Progress or performance in anti-doping (social science) research? A critical reflection on achievements and future...

Over the past 25 years, anti-doping research has grown substantially in scope and visibility, yet its progress has been uneven. This commentary challenges the field's self-perception of advancement, arguing that despite notable achievements, conceptual blind spots and structural inertia continue to constrain meaningful innovation.

We analysed doping-related studies published in Psychology of Sport and Exercise - the field's flagship journal - as a core sample and critically reflected on the invited expert narrative review (Backhouse & Patterson, 2025). Our analysis examined the field's empirical achievements and theoretical developments, with particular attention to its limitations, gaps, methodological and structural barriers, and emerging opportunities for future research.

While both analyses showed that scholarship has matured from individualistic toward systemic perspectives, progress remains hindered by methodological conservatism, WEIRD-centric (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich and Democratic) bias, limited cross-cultural engagement and dominance of sub-elite samples. Foundational constructs such as attitudes, motivations, values, vulnerability, as well as doping and clean sport behaviours, remain under-theorised and inconsistently operationalised. Continued reliance on familiar frameworks and short-term agendas, combined with fragmented policy translation, traps psychology of doping and anti-doping research in rhetoric over real progress, risking the reinforcement of the very hierarchies and blind spots it seeks to address.

The field must confront its own epistemic comfort zones. Future progress demands research capacity-building in underrepresented regions, theoretical diversification beyond established psychological models, blue-sky research agendas, and genuine co-creation with affected communities. Viewing doping as a wicked problem that is complex, value-laden, and politically contested should replace reductionist framings that oversimplify behaviour and morality into binary choices. Embracing methodological pluralism, epistemic diversity, and structural self-scrutiny is essential if anti-doping (social science) research is to evolve from chronicling problems to producing ethically grounded, context-sensitive answers.