Matthew Watson – författare

The Science of Esports draws from contemporary research and coach expertise to examine esports athlete health and performance from a range of disciplinary perspectives, including physiology, psychology, sociology, and nutrition. The rapid expansion of the esports industry has elevated competitive video gaming into the realm of high performance, requiring players, coaches, and practitioners to implement interdisciplinary approaches to performance support.

The book covers key topic areas such as:

This book includes worked examples and case studies to allow immediate implementation into practice for esports athletes and coaches. It summarises the current state of research to inform researchers and identify gaps in knowledge. This book is critical reading for students of esports and related courses. It serves as the first scientific resource designed to provide athletes, coaches, and practitioners with interdisciplinary insights into esports health and performance.

The Science of Esports draws from contemporary research and coach expertise to examine esports athlete health and performance from a range of disciplinary perspectives, including physiology, psychology, sociology, and nutrition. The rapid expansion of the esports industry has elevated competitive video gaming into the realm of high performance, requiring players, coaches, and practitioners to implement interdisciplinary approaches to performance support.

The book covers key topic areas such as:

This book includes worked examples and case studies to allow immediate implementation into practice for esports athletes and coaches. It summarises the current state of research to inform researchers and identify gaps in knowledge. This book is critical reading for students of esports and related courses. It serves as the first scientific resource designed to provide athletes, coaches, and practitioners with interdisciplinary insights into esports health and performance.

We have become accustomed to economists and politicians talking about “market forces” as if they are immutable laws of the universe. But what exactly is “the market”? Originally an abstract idea from economic theory – the locus of supply and demand – it has come to inform the way we speak about our relationship to the economic system as a whole.

Matthew Watson unpacks the concept to ask what does it really mean to allow ourselves to submit to market forces. And does economic theory really provide insights into the market institutions that shape our everyday life? In tackling these questions, the book provides a major contribution to a deeper appreciation of the dominant economic language of our time, challenging the idea that we can simply defer to the “logic of the market”.

This book studies the methodological revolution that has resulted in economists’ mathematical market models being exported across the social sciences. The ensuing process of economics imperialism has struck fear into subject specialists worried that their disciplinary knowledge will subsequently count for less. Yet even though mathematical market models facilitate important abstract thought experiments, they are no substitute for carefully contextualised empirical investigations of real social phenomena. The two exist on completely different ontological planes, producing very different types of explanation.

In this deeply researched and wide-ranging intellectual history, Matthew Watson surveys the evolution of modern economics and its modelling methodology. With its origins in Jevons and Robbins and its culmination in Samuelson, Arrow and Debreu, he charts the escape from reality that has allowed economists’ hypothetical mathematical models to speak to increasingly self-referential mathematical truths. These are shown to perform badly as social truths, consequently imposing strict epistemic limits on economics imperialism.

The book is a formidable analysis of the epistemic limitations of modern-day economics and marks a significant counter to its methodology’s encroachment across the wider social sciences.

This book studies the methodological revolution that has resulted in economists’ mathematical market models being exported across the social sciences. The ensuing process of economics imperialism has struck fear into subject specialists worried that their disciplinary knowledge will subsequently count for less. Yet even though mathematical market models facilitate important abstract thought experiments, they are no substitute for carefully contextualised empirical investigations of real social phenomena. The two exist on completely different ontological planes, producing very different types of explanation.

In this deeply researched and wide-ranging intellectual history, Matthew Watson surveys the evolution of modern economics and its modelling methodology. With its origins in Jevons and Robbins and its culmination in Samuelson, Arrow and Debreu, he charts the escape from reality that has allowed economists’ hypothetical mathematical models to speak to increasingly self-referential mathematical truths. These are shown to perform badly as social truths, consequently imposing strict epistemic limits on economics imperialism.

The book is a formidable analysis of the epistemic limitations of modern-day economics and marks a significant counter to its methodology’s encroachment across the wider social sciences.

We have become accustomed to economists and politicians talking about “market forces” as if they are immutable laws of the universe. But what exactly is “the market”? Originally an abstract idea from economic theory – the locus of supply and demand – it has come to inform the way we speak about our relationship to the economic system as a whole.

Matthew Watson unpacks the concept to ask what does it really mean to allow ourselves to submit to market forces. And does economic theory really provide insights into the market institutions that shape our everyday life? In tackling these questions, the book provides a major contribution to a deeper appreciation of the dominant economic language of our time, challenging the idea that we can simply defer to the “logic of the market”.