Last year, USA Today published an article about IYKYK (If You Know You Know), helping those who were “out of the loop” on text message slang to understand the meaning of the acronym, which ironically alludes to an inside joke or shared knowledge.

I’ve been pondering whether IYKYK applies to psychology consulting in different environments. So this article will look at the benefits of being integrated into and understanding working environments vs. being a “fresh pair of eyes”. Being a chartered sport and exercise psychologist, it has a sport psychology skew, but the reflections here might resonate with psychologists or consultants working in familiar or alien environments.

So let’s start in the sport psychology literature. What does it say about IYKYK? Well, unsurprisingly, there isn’t a wealth of academic papers referring to this text message slang, but there are some papers that refer to the benefits of “sport-specific knowledge”. Sport-specific knowledge has been defined as “the practitioner’s ability to speak your sport’s language and the depth of his/her knowledge of both the demands of your sport and the specific mental skills required for development and performance.” It has been found to be one of the key aspects of the ‘ideal practitioner’ as reported by athletes. In fact, there are papers that suggest athletes find this specific knowledge to be more important versus how important sport psychologists themselves think it is. 

Does this suggest a gap in the perceived value sport-specific knowledge can pprovidebetween consultants and the athletes they aim to support? Let’s dig a little deeper.

Early definitions of sport-specific knowledge inherently linked it to a practitioner or consultant having an athletic background themselves. Karla Drew, a former international heptathlete and hurdler turned sport psychologist, has written an insightful book chapter entitled ‘The Inside Job’, documenting her journey from athlete to practitioner. In it, she tackles this particular ‘lived experience’ aspect of sport-specific knowledge. 

Drew notes that former athletes gain the benefit of practical experience of working with a sports psychologist on ‘the other side of the fence’. In addition to this insight into the practicalities of delivery, self-disclosing aspects of this lived experience also helps in building rapport and gaining buy-in with athletes and stakeholders, which are key aspects of the working relationship. But far from a silver bullet, Drew reflects that there are potential pitfalls with such firsthand experiences, namely that “sporting experiences and perceptions [could, unchecked] lead to a loss of objectivity when working with a client.” The author also notes the ethical quandaries involved with blurring the lines between our roles as applied psychologists and those of athlete peers.

This view of sport-specific knowledge has since broadened, with the definition now encapsulating “the practitioner’s ability to speak your sport’s language and the depth of his/her knowledge of both the demands of your sport and the specific mental skills required for development and performance.” Some argue that this definition might be too simplified, presenting it as simply a knowledge of the sport versus a deeper understanding. Can the sport psychologist “talk the talk” of the sport? Do they understand the language of the sport? Do they understand its specific technical, physical, and psychological aspects?

Dr Will McConn-Palfreyman, head of psychology at Scottish Golf, refers to this knowledge as an understanding of the sport’s “psychological fingerprint“. The unique quirks, challenges, demands, and opportunities afforded by the sport’s culture, environment, and day-to-day experience, along with the language, assumed knowledge, and shared history that permeate it. A 2015 paper published in The Sport Psychologist noted “knowledge and expertise” as a key characteristic by experienced sport psychology consultants. One of the 10 participants in the study (average age = 50 years old / consulting experience = 22 years) expanded on this notion of the psychological fingerprint and the role of language and shared knowledge.

… having a specific knowledge where I can use the same language as the [name of sport]. Even give them language from… an athlete who won an Olympic medal …  So that sport specific knowledge gives you credibility which gives you greater access, which helps athletes take a risk to try something new, try something different… 

The insider knowledge and deep understanding of the performance environment described here has also been described as contextual intelligence: a knowledge of the language, the system, knowing what works, with which persons, and in which situations – in short, it is more than knowing what to do, but how to apply it. Researchers find that contextual intelligence helps practitioners gain entry, become accepted within a team, increase intervention adherence, work with families and NGBs and help others deal with organisational stress.

There’s a picture developing here: Understanding the sport’s psychological fingerprint, acquiring sport-specific knowledge through one’s own athletic career or experience of that environment, and acquiring contextual intelligence from experience within the sport. Sounds great. But how is all of this best applied? Looping back to Drew’s Inside Job, the author reflects on a key distinction that might benefit other practitioners looking to utilise their contextual intelligence – that being the difference between sport-specific knowledge and self-knowledge:

Whilst working with David [pseudonym], I remember thinking that if the intervention worked for me, then it could work for David too. However, I think this is where the benefit of engaging in sport psychology support and education helped me to understand myself and what works for me, but importantly, how my view of the world can be vastly different to those of other athletes, including my clients. I shared with a mentor that I sometimes find myself considering an intervention for a client that I know would be likely to work for me rather than them. Increasing my self-knowledge through sport psychology provision has made me more self-aware of my own behavioural preferences.

Drew concludes that sport-specific knowledge and experiences “open the door” of mutual respect and understanding that lays the foundation for greater connection and rapport, but this connection can be developed in many ways that realise a common ground between athlete and practitioner, from the shared experience of athletic endeavour to common interests. 

So if we applied text slang within sport psychology, perhaps we should be messaging each other IYKYYK (If You Know Yourself, You Know). Combining an understanding of the sport’s psychological fingerprint, contextual intelligence, and sport-specific knowledge with the critical self-reflective skills to parse one’s own biases with the needs of the client might just be the gold standard we’re shooting for.

Pete Jackson, CPsychol is a chartered sport psychologist, registered with the British Psychological Society.