating subjective phenomena such as perceptions, attitudes, or social inclusion [21,22,23]. Finally, the inferential analysis, both parametric and non-parametric (Pearson and Spearman correlations), assessed the relationships between the responses to the eight questions for each academic group. Correlations were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. Data were processed using SPSS 28.0.

3. Results

A total of 29.17% of full professors, 32.85% of associate professors, and 31.58% of researchers responded to the survey relative to the reference population. Overall, the sample is evenly distributed and fairly representative. A detailed breakdown is shown in

Table 1. Sample and comparison with the reference population.

Groups	Total Population	Sample	Sample Percentage (%)
Full professors	48	14	29.17%
Associates	137	45	32.85%
Researchers	76	24	31.58%

.

3.1. Descriptive Statistics (Aggregated by Academic Role)

The majority (72.3%) perceived overlap in declaratory statements between GSD 11/PAED-02 and GSD 06/MEDF-01, though only 33.7% reported keyword sharing. Regarding interdisciplinary relevance of terms like sport, training, and physical education, 47% found them useful; 34.9% did not. Most (66.3%) supported unifying the M-EDF ASDs into one GSD. Use of scientific evidence in teaching was unanimously endorsed (100%), and 81.9% favored national uniformity in kinesiology curricula. Practical/laboratory activities were valued by 85.5%. Views were split on whether research consistent with GSD 06/MEDF-01 is necessary: 51.8% said yes, 48.2% no. A detailed description is shown in

Table 2. Aggregated results by academic role (full professor, associate professor, researcher).

Questions	Answer	F	%
1. Perceived overlap between GSD 11/PAED-02 and 06/MEDF-01.	No	23	27.7
	Yes	60	72.3
2. Keyword sharing across GSDs.	No	55	66.3
	Yes	28	33.7
3. Usefulness of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords for interdisciplinarity.	No	29	34.9
	I don’t know	15	18.1
	Yes	39	47.0
4. Usefulness of unifying M-EDF ASDs into a single GSD.	No	28	33.7
	Yes	55	66.3
5. Use of up-to-date scientific evidence in lectures.	Yes	83	100.0
6. Need for uniform kinesiology training across universities.	No	15	18.1
	Yes	68	81.9
7. Relevance of practical/laboratory activity for the kinesiology profession.	No	7	8.4
	I don’t know	5	6.0
	Yes	71	85.5
8. Necessity of research related to GSD 06/MEDF-01 for scientific development in the field.	No	40	48.2
	Yes	43	51.8

Note: GSD = scientific disciplinary group; ASD = academic scientific discipline; ESS = Exercise and Sport Sciences; 11/PAED-02 = Educational Research, Didactics, Special and Experimental Pedagogy; 06/MEDF-01 = Exercise and Sport Sciences.

.

3.2. Disaggregated Descriptive Statistics by Academic Role and Chi-Square Comparison

Perceptions were largely consistent across roles, except for a few items. Keyword diffusion (Q2) varied significantly: researchers (54.2%) and full professors (42.9%) saw more overlap than associate professors (20%) (χ² = 0.012; V = 0.3). Relevance for interdisciplinarity (Q3) was highest among researchers (58.3%) and full professors (57.1%) vs. associate professors (37.8%), though not significant. Support for unifying GSDs (Q4) was high across all roles (62.2–71.4%). Uniform training (Q6) was strongly supported by full professors (92.9%). Practical training (Q7) was widely endorsed, though less so by researchers (79.2%). Regarding research aligned with GSD 06/MEDF-01 (Q8), full professors were most favorable (71.4%), researchers least (33.3%) (χ² p = 0.058; V = 0.3). A detailed description is shown in

Table 3. Disaggregated results by academic role (full professor, associate professor, Researcher).

Questions	Answer	Full		Associates		Researchers		Chi-Square
		F	%	F	%	F	%	X2	V
1. Perceived overlap between GSD 11/PAED-02 and 06/MEDF-01.	No	6	42.9	10	22.2	7	29.2	0.31	0.1
	Yes	8	57.1	35	77.8	17	70.8
2. Keyword sharing across GSDs.	No	8	57.1	36	80.0	11	45.8	0.01	0.3
	Yes	6	42.9	9	20.0	13	54.2
3. Usefulness of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords for interdisciplinarity.	No	3	21.4	18	40.0	8	33.3	0.32	0.1
	I don’t know	3	21.4	10	22.2	2	8.3
	Yes	8	57.1	17	37.8	14	58.3
4. Usefulness of unifying M-EDF ASDs into a single GSD.	No	4	28.6	17	37.8	7	29.2	0.69	0.1
	Yes	10	71.4	28	62.2	17	70.8
5. Use of up-to-date scientific evidence in lectures.	Yes	14	100.0	45	100.0	24	100.0	N.A.
6. Need for uniform kinesiology training across universities.	No	1	7.1	9	20.0	5	20.8	0.50	0.1
	Yes	13	92.9	36	80.0	19	79.2
7. Relevance of practical/laboratory activity for the kinesiology profession.	No	0	0.0	4	8.9	3	12.5	0.68	0.1
	I don’t know	1	7.1	2	4.4	2	8.3
	Yes	13	92.9	39	86.7	19	79.2
8. Necessity of research related to GSD 06/MEDF-01 for scientific development in the field.	No	4	28.6	20	44.4	16	66.7	0.05	0.3
	Yes	10	71.4	25	55.6	8	33.3

Note: GSD = scientific disciplinary group; ASD = academic scientific discipline; ESS = Exercise and Sport Sciences; 11/PAED-02 = Educational Research, Didactics, Special and Experimental Pedagogy; 06/MEDF-01 = Exercise and Sport Sciences.

.

3.3. Inferential Statistics: Parametric and Non-Parametric Analysis Between Survey Items

Among full professors, only one statistically significant correlation emerged, confirmed by both parametric and non-parametric analyses: between Q2 and Q3 (ρ = 0.58, p = 0.02). This positive correlation indicates that full professors who perceive a broader diffusion of MEDF-01 keywords across other scientific disciplinary groups are more likely to believe that such diffusion enhances interdisciplinary collaboration within ESS. No other significant correlations were identified in this group. A similar pattern was observed among researchers, suggesting that support for interdisciplinary keyword diffusion is consistent regardless of academic rank. A detailed description is shown in

Table 4. Non-parametric correlation among full professors’ responses.

Questions	2
2. Keyword sharing across GSDs	1.00
3. Usefulness of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords for interdisciplinarity.	0.58 * (p = 0.02) [0.07, 0.85]

Note: GSD = scientific disciplinary group; 06/MEDF-01 = Exercise and Sport Sciences. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.

Among associate professors, several significant correlations highlight how perceptions of interdisciplinarity and training relate to keyword sharing and practical activities: A strong positive correlation between perceiving keyword sharing across GSDs (Q2) and believing in its usefulness for interdisciplinarity (Q3) shows that those who support keyword diffusion also see it as fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. Negative correlations between perceived overlap/confusion of GSD declaratory statements (Q1) and both keyword sharing (Q2) and interdisciplinarity belief (Q3) suggest that confusion reduces support for interdisciplinary keyword diffusion. Practical/laboratory activity importance (Q7) negatively correlates with keyword sharing (Q2) and interdisciplinarity (Q3), indicating that those emphasizing practical training tend to be less supportive of keyword diffusion’s interdisciplinary role. Conversely, valuing practical training (Q7) positively correlates with support for uniform kinesiology training across universities (Q6), reflecting a focus on consistent professional preparation. Finally, a positive link between support for uniform training (Q6) and belief in aligning research with GSD 06/MEDF-01 (Q8) suggests that those favoring standardized education also prioritize research coherence within the field. A detailed description is shown in

Table 5. Non-parametric correlation among associate professors’ responses.

Questions	1	2	3	7	6
1. Perceived overlap between GSD 11/PAED-02 and 06/MEDF-01.	1.00
2. Keyword sharing across GSDs.	−0.44 ** (p < 0.01) [−0.65, −0.16]	1.00
3. Usefulness of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords for interdisciplinarity.	−0.49 ** (p < 0.01) [−0.69, −0.20]	0.68 ** (p < 0.01) [0.45, 0.83]	1.00
7. Relevance of practical/laboratory activity for kinesiology profession.		−0.39 ** (p < 0.01) [−0.60, −0.11]	−0.31 ** (p < 0.05) [−0.56, −0.02]	1.00
6. Need for uniform kinesiology training across universities.				0.33 * (p < 0.05) [0.04, 0.57]	1.00

Note: GSD = scientific disciplinary group; ASD = academic scientific discipline; ESS = Exercise and Sport Sciences; 11/PAED-02 = Educational Research, Didactics, Special and Experimental Pedagogy; 06/MEDF-01 = Exercise and Sport Sciences. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.

Among the responses from researchers, three significant non-parametric correlations were found, with the two strongest confirmed by parametric analysis. The strongest correlation was between Q2 and Q3, showing that researchers who view the presence of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords in other GSDs positively also believe this contributes to interdisciplinarity between sport sciences and other fields. Those who support keyword diffusion tend to see interdisciplinarity as beneficial for advancing ESS research. A negative correlation between Q7 and Q2 indicates that researchers who place greater importance on practical/laboratory activities in kinesiologist training are less supportive of including GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords in other GSDs. This suggests concerns about losing the distinct identity of ESS through too much integration. Similarly, the negative correlation between Q7 and Q3 shows that those valuing practical activities highly are less convinced that keyword diffusion fosters interdisciplinarity, likely fearing it may shift ESS away from its practical core. A detailed summary is provided in

Table 6. Non-parametric correlation among researchers’ responses.

Questions	2	3	7
2. Keyword sharing across GSDs.	1.00
3. Usefulness of GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords for interdisciplinarity.	0.83 ** (p < 0.01) [0.63, 0.92]	1.00
7. Relevance of practical/laboratory activity for kinesiology profession.	−0.46 * (p = 0.02) [−0.69, −0.10]	−0.42 * (p = 0.04) [−0.67, −0.04]	1.00

Note: GSD = scientific disciplinary group; ESS = Exercise and Sport Sciences. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.

4. Discussion

The main results reveal that the majority of the sample (72.3%) perceives an overlap between the descriptions of GSD 11/PAED-02 and 06/MEDF-01. Moreover, the differences among academic ranks were not significant (X² = 0.316; V = 0.1); thus, there is a shared opinion on the matter, highlighting a potential interpretive risk in the definition of disciplinary areas. Negative correlations emerged between perceptions of confusion about declarations (Q1) and positive views about sharing keywords (Q2) and interdisciplinarity (Q3), especially between full and associate professors. This underscores the need for greater epistemological clarity. Epistemological clarity is therefore deemed necessary. Researchers (54.2%) were had the most favorable response to sharing compared to only 20% of associates sharing keywords among GSDs. This comparison was statistically significant (X² = 0.012) with moderate association (V = 0.3), reflecting a greater openness of researchers toward interdisciplinary contamination, while associates showed more resistance, perhaps related to a more conservative view of disciplinary identity. Although 47% of the sample believed that GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords favor interdisciplinarity, no significant differences emerged between roles (X² = 0.327; V = 0.1). However, the positive correlation between this question and the previous one (keyword sharing) was significant for full professors, associates, and researchers, indicating a cognitive consistency between the two views: those who favor keyword sharing are also more likely to grasp its interdisciplinary value (correlation between Q2 and Q3 in all three structured analyses).

The proposed unification of M-EDF ASDs into a single GSD receives wide support (66.3% aggregate), with an equal distribution among academic roles and no statistically significant difference (X² = 0.698; V = 0.1). The figure confirms a shared perception of greater effectiveness in organizational and scientific terms resulting from unification. Regarding the usefulness of up-to-date scientific evidence in face-to-face lectures, there is total unanimity; in fact, 100% of respondents said that lectures should be based on up-to-date scientific evidence. The figure shows a strong orientation toward evidence-based teaching as a must-have standard in academic education. There is also a very broad consensus (81.9% overall) regarding the uniformity of the training of the kinesiologist, with no significant differences emerged between roles (X² = 0.505; V = 0.1), although full professors (92.9%) were slightly more in favor than researchers and associates (about 80%). The trend is toward standardization of training, seen as necessary to ensure the professional quality of the figure of the kinesiologist. A positive correlation exists between uniformity of training (Q6) and GSD-specific research (Q8) in associates, where those who believe that uniform training of the kinesiologist is important tend to believe that research should remain anchored to the GSD 06/MEDF-01 declaratory statement, reinforcing the idea of a systemic and coherent vision between training and research in the field.

Laboratory practice is considered an essential element of the new profession of kinesiologist by 85.5% of respondents. Again, differences between roles are modest (X² = 0.681; V = 0.1). However, some interesting inverse correlations emerge across groups: for example, in researchers, those who place high importance on practice tend to be less supportive of interdisciplinary keyword dissemination, signaling a potential conflict between application approach and interdisciplinary theoretical view. Specifically, the negative correlation between the importance of laboratory practice (Q7) and views on interdisciplinarity (Q2 and Q3) in associates and researchers suggests that the more they value laboratory practice for the kinesiologist, the less they believe that GSD 06/MEDF-01 keywords should be present in other GSDs or that this promotes interdisciplinarity. This signals a tension between professionalizing orientation and interdisciplinary openness. Those who favor practical training are concerned that interdisciplinarity dilutes the discipline’s application identity. It is therefore necessary to reflect on the balance between doing and theorizing.

Finally, regarding the indispensability of research in the GSD 06/MEDF-01 declaratory statement, the sample is split between those in favor (51.8%) and those against (48.2%). The differences between roles are significant at the trend level (X² = 0.058) with moderate association (V = 0.3). Specifically, 71.4% of full professors consider research indispensable, compared with 55.6 percent of associates and only 33.3% of researchers. This might reflect a different view of the epistemological function of GSD 06/MEDF-01, with full professors more attached to an established disciplinary structure and researchers more open to cross-cutting or alternative approaches.

In conclusion, the survey offered a clear and articulate overview of Italian researchers’ views on the epistemological and educational positioning of ESS in the Italian university context. The results show an evolving system, where on the one hand, broad agreement emerges on the usefulness of unifying the M-EDF ASDs into a single GSD and strong support for the principle of evidence-based academic training, with the total number of respondents favoring the inclusion of up-to-date scientific evidence in lectures [24,25,26]. Similarly, the majority recognizes a homogeneous university education for the kinesiologist as fundamental [27,28] and stresses the indispensable value of practical and laboratory activity in the new professionalizing training paths. However, substantial divisions remain regarding the relationship between scientific research and the GSD 06/MEDF-01 declaratory statement: one half considers it indispensable, while the other expresses perplexity. This split signals an epistemological knot that is still unresolved, probably reflecting different views on the nature of the discipline and its mode of development: more structured and normative for full professors, more flexible and open for researchers.

In addition to the relatively small sample size (n = 83) and the reliance on self-reported data, several other limitations should be acknowledged. First, this study employed only closed-ended questions, which limited the depth of insight into the reasoning behind each response. The inclusion of open-ended questions or qualitative follow-up (e.g., semi-structured interviews or focus groups) could have enriched interpretation and added depth to the findings, as recommended in similar studies on academic identity and disciplinary boundaries [29,30]. Second, the sampling was limited to academic scholars affiliated with recognized Italian universities, excluding adjunct faculty, doctoral candidates, or professional practitioners who may have relevant perspectives [31]. Third, while the sample included participants across all academic ranks, it did not ensure regional or institutional balance, which may have influenced certain perceptions. Moreover, the cross-sectional nature of the survey captures opinions at one point in time, making it sensitive to recent policy changes or institutional reforms [32]. Lastly, the use of a self-developed, non-validated questionnaire, although reviewed for face validity, may limit the reliability of the instrument. Future research could benefit from constructing and validating a standardized tool for assessing epistemological orientations and curriculum perceptions in Exercise and Sport Sciences [33,34].

5. Conclusions

The present study analyzed the opinions of Italian researchers regarding the scientific content of the ESS discipline, highlighting a panorama rich in complexity but also in unexpressed potential. The results show a general awareness of the importance of defining more clearly the epistemological boundaries of the discipline so that it can consolidate itself as an autonomous and recognizable scientific field, able to interact with other research areas while maintaining its own identity. The plurality of approaches and viewpoints suggests that the scientific community is in a transitional phase, in which instances of theoretical and methodological consolidation coexist with demands for interdisciplinary dialogue. The difficulty in defining a shared taxonomy of content and outlining a strong theoretical core highlights the need for collective and systematic work to strengthen the conceptual foundations of the discipline.

Given the results obtained, and following any further in-depth research aimed at improving both the sample and the items of the ad hoc questionnaire, it may be worth initiating an epistemological dialogue among researchers. This could focus on the declarative contents of the GSD 06/MEDF-01 and the professional practices of the kinesiologist, with the aim of better understanding potential overlaps with other GSDs, ASDs, and professional profiles and stimulating discussion on how to reinforce the autonomous identity of Exercise and Sport Sciences. Such epistemological reflection could also contribute to the development of a shared lexicon, clearer epistemological boundaries, and periodic updates of disciplinary descriptors, in line with scientific advances and evolving labor market demands.

From a practical perspective, this study’s findings can inform policy makers and curriculum developers in Italian universities about how to standardize training for kinesiologists in line with academic and labor market expectations. The emphasis on practical/laboratory experience and evidence-based teaching has direct implications for revising syllabi, accreditation standards, and professional guidelines.