title
stringlengths 29
128
| author
stringlengths 30
106
| year
stringdate 1991-01-01 00:00:00
2024-01-01 00:00:00
| content
stringlengths 11.8k
56.7k
| references
stringlengths 199
20.7k
| acknowledgement
stringlengths 3
845
| notes
stringclasses 9
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sport Management: Opportunities and Obstacles
|
P. Chelladurai The Ohio State University
|
1991
|
It is indeed a great honor to be a recipient of this prestigious award. I am very grateful to the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), its presidents (past, present, and elect), and its executive for bestowing this honor on me. Such honor multiplies manifold when the award is named after my friend, philosopher, and guide, Dr. Zeigler. He has been my mentor and benefactor. I am happytohavetheopportunitytoacknowledgeinfrontofthislearnedsocietythat what I am today in the academic field is largely due to his generosity, constant encouragement, and continued support. Dr. Zeigler, I am greatly indebted to you, Sir.
As recipient of this award, I am expected to make some take-home message oreruditepronouncementonthestateofthefield.Becauseallofyou andI are committed to this ordeal, let me say a few words on the future of our field. My thoughts are nothing new, but it is good to remind ourselves of the growing pains we go through, the opportunities that lay ahead, and the obstacles we may face.
We have come a long way. Forty years ago when I took my first course in administration of physical education in India, I was taught how to clean the scum gutter in a swimming pool. For your information, there was only one swimming pool in the whole province. Yet this was considered an important piece of information to remember for the exams. By the way, scum gutters are the channels built around the perimeter of a swimming pool into which the swimmers were expected to spit. We do not have those gutters any more because the modern way is to spit into the pool itself.
At any rate, from the days of scum gutters, we have grown into sport management,a field thatisflourishing andwill continue toflourishinuniversities and colleges,and in society at large.From the narrowfocus on facilities and equipmentineducationalinstitutions,wehaveevolvedintoafieldconcerned with ‘'the theoretical and applied aspects of management theory and practice specificallyrelated to sport,exercise,dance and play as these enterprises are pursued by all sectors of the population.'(That statement is from ourNASSM Constitution.) Add to this the statement from the editorial policy of theJournal ofSport Management that reads,Papers written from historical,psychological, philosophical, sociological, and other perspectives are encouraged." We have ourtentacleseverywhere!
This view of our field is encouraging and makes us feel good about ourselves,but although our involvement withsuch an expansive fieldmaybe flattering,it also poses a problem.Because we do not have the workforce to specialize in the subareas of our field, each one of us tends to get involved in all of them. Thus, we spread ourselves too thin to be able to specialize in any one aspect and create a unique body of knowledge in that specialization.Although the problem will be solved in due course, we must be cognizant of this deficiency at this time. The allinclusive perspective of our field also poses problems for interaction between ourfield and the other related fields, and among thevarious specialties within ourfield.Letme outline them as I see them.
Because of the lack of an extensive body of knowledge unique to our field, our academic colleagues in areas such as exercise physiology,sport psychology, and sport sociology tend to think less of us. Some of them may even take on a patronizing attitude toward us. They forget that a few years ago they were ridiculedforlackofspecialization,sophistication,anda bodyofknowledge that they could calltheir own. But we have to acknowledge that at this juncture they are ahead of us.
Their reactions also stem from a territorial imperative. For example, consider the promotion of physical activity in the workplace and the subsequent assessment of the effectiveness of that promotion. It is a legitimate concern of sport management; at the same time, researchers in health or fitness could also be legitimately interested in that topic. However, because we are a newer specialty, the tendency on their part is to view us as intruders.
To respond to these challenges effectively, we need to hustle and lay claim to our domain lest others take over the field by default. The increasing importance of sport itself, the growth in the number of sport organizations, and the popularity of sport management among students is enticing enough for other fields to carve up the area of sport management and to assimilate the pieces.
If and when we establish a body of knowledge, we will face another problem. There is the danger that the other fields may usurp that knowledge and claim it as their own. It is happening with the other disciplinary areas such as exercise physiology, sport psychology, and sport sociology. For example, several of the courses developed in these fields are now being taught in their respective mother disciplines.
Despite the difficulties we may have with the other fields, we need to resist the tendency to set ourselves apart from them. The success of our endeavor is predicated on our reliance on and use of the knowledge generated by other subdisciplines. Consider, for example, management of a fitness club. The knowledge generated by exercise physiologists will verify the appropriateness of a particular exercise regimen for a particular group of clients. Similarly, the information generated by sport psychologists on what factors contribute to adherence to exercise programs has implications for sport managers. When sport sociology finds out which group of people engage in what kind of activities, it should affect the marketing strategies and practices in sport organizations. Sport philosophy may help guide us in ethical matters concerning the management and delivery of our services. A sport organization involved in teaching would profit by associating with experts in pedagogy. Thus, it may be imprudent on the part of sport managementtosetitselfapartfromthedisciplinesthatsupportthefield.
We must also realize that our domain overlaps those of other allied fields of management/administration. For instance, sport management has much to gain from and offer to recreation administration in so far as physical recreation is concerned. Similarly, the field of health administration may face the same problems and contingencies as sport management. Thus, a close liaison with these administrative areaswillbeprofitablefor allconcerned.
To sum up my thoughts so far, our game is management, but we need to demonstrate that we play it better than others. We should also recognize that the domain in which we play our game, the general field we call sport, is also shared by other subdisciplines. They may play different games, but we need to collaborate with them to play our game best. We should learn to co-opt them as partners in ourpursuits.
From a different perspective, neither our field nor the allied fields are full professions. We are what Etzoni (1969) has called semiprofessions. Individually, these semiprofessions do not have any clout to claim professional priorities or privileges. Therefore, we need to band together in claiming our joint professional territory. Our close association with the National Association of Sport and Physical Education in curricular matters is a good example of what we should be doing in this regard. We need to extend such networking even at the institutional level.
Now let us look at the difficulty we have interacting within our field, for example,attheissueoftheprofessional/practiceorientationversusthe disciplinary/research orientation.We all realize that there is no justification for our specialized field of study if it does not contribute to professional practice. We also realize that any profession is not worth its name if it is not based on a body of knowledge unique to its field. Despite these realizations, there is a tendency among us to cling to one orientation or the other and hold it as more virtuous than the other. Could this preference for one or the other thrust, and the resultantholier-than-thou attitude,beafunctionof ourdifferentialabilitiesand talentsratherthantheinherentworthoftheorientationsthemselves?
Mintzberg (1989) distinguished between planners and managers on the basis of their talents and abilities. Planners rely on linear, analytical, computational, and well-ordered processes. Managers, on the other hand, use intuitive, relational, and holistic processes that are controlled by the right brain. We may extend Mintzberg's argument a little further to suggest that the abilities and talents necessary to perform adequately in the domain of research and disciplinary study may indeed be different from those required for adequate performancein the context of practical andprofessional applications. The point is to highlight not ur strengths in research or professional practice, but our deficiencies in one or the other. If we accept our deficiency, would it not be the starting point for appreciating others’ abilities and talents and, therefore,their orientation?
Another issue we need to address is the labels and the relative significance we attach to our subfields. One doctoral student came up to me and said, “I know that you are in sport management, but can I ask you some questions about fitness management?'’Another studentimplied that he did not have much use for me because I was in management and he was in marketing. In both cases, the generic terms sport and management as we use them are contrasted with theparticular terms fitness and marketing,which fall within the broader concepts. We need to make a concerted effort to clarify, for ourselves and for others, the various subareas within the broader field we call sport management.
What is more problematic for us is the critical differentiation that is occurring between management of participant sport and management of spectator sport.Theappendagesporttobothformsofendeavorseems tomaskthe fundamental differences between the two spheres of activity. These differences become clear if we consider them as the provision of human services in sport versus the provision of entertainment services through sport. The human services are those services whereby we change our clients in some meaningful way-—to be fitter, healthier, more skilled, and so on. In the other equally significant class of services, we are involved with the entertainment services, where the focus is on the spectators. These are two drastically different enterprises.Their target populations are different, their personnel requirements are different, and the recognition and status accorded to each are different. That is why significant differentiation is occurring in the management of these two domains.
We need to realize that this process of differentiation is logical and necessary. We should avoid seeking the high ground to proclaim that one endeavor is superior to the other. The question we need to address is how best to integrate the vastly differentiated fields. Surely, if the process of differentiation continues without any attempt at integration, we may indeed separate into two different fields. The larger question is, Should these two subfields—that is, the management of human services in sport and the management of entertainment services through sportbe integrated at all? I am sure there will come a time when both areas will have grown broader and richer and be a able to stand on their own. Until that time, let us work at integration. There is strength in unity.
In the final analysis, despite the growing pains, we are here to stay. With diligent effort on our part, we will prove to be a major player on the field. We may indeed become the conduit through which all the knowledge generated in the other fields will be translated into practical applications.
|
Etzioni,A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization. New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg,H.(1989).Mintzberg on management:Inside our strange world of organizations.NewYork:TheFreePress.
|
This paper was the 1991 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture, presented to the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, June 29, 1991, Ottawa, Ontario.
---
|
n/a
|
Scholarship: The Other ‘Bottom Line' in Sport Management
|
Janet B.Parks Bowling Green State University
|
1992
|
"The Calf Path, by Sam Walter Foss One day throughthe primeval wood,a calfwalked home,asgood calves should; But made a trail all bent askew, a crooked trail, as all calves do. Since then three hundred years havefled,and I infer the calf is dead; But still he left behind his trail and thereby hangs mymoral tale. The trail was taken up next day by a lone dog that passed that way! And then a wise bellwether sheep pursued the trail o'er vale and steep, And drew the flock behind him too, as good bellwethers always do. And from that day, o'er hill and glade through these old woods a path was made; And many men [folks] wound in and out, and dodged and turned and bent about, And uttered words of righteous wrath because ‘twas such a crooked path. But still they followed . . . do not laugh, the first migrations of that calf! This forest path became a lane that bent and turned and turned again. This crooked lane became a road, where many a poor horse with his [her] load Toiled on beneath the burning sun and traveled some three miles in one. And thus a century and a half, they trod the footsteps of that calf. The years passed on in swiftness fleet; the road became a village street. And this, before men [folks] were aware, a city's crowded thoroughfare. And soon the central street was this of a renowned metropolis; And men [folks] two centuries and a half trod in the footsteps of that calf. A hundred thousand men [folks] were led by one calf near three centuries dead. For men [some] are prone to go it blind along the calf paths of the mind; And work away from sun to sun to do what other men [folks] have done. They follow in the beaten track, and out and in and forth and back, And still their devious course pursue, to keep the path that others do. They keep the path a sacred groove along which all their lives they move; But how the wise old wood gods laugh who saw the first primeval calf! For thus such reverence is lent to well-established precedent.
Those of us in sport management—-administrators, faculty, and students alikehave chosen not to walk down that well-worn calf path. Instead, we have made a path of our own. We freely acknowledge that we share commonalities with other areas within the academy, but we also insist that we have our own unique characteristics and contributions that set us apart from them.
When we decided to strike out on a path of our own making, we knew that we would need to create structures to accommodate our professional and academic pursuits. Therefore, we established a professional association, the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), and a scholarly journal, the Journal of Sport Management, in an effort ‘to promote, stimulate and encourage study, research, scholarly writing and professional development in the area of sport management'’ (from Article II of the NASSM Constitution).
In his President's Address at the first NASSM conference, Bob Boucher (1986) noted that “'sport management is a field that cannot divorce itself from practical and professional concerns. In effect, the proof of administrative theory and practice is in the pudding, and therefore we should make every effort to bridge this “gap’ whether it be real or mythical'’ (Boucher, 1986, p. 5; italics added). The underlying assumption was that sport management academics would approach the development of theory and practice in sport management through involvement in scholarship, each of us pursuing the advancement of the body of knowledge in ways associated with our own particular research focus.
During the past several years, there has been quite a bit of discussion about the definition of scholarship and how it should be manifested in the study of sport management. At times, it appeared that we were divided into two camps: On one side, it was rumored, we had researchers who wanted to ‘develop theory in a vacuum''; on the other side, we had practitioners who wanted to “tell sport managers how to sell more tickets."' Presumably, individuals in the theory group were concerned about functioning as members of the academy, and those in the practice group were concerned about what is commonly called the bottom line.
In reality, neither of these camps ever actually existed. An examination of the literature reveals that our colleagues who have called for research with a theoretical base, for example Parkhouse (1987), Parkhouse and Ulrich (1979), Paton (1987), Slack (1991), and Zeigler (1987), have consistently emphasized the importance of applying in a practical setting the knowledge gained from this research. Furthermore, most articles published in the Journal of Sport Management clearly exist within a theoretical framework. The symbiotic relationship between theory and practice in sport management scholarship has, therefore, already been established in the literature-but the question remains how best to translate sport management theory into practice.
In his well-respected book, Scholarship Reconsidered:Priorities of the Professoriate, Boyer (1990) provided a perspective on scholarship that may be useful to usinreachingourobjectiveofenhancingthisrelationshipbetween theory and practiceinsportmanagementineffect,bridgingthegapbetween thefunctions of the academy and the realities of the bottom line.Boyer's perspective on scholarshipcouldappropriatelybe adoptedby sportmanagementscholarsto examine the contemporarylandscapeinsportandtoinvestigatemany ofthe concernswithwhichweareall familiar.Someoftheseconcernshavetheir genesis in thebottom-line approachwhereby anything that is legal and makes moneymust,by definition,be acceptable.IamcertainI amnot theonly academic whohasheard thatrhetoricfromamultitudeofstudents.Giventhatframe of reference,I have chosen to title this paperScholarship:The Other‘BottomLine inSportManagement.'
Boyer(1990) suggested that "‘the work of the professoriate might be thought of as having four separate, yet overlapping, functions. These functions are: the scholarshipofdiscovery,thescholarshipofintegration,thescholarshipofteaching, and the scholarship of application’(p. 16).The scholarship of discovery asks,"What is to be known, what is yet to be found?' (p. 19). We generally use a numberof terms to describe thistype of scholarshipterms such as original research,basicresearch,orthepursuitofnewknowledge.Thescholarshipof integration asks,“What do the findings mean?Is it possible to interpret what's been discovered in ways that provide a larger,more comprehensive understanding?" (p. 19). In addition to bringing “new insight to bear on original research" (p. 19), the scholarship of integration “also means interpretation, fitting one's own research—-or the research of othersinto larger intellectual patterns" (p. 19).
With respect to the scholarship of teaching, Boyer (1990) stated that “the work of the professor becomes consequential only as it is understood by others"' (p. 23). He further asserted that ^Without the teaching function, the continuity of knowledge will be broken and the store of human knowledge dangerously diminished’’ (p. 24). In the scholarship of application, we ask, How can knowledge be responsibly applied to consequential problems?" (p. 21). It is in this context that we can add our question: In sport management, can original research and other forms of scholarship coexist with the demands of the fiscal bottom line?
If we accept the notion that scholarship can, in fact, be expressed in a variety of ways, the challenge then becomes, How can the sport management professoriate utilize these four styles of scholarship to expand the body of knowledge associated with our field of study? Although Boyer's perspective is applicable in most areas of inquiry within sport management, the behavioral domain is a particularly appropriate area in which to explore the possibilities.
A number of academics, myself included, have become increasingly interested in the sport experience as it reflects various aspects of the behavioral dimension of our culture. The following recent phenomena are among those that have captured myattention.
1.A controversy has emerged about the use of images and sacred objects of Native Americans and Native Canadians in the promotion of sport. It is interesting to note,however,that we abandoned similar images of other ethnic groups several decades ago and now find them quite shocking.
2.In spite of evidence of a disproportionate number of male athletes being involved in sexual assault crimes (Melnick, 1992), reports have surfaced of some athletes,coaches,and administrators who responded to the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings and other instances of sexual misconduct withlighthearted jokes aboutsexualharassment.
3. The abuse of Lisa Olson by members of the New England Patriots footballteamwastrivialized anddiminishedbysomefansandjournalists,tosay nothingoftheowneroftheteamhimself.
4.The fourth concern is the disturbing use of the military metaphor whereby ‘one team's success can only be achieved by the opposing team's destruction’ (Melnick, 1992, p. 35). This metaphor has traditionally flourished in the male sport experience and is now being adopted by leaders of women's sport. Confrontational phrases such as ^generals in our army,'’ "we must organize the troops,"’ and “ get more soldiers’ are beginning to appear in the literature, thus relegating sport to the same arena as armed combat.
5.Women'sathletic achievementscontinuetobesubjectedtoambivalent coverage in the media. For example,in a recent photo spread of Lisa Leslie, the first woman to dunk a basketball, the image of a competent athlete was counterbalanced by the image of a feminine campus personality (Taylor, 1991, p. 78). The accompanying article,“A Model Role Model,"’further emphasized that Leslie is more than“just an athlete’ because she “^cuts as dashing a figure on court as she does on the USC campus'’ (Taylor, 1991, p. 79).
6.Twenty years after the passage of Title IX, women are still grossly underrepresented in coaching and administrative positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 1992). Further, a recent NCAA study revealed a shameful degree of sex discrimination at all levels of intercollegiate sport (NCAA, 1992).
7. Afro-Americans are grossly underrepresented at the managerial and administrative levels of sport,and there is not oneAfro-American head football coachatanyofthe106DivisionI-Ainstitutions.
8. At least one men's basketball coach is known to place tampons in his players’ lockers to suggest their femininity (i.e., to underscore their weakness) after a poor performance. This same coach has been reported to advise women that “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.''
9.A women's basketball coach announced that she would neverknowingly allow a lesbian to play on her team.
10.Aggrandizement ofviolencehas continued tobeused topromotesome sports. For example, a recent ad for the Columbus Chill ice hockey team offered the hockey game as a way to help attendees ‘‘with all that unresolved anger you have for your mother.'’ The ad went on to state,‘She was overbearing. Controlling. Hypercritical.And deep down,when she was at her worst, didn't you want to check her real hard into the boards?"’ (Columbus Chill, 1992).
A typicalreaction tothesescenariosis tolament thesadstateof affairs and to develop elaborate,andfrequently helpful,programs tomodify thebehaviorof athletes.However,each of these situations calls into question the value systems and behaviors,not of the athletes,but of the people responsible for the sport environmentmanagers,coaches,journalists,administrators,and marketersthe peoplewhose shoes ourgraduateswill fill some day.This iswhyI believe the students sitting in our classrooms today are thepeople to whom our scholarship can be the most meaningful.They are the individuals who can apply ourtheoretical information in the sport environments of the future, hence becoming change agentsfor theimprovementofsport.
Although Boyer (1990) stressed that scholarship does not necessarily progress in a linear fashion, linearity can be useful in illustrating how his perspective could be applied to the study of the behavioral dimension of sport.First,with regard to the scholarship of discovery,wemight ask,“What newknowledge isneeded in sport management, and how do we discover it? Some of the papers presented at the 1992 NASSM conference are illustrative of the types ofresearch that will provide newinformation that sport managers can use to improve the sport experience.For example, Slack and Hall (1992), Hums (1992), and Frisby (1992) discussed their findingsrelative to gender differences at the management level, and Evangelopoulos (1992) reported on his investigation of the influence of lifestyle and physical and social surroundings on the consumption of professional sport. Additional original research that could be conducted might include
? interviewing athletes, coaches, and administrators about their sport experiences to determine if there are ways we could structure the sport environment differently to better demonstrate its place in the totality of life;
·conducting content analyses of print and broadcast media associated with sporting events, not just to discover gender or race differences, but also to investigate other characteristics of media treatment of sport;
? conducting participant observations or making audiotapes or videotapes of locker-room or athletics residence-hall environments, along the lines of Curry's (1991) work; and
● using the survey method as a way to test in the sport setting hypotheses from other disciplines, although Gordon Olafson (1990) has quite properly alerted us that we tend to conduct an inordinate amount of survey research.
Next, the scholarship of integration asks, “What do the findings mean?'' According to Boyer (1990), there is a trend among contemporary scholars to 'move beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, communicate with colleagues in other fields, and discover patterns that connect’ (p. 20). This trend is becoming more evident in sport management as researchers discover isolated facts and then give meaning to them by placing them in the perspective of the bigger picture. For example, Kane and Parks (1992) reported an investigation of gender differences in media portrayals of athletes and interpreted the findings in light of theories associated with hierarchy and ambivalence. Armstrong and Soucie (1992), Lawrence-Harper (1992), and Slack and Berrett (1992) applied theories developed in management in general to a variety of scenarios in sport management.
Through the scholarship of integration,we know that sociology theory informs our understanding of the power of images toinfluence attitudes and actions. Theoretical constructs also help us understand how socially ingrained negative attitudes toward women may contribute to violence against women and that using women to illustrate weakness perpetuates a dangerous stereotype. Research about homophobia helps us understand why some coaches might reject nontraditional sexual identity among their players and why some sport marketers might prefer to publish images of female athletes in nonathletic roles as opposed to images of strong, self-confident, physically active women. As academics, our understanding of sport must be undergirded by knowledge of such theories and oftheiruseininterpretingthesportexperience.Suchknowledgenotonlyhas potential for improving the sport experience but makes our professional lives infinitely more interesting than just telling people how to sell more tickets. Indeed, itmakesusworthyofthedesignationacademics.
Third, the scholarship of teaching implies sharing our knowledge with students.As Boyer (1990) stated,^Inspired teaching keeps the flame of scholarship alive'’ (p. 24). I would add that, in its turn, scholarship keeps the teaching aflame. From my perspective, students are the greatest beneficiaries of our scholarshipbecause they will bein positions touse their understandings in shaping the sportcultureofthefuture.
ThecurriculumaccreditationstandardsdevelopedbytheNASPE/NASSM JointTaskForce(1991)includethebehavioral dimension as oneof thecontent areas thatmustbepresentinthecurriculum.Among theindicatorsidentified for thebehavioral dimension are(a) students‘must understand how sport mirrors the society in which it exists," (b) they must “^gain an appreciation of sport as a medium for integrating gender, ethnic, religious, and disabilities interests,'' and (c) they‘‘must understand sociological phenomena and how they affect participation and behavior'’ (p. 6).
Itisthroughthescholarshipofteachingthatsuchknowledgeandvalues are transmitted to students, and it is through this transmission and acceptance by students that we can hope to have an impact on the ways sport is managed in the future. Many professors are already involved in this type of teaching. For example, Blann and Mosher (1992) have given us suggestions about presenting information associated with the behavioral domain to sport management students. Cuneen (1992)hasremindedusthatweneedathleticsadministrationcurriculathatinclude a sensitivity to social issues. We need to apply such ideas at our own institutions.
An athletics administratorrecentlystated thatin thecontemporary sport scene,‘We don't need theory, we need action!"’ Of course we need action, but informed,consistentactioncannotexistinthe absenceofa theoreticalframework.
It is not enough to tell students what to do and how to do it. They must be equipped with theoretical constructs to serve as standards for action in new situations. By studying the “"whys’ of human behavior, students can begin to develop strategies for action.
For example, if students understand the concept of hegemony, in which oppressed groups accept their lot in life as the natural order of things and consequently collaboratein their ownoppression,theymayunderstandwhysome Native Americans and Native Canadians choose to have their caricatures used as logos for sport teams and why such choices might be self-destructive. If students understand the nuances of different worldviews (Highlen, 1992), they may understand why issues of gender equity create so much conflict and may begin to develop strategies based on that understanding. If students know about Metheny's (1965) theories of sex-appropriate and sex-inappropriate sports, they will understand the origins of sanctions against sex-inappropriate sports for women and may begin to explore ways those sanctions might be countered.
If students understand that violence against women is rampant today, they won’t need anyone to tell themwhy anicehockey adglorifyingbrutalityagainst mothers isn't funny or that it shouldn't be used to sell tickets to a sporting event. If they are aware that many people use violence as their first choice of action in conflict resolution, they will understand why the military metaphor is inappropriate to describe the sport experience. If students develop their critical-thinking skills, they will recognize that an‘issue’ such as female journalists in the locker room is, in fact, a straw person and that the real issue is whether athletes have the right to abuse individuals who are going about their jobs.
We have been extremely successful in teaching students about values believed to be inherent in sport. For example, even in the absence of empirical evidence, we have convinced generations of students that the sport experience will build good character. Surely, when working with theoretical foundations and scholarly documentation, we can teach students how to improve the sport experience and increase the likelihood that it might contribute to the development of a“kinder and gentler” society.
Last, through the scholarship of application, we can make another major contribution. Boyer's (1990) concept of application revolves around the fourth obligation of the professoriate-service related to one's area of scholarship. As the sport management professoriate, we can use the scholarship of application in two ways: (a) we can send these understandings into sport settings with our graduates (Chouinard, Pelletier, & Soucie, 1986), and (b) we can take theoretical understandings into sport settings through consulting activities.
With respect to our graduates, we can hope that good teaching will translate into wise application in the practical setting. With respect to consulting, however, our application becomes a more direct process. As Zeigler (1987) stated, “A manager on the job is typically confronted with real-life problems. To resolve the problem effectively, something better than trial and error is needed in our increasingly complex society. That something should be the most tenable theory available' (p. 19).
Those ofyouwho are asked to consultwith the sport industry have aunique opportunity to help sport managers make theory-based decisions that reflect anawarenessofcontemporarysocial thought.Forexample,intercollegiateand professional sport teams could benefit from current theory regarding messages inherent in the use of images of different cultural groups to promote sport. Sport journalistscouldbegintounderstandthattheynotonlyreflecttheinterestsand attitudesoftheirreadersbutalsocontributetothedevelopmentofthoseinterests and attitudes.Sport marketersmight beinterested inrecentresearch onviolence and therelationshipof the sportexperience to theperpetuation ofviolence.And homophobiccoachesandathleticsadministratorswouldbenefitfromresearchon homosexuality as well as from information gleaned from interviews with gay athletes.
Individualswhoarecalled upon tobeconsultantsaretypicallyexpected to provide information that will assist a particular agency or organization toward the realizationof ahealthybottomline.I suggest that through thescholarship of application,we can takeintothesportindustrya synthesis of thescholarships of discovery,integration, and teaching. At that point, the two bottom lines of sport management will merge because, as Boyer (1990) reminded us, ‘^Theory surely leads to practice. But practice also leads to theory'’ (p. 16). Through this merger, each bottom line will inform the other, and we can take advantage of yet another opportunitytoexpressourindependenceandtorejecttheoldcalfpathforamore enlightenedpathofour ownmaking.Thebottomlineofscholarshipcancoexist withthefiscalbottomline,and theirmutuallybeneficialcoexistencehas the potential to enhance the quality of the sport experienceforfuturegenerations.
|
Acosta,V.,&Carpenter,L.J.(1992,April).Thestatus ofwomeninintercollegiateathletics in theNCAA:1992.Paperpresented attheconferenceof theAmericanAlliancefor Health,PhysicalEducation,RecreationandDance,Indianapolis.
Armstrong,A.,&Soucie,D.(1992,June).Resourcedependence-basedperceived control inCanadianinteruniversityathletics.PaperpresentedattheconferenceoftheNorth American Society for Sport Management,University of Tennessee,Knoxville.
Blann, W.,& Mosher, S.(1992, June).Bridging the gap: Applying theory in practice.Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, UniversityofTennessee,Knoxville.
Boucher, R. (1986). President's opening address. In C.F. Schraibman (Ed.), Proceedings oftheFirstAnnualConferenceoftheNorthAmericanSocietyforSportManagement (pp.3-7).Kent, OH:Kent State University.
Boyer,E.L.(1990).Scholarship reconsidered:Priorities of the professoriate.Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Chouinard, N., Pelletier, B., & Soucie,D. (1986, June-July). Research and coach: A criticalinteraction.PaperpresentedattheconferenceoftheCanadianAssociation
10l mcau, rmysicai Euucauon, anu Kecreauon, Cnariouetown, Prnce Eaward Island.
Columbus Chill. (1992,March 11).For \$5,we can help you with all that unresolved anger you have for your mother. BG News, p. 8.
Cuneen,J. (1992,June).Proposed courses in higher education administration for the preparationofcollegiatathleticsdirectorsPaperpresentedat theconferencefth North American Society for Sport Management, University of Tennessee,Knoxville.
Curry, T.J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 119-135.
Evangelu99infnflislhsiln scil s ings on the consumption of professional sport:Development of a scale.Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Frisby,W.(1992,June).Gender differences in the nature of managerial work:The case of community-based sport and recreation organizations.Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, University of Tennessee,Knoxville.
Highlen,P.S. (1992,April). Salary inequity for women and minorities in intercollegiate athletics: Causes and possible solutions. Paper presented at the conference of Women in Sport: Transforming the Metaphor,The Ohio State University,Columbus.
Hums,M.(1992,June).Distributive justiceinathletic departments:Views of NCAA coachesandathleticadministratrPaper presentedat theconferenceof theNorth American ocity forport Management,University ofTennessee,Knoxville.
Kane, M.J.,& Parks, J.B. (1992, June).Media portrayals of gender difference, hierarchy, and ambivalence in sport:An examination of the female athlete as“contested ideological terrain." Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Lawrence-Harper, J.(1992, June). Power and belief: A case study of organization development.Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society forSport Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Melnick, M. (1992). Male athletes and sexual assault. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 63(5), 32-35.
Metheny, E. (1965). Symbolic forms of movement in sport: The feminine image in sports. In E. Metheny (Ed.), Connotations of movement in sport and dance (pp. 43-56). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
NASPE/NASSM Joint Task Force.(1991). Standards for voluntary accreditation of sport management programs. Reston, VA: Author.
NCAA. (1992). Gender equity study. Overland Park, KS: Author.
Olafson, G.A. (1990). Research design in sport management: What's missing, what's needed? Journal of Sport Management, 4, 103-120.
Parkhouse, B.L. (1987). Sport management curricula: Current status and design implications for future development. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 93-115.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Ulrich, D.O. (1979). Sport management as a potential cross-discipline: A paradigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application. Ouest. 31. 264-276.
Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of SportManagement,1,25-31.
Slack, T. (1991). Sport management: Some thoughts on future directions. Journal of Sport Management,5,95-99.
Slack,T.,& Berrett, T. (1992, June). The structural antecedents of conflict in national sportorganizations.Paperpresented attheconferenceof theNorthAmerican Society for Sport Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Slack, T.,& Hall, A. (1992, June). The gendered nature of sport organizations. Paper presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, UniversityofTennessee,Knoxville.
Taylor, P. (1991, November 25). A model role model. Sports Illustrated, pp. 78-80, 85.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management,1,4-24.
|
This paper was the 1992 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture, presented at the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, June 6, 1992, Knoxville, Tennessee.
I express sincere appreciation to Mary Ann Roberton and Dolores Black, Bowling Green State University, for their assistance in the development of this paper, and to Don Smellie, Utah State University,for introducing me to Sam Walter Foss's poem,‘The Calf Path.””
---
|
n/a
|
Using the Rays From History's Shining Lantern As We Face an Uncertain Future
|
Earle F. Zeigler The University of Western Ontario
|
1992
|
Having an annual lecture given in my name is (a) an honor for which I am mostgrateful,(b) something I never expected,and (c) a form of recognition that I willcontinue tostrive toearn aslongas I am able.I alsodidn't expect tobe asked to give the first such lecture. However, in preparing this presentation, I did feel the need to employ a certain historiographic approach, one that might help me to make semi-objective judgments. Of course, I am not expecting anyone else to accept my philosophic orientation, but nevertheless we may discover a reasonable amountof consensus about therecommendationsI have chosen to make. Where there is lack of agreement, we are in North America and, fortunately, in a position to work our differences out democratically as we strive to influence our chosenfield of endeavor positively in the years ahead.
The following quotation by Allan Nevins, then, is what I used for guidance as an approach to, or a conception of, history:
Although when we use the word history we instinctively think of the past, this is an error, for history is actually a bridge connecting the past with the present, and pointing the road to the future. . . .
History enables bewildered bodies of human beings to grasp their relationship with their past, and helps them chart on general lines their immediate forward course. And it does more than this. By giving people a sense of continuity in all their efforts, red-flagging error, and chronicling immortal worth, it confers on them a consciousness of unity, a realization of the value of individual achievement, and a comprehension of the importance of planned effort as contrasted with aimless drifting.
This conception of history as a lantern carried by the side of man, moving forward with every step taken, is of course far ampler than the concept of a mere interesting tale to be told, a vivid scene to be described, or a group of picturesque characters to be delineated. (Nevins, 1962, p. 14)
Using this approach——-letting the lantern's rays shine behind me, at my feet, and ahead with every step taken—-provides me with an opportunity (a) to offer what I call septuagenarian reminiscences, (b) to suggest what we should avoid as we seek to progress in the year ahead, and (c) to suggest what we should do as we struggle for our place in society, both specifically in sport management and generally in the profession for which we can't seem to find an acceptable name.
It was some 48 years ago that I, armed with a college degree and a background in competitive sport, first decided to cast my lot with the physical education profession. I soon discovered the unhappy fact that our field was not very high on the academic totem pole. (I had an undergraduate major in German, with minors in French and history, had studied toward a master's degree in German, and had planned originally to teach foreign languages and coach several sports in a New England private preparatory school. I must say how happy I am that goalnevercametofruition!)
However, after my fundamentalistic conversion to HPER, my initial baptism was characterized by typical youthful idealism and considerable naivete. I, like a missionarypreachingtotheproverbial‘savage”insome distant jungle,fervently promoted the cause of fitness and amateur sport. Along the way, I somehow also obtained the necessary credentials to marginally qualify me as to the underlying theory of my newly chosen field. I found it necessary to continue to broaden my physical activity skills during the first 20 years on the job.
I must confess that my faith was occasionally challenged during those first 2 decades, but I believe that the record shows that I have continued to promote my adopted field down to the present day, with more than average professional zeal. But now, as one who will soon be 70 years of age and still teaching undergraduate sport and physical education philosophy and ethics part-time in my final year at The University of Western Ontario, I have reluctantly come to the point where I am forced to make a confession. I have lost a certain aspect of the faith—for our name, that is, but not for the field.
I now believe that there is an urgent need, whether we all truly appreciate it or are ready to accept it, for the field to find a new name, symbol, and image that explains fully the fact that we have both professional and disciplinary aspects to our mandate. To compound this matter, I can't get too enthusiastic about an esoteric disciplinary title like human kinetics or kinesiology at the college or university level, nor do I think that the term physical and health education is any longer satisfactory for the secondary level.
What brought me to this point, where my faith is challenged in this one regard and whereI am attempting topostulate what the future may hold for us? To answer this question,I must first look backwardsa career revisited,so to speakand then ahead to thefuture.Myfirstpostwas as associatephysical director and aquatic director at a large YMCA in Bridgeport, Connecticut. There I discovered that, even though the Y's program was much more physical than spiritual or mental (the old YMCA logo, with“the body'on the bottom of the triangle!), people working in the physical department had somewhat lesser prestige than people serving in other areas. Nevertheless, I soon found that working with children and young people in sport and physical activity was a most worthwhile, satisfying professional experience.
Then, after administering,teaching,and coaching quite successfully for 2years (1941-1943), I found an opportunity to teach regular physical education classes and to learn something about corrective or remedial physical education atYale University.Somehow, to a degree because World War II was in progress,I also got to help coach football,wrestling,and swimming for theremainder of the 1940s. (I should add that, in the Ivy League, one comes to understand immediately the nonacademic image ascribed to both sport and physical education. However, involvement withcompetitive sport admittedlyhaditsshareofglamour for a youngphysicaleducator/coachinthatmilieu.)
Unfortunately for the field, but in the long run fortunately for me, Bob Kiphuth, the great swimming coach/physical educator, wasn't permitted to develop even an embryonic professional training program in physical education at Yale. So, 6 years later in 1949, with the equivalent of two and one half additional master's degrees completed and a doctoral thesis pretty well in hand, I received an offer at The University of Western Ontario in London, somewhere in the wilds of southwestern Ontario between Detroit and Buffalo. My ignorance of Canada was exceeded only by my desire to see a promise to become a department head fulfilled. In retrospect, little did I know about the perils and frustrations of a youngmiddlemanager!
When I first arrived at The University of Western Ontario in 1949, I immediately developed more of an academic feeling about our field. I was a very young department head at age 29, and we were permitted to offer what was called an honors degree in physical, health, and recreation education. Our program at that time was definitely professional preparation, preceded by a significantly more substantive liberal arts and science background (especially including what was then called Grade 13 in Ontario) than similar programs in the States were receiving.Despite any limitations inherited by the earlier stigma of PT (physical training), however, I felt that we and our subject matter were reasonably well received in Western's academic circle. However, I also maintained my identity with athletic coaching because I truly enjoyed the experience. Interestingly, colleagues from the university and the public at large always thought they knew what we did in physical training and in the ‘extracurricular’ athletic realm of higher education.
In 1956, 7 years older, somewhat wiser, and still far from being affluent (slightly above poverty level, actually), I resigned from Western and went to The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. My rationaleother than getting across the Ambassador Bridge before they caught up to me—was that I wanted to get involved with graduate work in our field. A master's program was still 10 years away at Western, and this was also before the time of solid academic tenure there. Even though a landed immigrant, I began to recognize that my zealous drive to improve the status of physical and health education, as well as to speak out against some of the vicissitudes of intercollegiate athletics, was beginning to get me in hot water on the home front. I was discovering that Rome wasn't built in a day and that the development I had hoped for at Western was going to take 2 days at least. So, eventually deciding that discretion was the better part of valor, I gratefully accepted the offer from the late measurement authority, Paul Hunsicker, and headed for the Ambassador Bridge and The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. (The ups and downs of the situation at Western in the 1950s is recounted in another text [Zeigler,1982].)
Ann Arbor houses a great university, and so for a while it was an exciting, exhilarating experience. At that time, the football team was far from doing as well as now, but we consoled ourselves by listening to the band, which was consistently outstanding. Also, although I wasn't as smart as the image I sought to create, the opportunity to advise theses and dissertations at the master's and doctoral levels was excellent. This represented a new stage in my development, and I recommend it heartily if a person believes in the idea of making himself or herself available to graduate students. However, I soon discovered that the typical undergraduate student in physical education in Canada did seem to be superior to his or her Stateside counterpart.
It didn't take me long to understand and assess the seamier aspects of intercollegiate athletics in the States. I don't mean to be overly critical of the University in Ann Arbor—the Big Ten went along with the scholarship system in the NCAA, and Michigan was as “"honest and clean’ as any functioning within that system—however, it was inescapable that corners had to be cut here and there in order to keep athletes eligible in that academic milieu.
The biggest drawback to the Michigan setup at that time was the fact that the Department of Physical Education was functioning under the control of intercollegiate athletics and under the aegis of the School of Education (where I became chairman of teacher education in physical education from 1961 to 1963). Professional education has typically been low man on the totem pole, so physical education in that environment was on the same plane as vocational arts and music education. It was almost impossible to get this thought out of my mind and just about equally difficult to effect positive change. (This situation has now been improved greatly under the leadership of D.W. Edington.)
SowhenDeanKingMcCristal presentedmewith the opportunity tomove to the University of Illinois in1963with an increase in rank and a departmental headship in theoffing,Ifelt like apersonon thewaytoMecca!Illinoishad a finereputation in thefield,witha separate CollegeofPhysical Education thatcooperatedwith but was definitely apart from the College of Education.Physical education was alsoseparatefromintercollegiate athleticsalthough as departmentheadfrom 1964 to1968, I did have 17 coaches on my departmental payroll with work loads rangingfrom $10\%-75\%$ Therewere alsoseparate departmentsrelated tophysical educationforwomen,health andsafety education,andrecreationandpark administration,aswell as outstanding nonacademic programs of physicalrecreation and intramural athletics(administered by our currentNASSMpresident,David O. Matthews) and afine programforpersonswith disabilities.DeansSewardStaley and KingMcCristal had elevated the College of Physical Education to a position ofrelativerespectability.
Everything was moving along quite nicely, at least as I saw it as a new department head in a separate college in a great university.Then one day the roof fell in:The infamousIllinois Slush-Fund Scandal of the1960s brokeopen,the first of a series of rules infractions there by the athletic association (Zeigler, 1985). I was stunned; our basketball and football coaches had been cheating on the established rules of the Big Ten and the NCAA. The university president, the board of trustees, and most of the local citizenry closed ranks and began to say that everyone was doing it, so why were they picking on the Fighting Illini? (This was thesame message thatwe heard initially in CanadawithBen Johnson and thesteroidscandal!)
As it turned out, other universities in various other conferences of the United States may have indeed been worse with their flagrant violations, but they hadn't yet been caught, and just because others may have been doing it didn't make the practice any better in Champaign-Urbana. When these infractions were disclosed, I discovered that our wishes or thoughts in the realm of physical education didn't amount to a hill of beans. I also discovered that the athletic association was paying one of my own academic counselors under the table to get athletes dropped from courses, legally or otherwise, when difficulties arose. Soon thereafter I discovered that I was literally on the way to an ulcer (a duodenal spasm was diagnosed), so I tendered my resignation as department head (life was too short for any more of that nonsense). My idea was to return to what Seward Staley had designated as the best job in a university--that of a full professor.
And so, friends and colleagues, I might still be at Illinois as a frustrated full professor of physical education because of continuing conference-rules violations, although the two units—physical education (or kinesiology, as it is now called) and highly competitive sport- were eventually separated completely. I say \* frustrated’’ because I can't conceive of sport legitimately separated from physical educationin an ideal situation.Fortunately,an opportunity aroseto return to Western Ontario in 1971, with the possible deanship of a new Faculty of Physical Education in the offing. As of May, 1972, at Western Ontario, there was to be an entirely different administrative and academicstructure,including a newpresident and an old friend as vice president (academic). All facets of our program were to be under one roof—-undergraduate physical education, graduate physical education, physical recreation and intramurals, and interuniversity athletics—-in a presumably healthy academic situation for the quasi-disciplinary, quasi-professional programs.
So back to Canada I came-back to the Canadian Association for Health, PhysicalEducationandRecreation and theOntarioPhysicalandHealthEducation Association; back to old, staid London (more of a cultural melting pot than it had been in the 1950s,however); back to solid, conservative Western University (its original name); and back to a new faculty (or college, as it is called in the U.S.). The new faculty had (a) a sound undergraduate, disciplinary-oriented program that had largelynotforgotten its combined professional-disciplinary orientation; (b) a sound master's program with the potential to move to a doctoral program in the future; (c) a sound interuniversity program, including some 42 amateur, intercollegiate sports, divided equally for both men and women; and (d) a sound intramural and physical recreation program designed to meet the sport and exercise needs of any and all who wished to be involved. I have been here ever since, subsequently gaining Canadian citizenship as well. I now regard myself as a dual citizenoftheUnitedStatesandCanada.
Having come this far, I may have been able to pick up a few smarts along the wayjust a few. Permit me now to give brief consideration to what to avoid along this path (adapted from Zeigler, 1977, pp. 58-59). First, there is evidence to suggest that we must maintain a certain flexibility in our philosophical approach. This will be difficult for individuals who have worked out definite, explicit philosophic stances for themselves. For those who are struggling along with “^an implicit sense of life’’ (as defined by Rand, 1960), having philosophic flexibilitymaybeevenmoredifficulttheydon'tfullyunderstandwherethey are “coming from!"’ All of us know people for whom Toffler's concepts of "future shock'’ and “third wave world’’ have become a reality, and life has indeedbecomestressful for them.
Second, I believe that we must avoid what might be called naive optimism or despairing pessimism. What we should assume, I believe, is a philosophic stance that may be called positive meliorism-a position that assumes that we should strive consciously to bring about a steady improvement in the quality of our lives. This second point is closely related to my recommendation for maintaining flexibility in our philosophical approach, of course. We can't forget, however, how easy it is to fall into the seemingly attractive traps of blind pessimism or blind optimism.
Third,I believe the professional in sport and physical education should continue to strive for just theright amount offreedom inhis or her life generally and in his or her professional affairs as well.This is especially difficult for those of us laboring in the area of management theory and practice. We typically function as so-called middle managers, and this means that we are “getting it' frombothdirections.Freedomfortheindividual is afundamental characteristic of a democratic state, but it must never be forgotten that such freedom as may prevail today had to be won inch by inch. There are always those in our midst whoknowwhat is‘best''forus and whoseem anxious to take hard-won freedoms away.Ofcourse,theconceptofindividualfreedomcannotbestretchedtoinclude anarchy;however, the freedom to teach responsibly what we will in sport and physical education,or conversely thefreedom to learn whatwe will,must be guardedalmostfanatically.
A fourthpitfall to avoid is the development of undue influencefromcertain negative aspects inherent in the various social forces that affect everythingwithin our culture (including, of course, sport and physical education). Consider the phenomenon ofnationalism and how an overemphasisin thisdirection can soon destroya desirable worldpostureor even bring aboutunconscionable isolationism.Another example of a negative social force that isnot understood generallyis theseemingclashbetweencapitalisticeconomictheoryand the environmental crisis that has developed. Bigger is not necessarily better in the final analysis.
Fifth, we must be careful that our field of sport and physical education management doesn't contribute to what has consistently been identified as a fundamental anti-intellectualism in the United States. On the other hand, intelligence or intellectualism for its own sake is far from being the answer to our problems. As long ago as 1961, Brubacher asked for the “golden mean'’ between the cultivation of the intellect and the cultivation of a high degree of intelligence because it is needed as ‘"an instrument of survival'’ in the Deweyan sense (pp. 7-9).
Sixth, and finally, despite the cry to return to essentials-and I am not for a moment suggesting that Johnny or Mary shouldn't know how to read and calculate mathematically—we should avoid imposing a narrow academic approach on students in a misguided effort to promote the pursuit of excellence. I am continually amazed and discouraged by decisions concerning admission to undergraduate sport and physical education programs made solely on the basis of numerical grades, a narrowly defined academic proficiency. Don't throw out academic testing, of course, but by all means broaden the evaluation by assessing other dimensions of excellence. Here, in addition to ability in motor performance, I include such aspects as “sensitivity and commitment to social responsibility, ability to adapt to new situations, characteristics of temperament and work habit under varying conditions of demand,'’ as recommended as long ago as 1970 by the Commission on Tests of the College Entrance Examination Board ("Report,'" 1970).
What, then, is the professional task ahead? We should be prospective enough to recognize that our world may be very different tomorrow. The push is on to call sport and physical education either kinesiology or exercise and sport science, and the question is, I presume, do we want to employ Greek or English? These are seemingly the two leading appellations (of approximately 117 names now in use) being recommended for both the disciplinary core of our field and the department, division, school, or college in which it is housed (Razor, 1989).
How are we in the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) going to answer two burning questions now confronting us? By this, first, I am referring to the fact that a number of people are recommending that we in sport management abandon the relatively traditional disciplinary core that has developed over the past 35 years in the field. They argue that the extra time could be well spent on further liberal arts and science training and some basic business administration courses. The NASSM needs to appoint a commission to look into this and report to our executive and general assembly in the near future. We can't afford to hang back on this question; it is crucial to our future. Second, we should have another group working on the development of a computerized assessment of the evolving theory and principles underlying sport and physical activity management. We need to identify the knowledge, skills, and competencies required to perform the duties of sport management effectively, efficiently, and ethically (Zeigler & Bowie,1983).
Finally, then, as to what we should do, we should first truly understand why we have chosen this profession, why we have specialized in sport and physical education management, as we rededicate ourselves anew to the study and dissemination of knowledge, competencies, and skills in human motor performance in sport, exercise, and related expressive movement.
Second, as either management practitioners or as professors involved in the professional preparation of sport and physical education managers, we should search for young people with all the attributes needed for success in our field. We should help them develop lifelong commitments so that our profession can achieve its democratically agreed-upon goals. Our area of specialization has been the growth curriculum of the 1980s, and there is every reason to believe that this trendwillcontinueintothe1990s.
Third, we must place quality as the first priority of our professional endeavors. Our personal involvement and specialization should include a high level of competence and skill undergirded by solid knowledge about the profession. It can certainly be argued that our professional task is as important as any in society. Thus, the present is no time for indecision, half-hearted commitment, imprecise knowledge, and general unwillingness to stand up and be counted in debates with our colleagues, not to mention the general public.
Fourth, the obligation is ours. If we hope to reach our potential, we must sharpen our focus and improve the quality of our professional effort. Only in this waywillwebeabletoguidethemodificationprocess thattheprofession is currently undergoing toward the achievementofour highestprofessional goals. This is the timeright now-to employ sport, exercise, dance, and play to make ourrealitymorehealthful,morepleasant,morevital,andmore life-enriching.By living fully in one's body, behavioral-science men and women will be adapting and shapingthatphaseofrealitytotheirownends.
Finally,suchimprovementwill notcomeeasily;it canonlycomethrough the effortsof professional people makingquality decisions,throughthemotivation ofpeopletochangetheir sedentarylife-styles,and through ourprofessional assistance in guidingpeople as they strive to fulfill suchmotivation in their movementpatterns.When Blacksspeak about the concept of soul,they mean placing a special quality into some aspect of life(e.g.,soul music). Our mission istoplacethisspecialqualityinallofourprofessionalendeavors.
|
Brubacher,J.S.(1961).Highereducation and the pursuit ofexcellence.Marshall University Bulletin,3,3.
Nevins,A. (1962).The gateway to history. Garden City,NY:Anchor.
Rand,A.(1960).The romanticmanifesto.NewYork:World.
Razor,J.E.(1989,April).What we call ourselves currently.Paper presented to the American Academy ofPhysical Education,Boston,MA.
Reportbycommissionontestsof the college entrance examinationboard.(1970,November 2).TheNewYorkTimes.
Zeigler, E.F. (1977). Philosophical perspective on the future of physical education and sport. In R. Welsh (Ed.), Physical education: A view toward the future (pp. 36-61). St. Louis: Mosby.
Zeigler,E.F.(1982).Decision-making in physical education and athletics administration: A case method approach. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Zeigler, E.F. (1985). The Illinois slush-fund scandal of the 1960s: A preliminary analysis. ThePhysical Educator,42(2),82-88.
Zeigler,E.F.,& Bowie,G.W.(1983).Management competency development in sport and physical education. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
|
This paper was the 1989 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture, presented to the conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, June 3, 1989, Calgary, Alberta.
---
|
n/a
|
Multiculturalism as an Issue in Sport Management
|
Joy T. DeSensi University of Tennessee
|
1993
|
I am truly honored and humbled to be the recipient of the Earle F. Zeigler Award, and I extend my sincere appreciation to the executive board, to the award committee, and to each of you for your support. I am also honored to join my distinguished colleagues who have given this lecture: Dr. Earle F. Zeigler, Dr. P. Chelladurai, and Dr. Janet Parks. Following that esteemed group is not aneasytask.
The Zeigler Award is a very. special recognition for me because of the admiration that I have for Earle Zeigler. He has been a very significant figure inmyprofessional life and adearfriend towhomI am indebtedforhisprofessional contributions,caring,and concern.
In keeping with a socio-philosophical focus that reflects the works of Dr.EarleF.Zeigler,thetopicIhaveselectedforthislectureisMulticulturalism asanIssueinSportManagement.'’Iwillattempt toofferablendingof the social issues involved with this topic, along with a critical examination of the currentstateof affairsregardingmulticulturalisminthesportandsportmanagementsetting,and I willoffer themodelsbased on Chesler and Crowfoot's (1990, 1992)research andBennett's(1991,1993)workforexaminingthemulticultural approach.It is myhope that this work will not only raise or reaffirm a social consciousness within us regarding multiculturalism, but serve as a jumping-off point for debate, further questioning, and, most importantly, social action within themanagementofsport.
Multiculturalism is not some politically correct concept that perpetuates actions that are still prejudicial, but is rather the actuality of a true multicultural settingin'sportorganizations.Itismybeliefthatthereisatremendousneedfor our sport management programs to make a commitment to reflect and directly addressmulticulturalissuesandeducationtowardthatend.
While the North AmericanSociety for Sport Management has made every effort to reach out and include our colleagues from other parts of the world, and the reverse of this is true as well,we must question our efforts to work toward a truly multicultural setting in belief and action and especially in the education offuturesportmanagers.
Utilizing a multicultural approach involves increasing the consciousness. and appreciation of differences associated with the heritage, characteristics, and values of different groups as well as respecting the uniqueness of each individual (Morrison, 1992). Powell (1993) points out that within multicultural organizations, conflict is low due to the general absence of prejudice and discrimination. This may seem more like an ideal rather than an actuality, particularly when we examine sport settings and who is involved as team owners, managers, coaches, players, sponsors, athletic directors, and spectators. Such organizations are steeped in patriarchy and exclusivity. Organizations need to be more than merely proactive to encourage both the equality of opportunity and appreciation of diversity among those employed in sport settings.
Cultural diversity is used to refer to differences of individuals within the workplace that are associated with any characteristics that may set them apart as dissimilar. While the term may be restricted to equal employment opportunity laws regarding sex, race, national origin, religion, age, and disability or veteran status, it also extends to include differences according to personality, sexual orientation, physical appearance, marital status, and parental status (Kessler, 1990). Thomas (1991) goes beyond these approaches by indicating that we have traditionally thought of diversity in the context of legal or moral imperatives. Diversity then is again expanded to include civil rights, women's rights, humanitarianism, moral responsibility, and social responsibility. If we attempt to implement the concept of moral responsibility or seeking to live our moral beliefs by doing the ‘'right thing,”’ and the concept of social responsibility or being a good corporate citizen by having responsible sport managers direct their efforts in ways that benefit society, then valuing differences would be promoted and interpersonal relationships would be enhanced among individuals to minimize blatant expressions of all types of discrimination.
This can be achieved by educational programs whose objectives include (a) fostering awareness and acceptance of individual differences, (b) fostering greater understanding of the nature and dynamics of individual differences, (c) helping individuals understand their own feelings and attitudes about people who are different, (d) exploring how differences might be tapped as assets in the workplace, and (e) enhancing work relations between people who are different. Acceptance and understanding of diversity are not sufficient to empower a workforce. Managing diversity is needed to empower a diverse group of individuals to reach their full potential (Thomas, 1991). The composition of our intercollegiate and professional sport teams is a prime example here.
The report entitled Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century (Johnson & Packer, 1987) indicates that proportions of both women and members of minority groups (i.e., Hispanic, Asian, Native American, African American, and others) are on the increase. It is estimated that by the year 2000, the labor force will change dramatically. It will be necessary for organizations whose management practices are geared to homogeneous groups to attract and retain qualified individuals from diverse groups (Johnston & Packer, 1987).
When we explore our own thoughts and behaviors regarding the authentic acceptance of a multicultural setting, particularly within sport, we must consider those individual background factors that may influence our beliefs regarding this issue. As with our approach to research, application, and everyday life, we have been and continue to be influenced by our own gender, race, ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, age, abilities, sexual orientation, geographical location, education, socialization, and social group affiliations. All of these factors come together to form our current biases, prejudices, and behaviors. With consideration of such factors,itmaybeeasiertounderstandthepremisesuponwhichourbeliefsare based. Multicultural education is about knowing about others, but more about knowing aboutyourself.Thisstatementreignssignificantgiventheimportance andinfluencesuchfactorshold.
When exploring attitudes toward multiculturalism, we can consider that to varying degrees, we are all elitist, sexist, racist, and homophobic. All of these forms of bias are deterrents to developing an authentic responsibility to multiculturalism.In addition to fostering these deterrents,we also tend to take part in stereotyping minority groups. Potential problems arise when organizational decisions are based on such behaviors. Such decisions are influenced by the overallorganizational culture.Theconceptofstackinginsportis aprimeexample here.
The multicultural issues related to sport obviously concern the concept of social justice, including gender, race, ethnicity, and class discrimination, as well as the associated problems of oppression, power/authority, and the manner in which these concepts are handled by those governing and managing sport. In my examples of this section,you will hear echoes of what has already been expressed byDonnaLopiano,MaryJoKane,andothersduring this conference.
Within sex discrimination,gender equity is the newbuzz word on the intercollegiate sport level these days. You would almost think the NCAA thought of the concept by itself. While Title IX was passed in 1972, athletic departments are just now getting around to exploring the concept of equity and its true meaning.
NorthAmericansocietieshavepridedthemselvesontheirconcernand attention to thefullestdevelopmentof theindividual'shumanpotential.These same societies,however, have been insensitive to sex discrimination and the barriers imposed by such a practice. There exist the pervasive social phenomena ofmale/femaledisparitiesinwealth,power,andprestige.Koppett(1981)astutely identified theuniquedimensionsofsexdiscriminationinthefollowingquote:
Whilequestions ofequal rights with respect toracemirror thelargersociety, the situation is entirely different with respect to women.... Discrimination along racial or religious lines is always applied as class distinction; the objectsofthediscriminationareanumericalminority,invariablyimprisonedinaparticulareconomicclass,andsociety'sconstraintsuponthem are enforced against the class as a whole ...women are not a numerical minority, and discrimination against [women] has always applied within class boundaries.That is,males of an upper class treat males of a lower class as inferior,but they also treatfemalesof thesame classasinferior; and males of the lower class treat females of their class as inferior.In fact, insofar as they are male, lower-class males have considered themselves superior to upper-class females in one-to one confrontations when free of socially enforced restraints. (p. 207)
The attitudes toward female athletes, as many of us are aware, oftentimes are extremely negative, are unfounded, and take the form of myth. Myths regarding the masculinization of women, harm to women's health, conflicting roles of masculinity and femininity, and the point that women are not interested in sports and do not play well enough to be taken seriously are insufficient to justify the exclusion and negative attitudes expressed by those attempting to keep women from sporting activities or socializing them out of sport in general or certain sportsspecifically.
The underrepresentation of females in intercollegiate sport administration is still another issue. With the passage of Title IX in 1972 it is easily understood why the number of females participating in sport has increased as well as the growth of sport programs for girls and women. What is not so easily understood is that over the past 2 decades, there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of women who coach and administer girls' interscholastic and women's intercollegiate sports. This decline has been noted by Acosta and Carpenter (1992), Stangl and Kane (1991), and Knoppers (1987), to name a few. What is evident as a result of this research is that in 1972, $90\%$ of the coaches of women's collegiate teams were female, while in 1990, only $47.3\%$ were female.Kane and Stangl (1991) pointed out that one structural variable here might be based on the theory of homologous reproduction, where the dominant group reproduces itself.
One of the most well-documented forms of discrimination at college and professional levels of sport is 'stacking.”' Stacking includes situations in which minority groups members are disproportionately found in specific team positions and are underrepresented in others. This concept, according to Loy and McElvogue (1970), is a function of “centrality"’ or spatial location in a team sport. While whites occupy the central position, blacks are overrepresented in the peripheral or noncentral positions. While the research has supported such findings, stacking in basketball has somewhat broken down with the increased proportion of blacks in racially mixed teams.
In women's intercollegiate volleyball, blacks are overrepresented at the hitter position and whites at the setter (which is a central position) and bumper (Eitzen & Furst, 1989). In Canadian hockey, French Canadians are overrepresented at the central position of goalie and English Canadians are disproportionately represented in defensive positions (Lavoie, 1989). In British soccer, Black West Indians and Black Africans are overrepresented in the wide forward positions and whites at the central positions of midfielder and goal (Maguire, 1988; Melnick, 1988). In Australian rugby, whites are overrepresented in the central team positions and Aborigines are found disproportionately in the wide positions (Hallinan, 1991).
In a guest editorial in The NCAA News, Jackson (1993) pointed out that there is a concern for the lack of minority opportunities in athletic administration.
During the 1992 football season, there was a noted absence of black coaches among the 107 Division 1-A institutions.A few have been appointed since, but the question is very much an issue. The Reverend Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Commission on Fairness in Athletics has criticized professional and intercollegiate athletics for relying on minority athletes while denying minorities key administrative positions. For some, the solution lies in increasing the number of internships, but the real issue is still the same—attitudes must change.
Harry Edwards (1993) points out that there is a dual challenge for college sport programs. He indicates that demographic and cultural pluralism must be concurrent. College/university sport has only reluctantly and in a most limited and unenthusiastic fashion addressed the issue of racial and gender underrepresentationinitsauthorityranks andwillexperiencemorenegativerepercussionsasitiscompelledtoaddressthisissue.
There are a few cases of gender-responsible leadership. There is only one school in theUnitedStatesinwhichtheconjoinedmen's andwomen'sathleticprograms are administered by a woman. In May 1992, Michigan State University appointed Merrily Dean Baker as the athletic director. She is assisted by two associate athletic directors; one African American male and a white female. Two assistant athletic directors also workwith her; one is a white male and the other anAfrican American male. The black woman is almost a nonexistent species as an athletic administrator.VivianFuller at NorthEasternIllinois University is the only athletic director at anNCAA Division 1 school whois black and female. She points out that there are seven black males who are athletic directors at white schools and thereis onlyoneblackwoman.Both therace-based andgenderstereotypesare at the foundation of this form of discrimination in college/university athletics.
Whileitmaysoundasif theideasexpressedhereareinconjunction with legal mandates to accept others or to legislate equalitysuch as Title IX prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex; or Title VlI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination on thebasis of sex,race,color,religion, Or national origin in any employment condition; or the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which makes it illegal to pay members of one sex at a lower rate than the other if they are in jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility in the same establishmentthey are not. Rather, they are a plea to individuals within our educational institutions and organizations to take a proactive stand to be socially responsible regarding such issues of equality and equal treatment, even if such lawsdidnotexist.
Upon examining cultural diversity, Cox (1991) distinguished three types of organizations based on their attitudes toward the concept of multiculturalism. The three categories are noted as monolithic, plural, and multicultural. Monolithic organizations have a large majority of one group of employees, especially in the managerial ranks. Differences between groups are resolved by assimilation in which the minority group is expected to adopt the norms and values of the majority group in order to survive in the organization. Cox (1991) expressed that there is little intergroup conflict since there are only a few members of a minority group and that these individuals outwardly if not inwardly have agreed to majority norms and values. Plural organizations make an attempt to be more inclusive. These attempts may include the recruitment, hiring, promotion, and retention of minority groups. The emphasis within pluralism, however, is the numbers of majority versus minority groups rather than the quality of work relationships between those of different groups. Assimilation is also used within this type of organization to resolve cultural differences, but conflict may result if the majority group does not agree with or resents what is done to increase the minority group membership. Overt discrimination may be gone or covered up, but prejudices still run high in plural organizations. While a plural organization contains many diverse groups, the multicultural organization authentically values such diversity. The response here is to the cultural differences and members of each group, who are encouraged to adopt some of the norms and values of other groups (Powell, 1993).
Building on the work of Cox (1991), Chesler and Crowfoot (1992) present the organizational stages of multiculturalism utilizing the organizational dimensions of mission, culture, technology, power, informal relations, boundary management, interest in change, constituencies for change, and major change strategies (see Table 1).
Chesler and Crowfoot's (1992) diagram offers a view of the organizational stages denoting the progression from monoculturalism, through the transitional stage, to authentic diversity and acceptance or multiculturalism. For example, within the organizational dimension Culture, the monocultural stage reflects white male, Eurocentric norms and is laden with prejudice and discrimination. At the transitional stage, culture is still white male-dominated, but such a position is questioned; prejudice and discrimination still continue but are lessened. At the multicultural stage within the organizational dimension of culture, the concepts of prejudice and discrimination are constantly confronted and the white, male, Eurocentric symbols are changed. At this stage, there is also a synthesis of group identities and individual characteristics leading to authentic multicultural values.
Within the organizational dimension Major Change Strategies, coercion is evident. The transitional stage indicates that training sessions on awareness take place in addition to EEO and Affirmative Action programs. The multicultural stage emphasizes continual education and reeducation regarding diversity; multicultural work is rewarded, and external social oppression is combatted. Each area is worthy of detailed examination and comparison to sport settings. It is my impression that the monocultural and transitional stages may be more represented in sport than the authentic multicultural stage. Still another perspective is the developmental model of multiculturalism. This particular model could be implemented within our own institutions. This model has been developed from Bennett's (1991) work and depicts the progression from ethnocentric stages to ethnorelative stages (see Figure 1).
What is depicted in the ethnocentric stages is the denial of difference in which we do not recognize cultural difference due to isolation or intentional separation. The result of this isolation or separation is the dehumanization of individuals. Defense against difference is the recognition of cultural difference coupled with negative evaluation of most variations from native culture. The moredifferencebetweenindividualsandgroups,themorenegativewetendto become.The minimization of differenceinvolves recognizing and accepting superficialculturaldifference,whileholdingthatallhumanbeingsareessentially the same.Withinthe ethnorelativestages,the acceptance of differenceinvolves the recognition and appreciation of cultural differences in behavior and values. Adaptation to difference is the development of communication skills enabling intercultural communication. There must be an effective use of empathy or a shifting of a frame of reference in order to understand and be understood across culturalboundaries.Theintegrationofdifferenceinvolvestheinternalizationof bicultural or multicultural frames of reference (Bennett,1991).
Figure 1 —— A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Reprinted from the International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol.1o No.2,M.J.Bennett,""A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity," p. 17, 1986, with permission from Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 OBW, UK.
The education of future sport leadersregardingmulticulturalism is critical. Toward this end, the following considerations by Bennett (1992) for developing an approach to diversity can be implemented. (a) Intercultural sensitivity is not thenormaloutcome of confrontationwith difference,andwecannot develop sensitivityfromsimplypointing out examples of ethnocentricism andracism. Understandingculturaldifferencesisadevelopmentalgoal,anddiversityinitiatives need tobe designed along theselines.(b) Living in a multicultural society demandsmorethantoleranceforculturaldifference-itnecessitatesrespectand appreciation for difference. Valuing diversity is a proactive goal. One-time reactionstoproblemsofinterculturalintolerancearenotsufficient.(c)Everyone in education,including students,faculty,staff,and administrators,isresponsible for developing intercultural competence. (d) Recruitment and retention of culturally diverse students,faculty,staff,and administrators are necessary steps,but areinsufficientfor meeting thegoalofvaluingdiversity.Thisactionmustbe coupled with programs that serve these people's needs, and also acknowledge theresourcesuchdiversityrepresentsfor thecommunity.(e)Addingculture to thecurriculumwithoutaddingmasteryofinterculturalinteractionmayleadto knowledgewithoutunderstanding.Moreeffective curricular changefocuses on perspective transformation, social action, and intercultural relations. (f) Diversity initiatives that work often emerge from the president's office, supported by administrators, faculty, staff, and student groups, and are fostered through unrelenting dialogue in a supportive climate.
Table 1 Organizational Stages of Multiculturalism
<html><body><table><tr><td>Organizational dimension</td><td>Monocultural</td><td>Transitional</td><td>Multicultural</td></tr><tr><td>Mission</td><td>Deliberately exclude or ignore diversity.</td><td>Announcedesire/needforadiverse workforce or membership. Suggest a link between diversity and ‘bottom line.""</td><td>Positivelyvaluediverseworkforce ormembershipandserviceto underrepresentedgroups. Link diversity to“bottom line" and social justice values.</td></tr><tr><td>Culture</td><td>White,male,and eurocentric norms prevail. Prejudice and discrimination prevail. Encourage assimilation into dominant community. Emphasize individualism.</td><td>Whiteandmalenorms are questioned but prevail. Prejudiceanddiscriminationare lessened, but continue. Seekaccommodationtoand comfort/toleranceforminorities. Reify particular group identities.</td><td>Global perspective. Prejudice and discrimination constantly confronted publicly andnegativelysanctioned. Alternative norms are publicized and embraced. White, male, and eurocentric symbols are changed. Synthesisofindividual characteristics, group identities,</td></tr><tr><td>Technology</td><td>People required to adapt to the existing technology,which is seen as culture-neutral. Segregatedworkteams.</td><td>Discussions occur about the ways technology does not fit/serve diverse needs and styles. Desegregatedworkteams.</td><td>and a transcendent community. Newtechnologiesadapttodiverse needs and styles. Integrated work teams cherished.</td></tr></table></body></html>
<html><body><table><tr><td>Power:The character of dominantcoalition</td><td>White and male throughout. Othersexcludedoratbottom. Access limited to the“club." Strong hierarchy.</td><td>Afewminoritymemberswhocan adaptreach middlemanagement. White and male sponsors of minority and women members.</td><td>Multiculturalteamofleaders. Relativelyflat and multilevel decision-making. Wide access. Valuedifferentdecision-making</td></tr><tr><td>Informalrelations</td><td>Exclusionary. Segregatedsocial events. Communicationwithinracial/ gender groups.</td><td>Distantbut cordialrelations. Opento assimilatedminorities. Communication on deeplyheld issues mostlywithin social identity groups.</td><td>Proactiveinclusiveness atwork and externally. Homogenous and heterogenous groupings coexist. Much communication acrossrace/</td></tr><tr><td>Boundary management</td><td>Traditional separations ofwork and home. Noexternalsocializingwithdiverse peoples.</td><td>Respond to changing demographics of markets,clients, suppliers, members. Support external socializing.</td><td>Seek minority suppliers,markets. Advocate new external(community) cultures and policies. Global focus.</td></tr><tr><td>Interest in change?</td><td>cultures a priority. None unless pressed on survivability. Low overt conflict.</td><td>conflicts. Seek social acceptability. Fuller utilization of resources. Seek special markets/advantage. Adapttoexternalenvironmentor internal pressure.</td><td>mission to markets and peers. Equity and justice. Belief in‘bottomline'’rhetoric and growth potential. Empowermentandorganizational improvement.</td></tr></table></body></html>
Table 1 (continued)
<html><body><table><tr><td>Organizational dimension</td><td>Monocultural</td><td>Transitional</td><td>Multicultural</td></tr><tr><td>Constituenciesfor change</td><td>None. Externalvoices andpressures. Some internal ‘'minorities."</td><td>Some internal cadres. Oneleader(orafew)from the dominant coalition. Cautious and informal voices. Legal claimants.</td><td>The dominant coalition. Internal/external forces joined. Strong andfullyrepresented internal cadres.</td></tr><tr><td>Major change strategies</td><td>Litigation and counter-suit. External demand/protest. Coercion. Some managerial or elite listening.</td><td>Management training and "awareness"’ programs. Organization development. EEO programs. Administrativemandate. AffirmativeActionprograms. Assessmentsandaudits.</td><td>Continuous (re)education and growth of individuals and organization. Rewardmulticulturalwork. Multiculturalnorms andleadership at all levels. Coalitionformation.</td></tr></table></body></html>
This chart builds explicitly on the prior work of Cox (1991), Jackson and Holvino (1988), Katz (1988), and Chesler and Crowfoot (1990). From Visioning Change: Stages in the Movement From Monocultural to Multicultural Organizations,by M. Chesler and J. Crowfoot, 1992, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Printed by permission.
My personal concern is for future sport managers/administrators and their attitudes and approaches to concepts such as‘for whites only,'’that sport privileges only the male body, the dominance and oppression of patriarchy, the exclusion of singlewomen,theMargeShotzincident,thesexual harassment of Lisa Olsen in the Patriots locker room, and the proverbial glass ceiling that women continually face. The oppression of all people, through racism, sexism, classism,ageism,able-ism,homophobia,andanyotherformof discrimination, contributestoestablishingseriousbarriersfor everyone.Myhopeisfor atrue multicultural understanding within sport and especially on the part of our sport managers/administrators, as well as educators preparing these professionals.
I think this entire concept is best described by using these nesting dolls. The dolls are symbolic and, in this case, represent gender, race, ethnicity, ableism, and all of the classifications of diversity. Even though they look alike, they in no way represent the idea that we are all the same. As you can see, they each fit together, one inside the other. As they come together, they form a whole. At the core, there is a humanity from which we can never be separated. It is my hope that we can share a world where our differences bring us together rather than tear us apart. Earle, this one is for you and is representative of our coming together.
|
Acosta,V.,&Carpenter,L.J.(1992,April).Thestatus ofwomen inintercollegiate athletics intheNCAA.Paperpresented at the conference of theAmericanAlliancefor Health,Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Indianapolis.
Bennett,M.J.(1991).A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.Unpublished manuscript, TheIntercultural CommunicationInstitute,Portland,OR.
Bennett,M.J.(1992).Aninterculturalapproach to diversityineducation,sometentative principles. Unpublished manuscript, The Intercultural Communication Institute, Portland, OR.
Bennett, M.J. (1993). Toward ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.InR.M.Paige(Ed.),Educationfor theinterculturalexperience.Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Chesler, M.,& Crowfoot, J. (1990). Racism on campus. In W. May (Ed.), Ethics and higher education (pp.195-230).New York: Macmillan.
Chesler, M., & Crowfoot, J. (1992). Visioning change: Stages in the movement from monocultural to multicultural organizations.Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Cox, T., Jr. (1991, May). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive,5,34-47.
Edwards, H. (1993, March 10). A dual challenge for college sports. The NCAA News, pp.4,22.
Eitzen, D.S., & Furst, D. (1989). Racial bias in women's intercollegiate sports. Journal ofSportandSocialIssues,13,46-51.
Hallinan, C. (1991). Aborigines and positional segregation in the Australian rugby league. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26, 69-81.
Jackson, B.,& Holvino, E. (1988). Multicultural organizational development (Program in Conflict Management Alternatives Working Paper No. 11). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Jackson, J.L. (1993, March 10). Guest editorial: More commitment to opportunities. The NCAA News, pp. 4, 22.
Johnston, W.B., & Packer, A.E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson Institute.
Katz, J. (1988). Facing the challenge of diversity and multiculturalism (Program in Conflict Management Alternatives Working Paper No. 13). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Kessler, L.L. (1990). Managing diversity in an equal opportunity workplace: A primer for today's manager. Washington, DC: National Foundation for the Study of Employment Policy.
Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest, 39, 9-22.
Koppett, L. (1981). Sports illusion, sports reality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Lavoie, M. (1989). Stacking, performance differentials, and salary discrimination in professional ice hockey. Sociology of Sport Journal, 6, 17-35.
Loden, M., & Rosener, J.B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Loy, J.W., & McElvogue, J.F. (1970). Racial segregation in American sport. International Review of Sport Sociology, 5, 5-24.
Maguire,J.A. (1988). Assignment in English soccer. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 257- 269.
Melnick, M.(1988). Racial seregation y plaing position in theEnglish footballagu. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 12, 122-130.
Morrison, A.M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Powell, G.N. (1993). Women and men in management (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Stangl, J.M., & Kane, M.J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(1), 47-60.
Thomas, R.R., Jr. (1991). Beyond race and gender. New York: American Management Association.
|
This paper was the 1992 Earle F. Zeigler Award lecture presented at the North American Society for Sport Management, June 5, 1993, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
---
|
n/a
|
Sport Management Research: Ordered Change
|
Gordon A. Olafson University of Windsor
|
1994
|
At the inaugural E.F. Zeigler Lecture in 1989, Dr. Zeigler outlined in a retrospective historiographic presentation, his academic/professional development and his interest in sport management. In his concluding remarks, which focused on ‘“What We Should Do—The Professional Task Ahead," Dr. Zeigler notedthat:
We should first truly understand why we have chosen this profession, why we have specialized in sport and PE management, as we rededicate ourselves anew to the study and dissemination of knowledge, competencies and skills in human motor performance in sport, exercise, and related expressive movement. . . . We should search for young people with all the attributes needed for success in our field. .. . We must place quality as the first priority of our professional endeavours ... undergirded by solid knowledge about the profession. [And further] . . . the obligation is ours . . . we must sharpen our focus and improve the quality of our professional effort. (Zeigler, 1992, pp. 213-214)
Building on these perspectives, Chelladurai (1992), while focusing on opportunities and obstacles, extended Dr. Zeigler's suggestions as follows:
We spread ourselves too thin to be able to specialize in any one aspect and create a unique body of knowledge in that specialization. . . . We need to hustle and lay claim to our domain lest others take over the field by default. . . . The success of our endeavor is predicated on our reliance on and use of the knowledge generated by other subdisciplines. . . . We should recognize that the domain in which we play our game . . . sport, etc. is also shared by other subdisciplines. . . . We should learn to co-opt them as partners in our pursuits. . . . We all realize that there is no justification for our specialized field of study if it does not contribute to professional practice. We need to make a concerted effort to clarify . . . the various subareas within the field we call sport management and . . . the process of differentiation is logical and necessary. . . . The larger question is, Should these two fieldsthat is, the management of human services in sport and the management of entertainment services through sport—-be integrated at all? (Chelladurai, 1992, pp. 216-218)
Both Zeigler and Chelladurai, while taking slightly different approaches, focused on the significance of sport management as a profession and the importanceofknowledgeandthesignificanceofprofessionalpracticewithinthe discipline. Chelladurai took us one step further-the need to identify the subsets ofthefield.
At the1992lecture,Dr.Parksfocusedour attention on Zeigler's concept of thedisseminationofknowledgeandthecallforresearchwithatheoretical base as expressed by Sheffield and Davis (1986),Olafson (1990), Parkhouse (1987), Parkhouse and Ulrich (1979), Parkhouse, Ulrich, and Soucie (1982), Paton (1987), Slack (1991), and Zeigler (1979, 1987). Dr. Parks’ central theme was ‘"how best to translate sport management theory into practice'-—a long standing concern of Zeigler. Employing Boyer's four styles of scholarship as a basis of analysis,Parks offered the following directive to the field of sport management:
I suggest that through the scholarship of application, we can take into the sportindustryasynthesisofthescholarshipsofdiscourse,integrationand teachers...the twobottom lines of sport management will emerge,because as Boyer (1990) reminded us,“Theory surely leads to practice but practice also leads to theory" (p. 16). Through this merger .. . we can take advantage to get another opportunity to express our independence and to reject the old calf path for a more enlightened path of our own making. (Parks, 1992, p.227)
This direction further exemplifies what Zeigler called “a solid knowledge about the profession' (Zeigler, 1992, p. 215).
The main theme of DeSensi's (1994) address in Edmonton,‘“social action within the management of sport'’(p. 63), represented a further extension of Dr. Zeigler's long-standing concern for equality and equity within and among the peoples of the world. The problems of gender,race,ethnicity,and class discrimination are associated with oppression,and power of authority in terms of thegovernance and managementof sportwereadroitlypresented.DeSensi's concludingcomments,whichechothesentimentslongheldbyourdistinguished colleague, Dr. Zeigler, are as follows: “My hope is for a true multicultural understanding within sport and especially on the part of our sport managers/ administrators, as well as educators preparing these professionals" (p. 73). Thus, each Zeigler address has challenged the discipline of sport management to seek a higher ground where sensitivity,commitment,creativity,curiosity,and scholarship, all hallmarks of Dr. Zeigler's long and distinguished career, should be centraltothedevelopmentofthefield.
Consistent with the foregoing, as doctoral students in sport management at theUniversity of Illinois underDr. Zeigler, we were required to readextensively the education administration literature written by such notable scholars as Barnard, Halpin, Litchfield, Griffiths, Gross, McCleary, Gordon, Sergiovanni, Getzels, and Thompson as the theoretical basis for our dissertation research. As a result, the foundational research conducted by Paton (1970), Penny (1968), and Spaeth (1967) provided the basis for Dr. Zeigler's seminal authorship with Dr. Spaeth of Administrative Theory and Practice in Physical Education and Athletics. The chapter entitled “^Theoretical Propositions for the Administration of Physical Education and Athletes,'’ which was presented to the American Academy of Physical Education in March 1968, was the main required reading in our graduate sport administration class. In this noteworthy manuscript, Zeigler listed 20 general propositions that could be considered appropriate starting points for research in sport administration. His concluding statement still holds true:
It would seem logical to turn to the steadily increasing body of knowledge available through the behaviorial sciences. It does now appear that we are on the way to a truly definitive inventory of administrative theory and research. Gradually there will be a synthesis and integration of the knowledge made available by social and behavioral scientists and then we will have a body of concepts that will provide a vastly improved operational basis for those concerned with the application of administrative theory. . . . The logic of this approach seems evident and it is most assuredly up to the field of physical education to what extent a relationship with this movement will be established. (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975, p. 32)
Since this paper was written in 1968, the field of sport management has indeed progressed by utilizing theories and instruments from the behavioral and managerial sciences. With the establishment of the North American Society for Sport Management (due to the primary interest of Dr. Zeigler), the relationships with the field management science has been firmly grounded as is evident by this, the ninth annual conference and the establishment of the Journal of Sport Management.' As an area of study, whether within a defined discipline or profession, Zeigler's desire that sport management rededicate itself anew to the study and dissemination of knowledge and that quality be first and foremost, requires persistent academic scrutiny. As we conduct our own research program, as professors and students, a constant and persistent question must be, How will this contribute to the theoretical bases of management in general and more specifically tosportmanagement?
In his concluding comments on the subject of “Sport Management Research-- What Progress Has Been Made,"’ Paton (1989) noted, ““Our research may need a new direction'’ (p. 30). Consistent with this perspective, Olafson (1990), following an extensive comparison of sport management and administrative science journal articles, stated, ‘^The SM literature abounds with conclusions that must be considered tentative at best and that still require empirical verification'' (p. 118). Further, in a recent perspectives article in JSM, Slack (1993) argued that “'the majority of the research conducted by sport management scholars is based on an image of organizations as either machines or organisms'’ (p. 189). Similarly, while arguing for the utilization of focus groups in concert with other methods, such as the triangulation perspective of Jick,² Inglis (1992) presented a convincing argument that sport management researchers have relied too heavily on quantitative methods at the expense of alternative, and often complimentary, qualitative methods. Recall what Parks (1992) suggested that we need to attend to:(a) the scholarship of discoverywhat new knowledge is needed in sport management and how do we discover it'’(p. 224); (b) the scholarships of integration—“what do the findings mean'’ (p. 224); and (c) the scholarship of application—what are the practical implications. The foregoing positions are collectively an extension of Zeigler's long-standing interest in linking the synthesis and integration of researchknowledge in order to meet the characteristics of an acceptable theory as outlined by Thompson and Litchfield in their seminal papers published in Volume I of the Administrative Science Quarterly. Utilizing theseperspectives,future research must focus on the development of a sound theoretical base. Further, as noted by Griffiths (1959, p. 45), “if the study of administrationistobecome scientific, administrationmust assume the characteristics of a science. Inquiry in administration . . . must come to be characterized by objectivity, reliability, operational definitions, coherence or systematic structure and comprehensiveness.'’As well, Griffiths noted that“‘administration is a specialized branch of science, and must therefore meet an additional set of criteria. . . . A theory of administration must provide guides to action, to the collection of facts, to new knowledge and to explain the nature of administration'' (Griffiths, 1959,p.45).
Sportmanagementisbeginning to develop a stronger theoreticalbasein which sets of assumptions are tested, analyzed, and examined as evidenced through the papers presented at each NASSM conference,3 through the manuscripts published in the Journal of Sport Management, and through international organizations such as the Japan Society of Sport Industry, which published a journal of the same name, and the European Association for Sport Management, which published its first issue of the European Journal of Sport Management in 1994.Additionally, a growing number of NAsSM scholars, in recent years, have published theoreticallysoundtextbooks.
However, the challenge that remains for each of us is to explore the truly unknown.Rather than taking‘‘the road most travelled,'’which is comfortable and secure, professors and graduate students should begin to recognize the importance of seeking and searching for the‘“black holes'’ of organizational science, especiallywhenitcomestomasters'thesesanddoctoraldissertationresearch. Givenrecentscientificdevelopmentssuchasthediscoveryofablackhole propounded by Einstein and popularized by Stephen Hawkins in A Brief History of Time, the possibilities of fusion in a jar by Ponds and Fleishman, and the ramifications of chaos theory, the scientific community, while skeptical at the outset, is convinced, often belatedly, of the significance of the theoretical importance of the idea.Prigogine and Stengers (1984),in their book Order Out of Chaos, described a theory that was drawn from chemical processes,in which radical change in the structure of a system occurs when a system's dynamics are thrown far from equilibrium. Economists at the Sante Fe Institute have extended this concept and have suggested that existing economic systems are always on "'the edge of chaos’ (Waldrop, 1992, pp. 250-251).
In his publication, Chaos: Making A New Science, James Gleick (1987) noted:
Chaos has created special techniques of using computers .. . pictures that capture a fantastic and delicate structure underlying complexity. The new science has spawned its own language [of] . . . fractals, and bifurcations, intermittency and periodicities. : : . Now that science is looking, chaos seems to be everywhere. . . . A dripping faucet goes from a steady pattern to a random one. Chaos appears in the behaviour of the weather. . . . No matter what the medium, the behaviour obeys the same newly discovered laws. That realization has begun to change the way business executives make decisions about insurance. (p. 5)
Because chaos theory is a universally accepted phenomenon that breaks across the lines that separate scientific disciplines, future sport managers will, of necessity, be required to appreciate the ramifications of chaos theory,4 if for no other reason than as Gleick (1987) stated,‘[It] poses problems that defy accepted ways of working in science. It makes strong claims about the universal behaviour of complexity”’ (p. 5). We frequently study organizational factors such as leadership, marketing, and effectiveness, but how often have we explored the complexities? of the dynamics of organizational change incorporating the theoretical components of complexity, continuity-non continuity, linearity-non linearity, self-reinforcing mechanisms and environmental factors such as public attitudes, technology, the economy, suppliers, markets, competitors, and regulators (Kotter, 1972). Change and fluctuations are common in “'turbulent environments-environments in which events occur frequently and unpredictably' (Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller, & Glick, 1993, p. 225). Thus in all chaotic systems, including the field of sport management, fluctuations are of utmost importance to an organization's succession and to its system viability. The opportunities to explore the significance of these and other factors in the field of sport management are limitless. And to this end, we must begin to examine the multiplicity of "'things’ that operate simultaneously in any environment.
Throughout the qualitative research that has dominated the manuscripts published in JSM, the often conclusive nature of the decisions arrived at by the researcher should be reviewed carefully in terms of the not-so-apparent or obvious nonlinear relationships that emerge due in part to the “butterfly effect.'’ The butterfly effect is often viewed as “sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which very small partitions or fluctuations can become amplified into gigantic, structure-breaking waves" (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984, XV-XVIl). As Huber, Sutcliffe, Miller, and Glick (1993) have noted: “"Change is no longer linear, constant or predictable’’ (p. 384). To that end, future researchers must utilize innovative methodologies and analysis techniques? that consider the implications and ramifications of chaos theory, nonequilibrium change theory, etc.
Zeigler and two of his doctoral students, Marsha Spaeth and Garth Paton, although not operating under the premise of chaos theory, argued in 1968 for 'the employment of historical, descriptive, philosophical and experimental group methods and techniques'’ and to ‘“involve scholars and researchers from many disciplines with a variety of backgrounds." (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975, p. 19). As if acting as foretellers, Zeigler, Spaeth, and Paton (1975, p. 15) noted that “'such a comprehensive program would appear to be absolutely necessary to keep up to date in these rapidly changing times,'’ that “innovation may be needed in many aspects of our total program,... and that every effort should be made now to restructure our efforts so that we may offer sound administrative theory as abasisforpractice.''Thesedirectivesareastrue todayastheywerewhen thisclaimwasmadeattheAAHPERConventionin1967.
Ithasbeenpreviouslynoted thatsportmanagementresearchmayneed to change direction (Paton, 1987, p. 30). The question of ^‘may,”” however, no longerexists.Sportmanagementresearchrequiresanewdirectiontoaccount for the changing schools of scientific thought.? No longer should we just research simple unidirectional problems.Nolonger should we just anticipate linearrelationships.Nolongershouldwe just drawconclusionsfor thesake ofconclusions. Rather,thecallinitiatedbyE.F.Zeiglerinthemid1960sforasoundtheoretical base coupledwith carefullyconducted empirical researchmustbeheeded and must be central to the research exercise.We need research programs that focus on specific aspects of the management of sport. We need to create research consortiaand/orcentersofexcellencethatwillattractcolleaguesandfacilitate collaborative research.But above all,we need curious,creative, committed thinkers who are prepared to delve into the“black holes' of sport management. Wheatley's(1994)observationcomplements this suggestion:^Thisis a world of wonder and not knowing . . . there is a new kind of freedom, where it is more rewardingtoexplorethanreachconclusions,moresatisfyingtowonderthanto know,and more exciting to search than tostayput''(p.7).The application of Wheatley's observationreflectsDr.Zeigler's unending desire toseekout surprises, to relish the unpredictable and thereby“‘sharpen our focus.'”
In conclusion, I would like to pay tribute to Dr. Zeigler, for without his sense of excellence, his flair for curiosity,his undying energy to seek the truth, his belief in his students and colleagues, and his efforts toward setting the agenda tocreateoursociety,wewould notbeassemblingeachyeartoshare andexchange knowledge and ideas in the management of sport.
Finally,thefollowing quotationfromRobertBrowning's Andrea del Sarto (1855) summarizes Dr.Zeigler's unending vision for and contribution to the discipline of sport management: “Ah, but a man's reach, should not exceed his grasp,or what'saheavenfor'’(1.97).
|
Bentler,P.M.(1985).Theory and implementation of EQS:A structural education program. Los Angeles, CA: BMDP Statistical Software.
Blalock, H.M. (1985). Causal models in the social sciences. New York: Aldine.
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 215-219.
DeSensi, J.T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 8(1), 63-74.
Drexler, E.K. (1986). Engines of creation. New York: Anchor.
Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin.
Griffiths, D.E. (1959). Administrative theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Huber, G.P., Sutcliffe, K.M., Miller, C.C., & Glick, W.H. (1993). Understanding and predicting organizational change. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign:Ideas and insights for improving performance (pp. 215-265). New York: Oxford.
Inglis, S. (1992). Focus groups as a useful qualitative methodology in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 173-178.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett, J.M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 user's reference guide. Morresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kotter, J.P. (1972). Organizational dynamics: Diagnosis and intervention. Reading, MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Olafson, G.A. (1990). Research design in sport management: What's missing, what's needed? Journal of Sport Management, 4(2), 103-120.
Parkhouse, B.L. (1987). Sport management curricula: Current status and design implications for future development. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 93-115.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Ulrich, D.O. (1979). Sport management at a potential cross discipline: A paradigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application. Quest, 31, 264-276.
Parkhouse, B.L., Ulrich, D.O., & Soucie, D. (1982). Research in sport management: A vital rung of this new corporate ladder. Quest, 34(2), 176-186.
Parks, J.B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottom line'’ in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 220-229.
Paton, G.A. (1970). An analysis of administrative theory in selected graduate administration courses in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research—What progress has been made? Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 25-31.
Penny, W.J. (1968). An analysis of the meanings attached to selected concepts in administrative theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ilinois, Urbana.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, 1. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. Boulder,CO:Shambhala.
Shefield, F.A., & Davis, K.A. (1986). The scientific status of sport management: An evolving disciplinary branch of study. Quest, 38, 125-134.
Slack, T. (1991). Sport management: Some thoughts on future directions. Journal of Sport Management,5(1),95-99.
Slack, T. (1993). Morgan and the metaphors: Implications for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 7(3), 189-193.
Spaeth, M.J. (1967). An analysis of administrative research in physical education and athletics in relation to a research paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Stone-Romero, E.F., Weaver, A.E., & Glenar, J.L. (1995). Trends in research design and data analytic strategies in organizational research. Journal of Management, 21(1), 141-157.
Van Maanon, J. (1983). Qualitative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Waldrop, M.M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Touchstone.
Wheatley, M.J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Zeigler, E.F. (1979). The case of management theory and practice in sport and physical education. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 50, 36-37.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987). Sport management: Past, rpesent, future. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 4-24.
Zeigler, E.F. (1992). Using the rays from history's shining lantern as we face an uncertain future. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 206-214.
Zeigler, E.F., & Spaeth, M. (1975). Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zeigler, E.F., Spaeth, M., & Paton, G. (1975). Theory and research in the administration of physical education. In E.F. Zeigler & M. Spaeth (Eds.), Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics (pp. 2-21). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
|
This paper was the Earle F. Zeigler Award lecture presented at the North American Society for Sport Management, June 1994, Pittsburgh, PA.
---
|
4Eric K. Drexler (1986) in his book, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, presents a fascinating perspective on order from chaos in chapter 2, "The Principles of Change,’ pp. 21-38.
5The reader is directed to M.M. Waldrop (1992) for an enlightening treatise on the science of complexity and its application to many disciplines including management.
6While a multitude of qualitative and quantitative techniques are available (cf. Olafson, 1990), recent developments related to the application of covariance structure analysis based programs, LISREL 7 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989) and EQS (Bentler, 1985) offer the opportunity to consider the causal connections between latent variables with an observed set of covariances between variables and the degree to which these observables are a function of a hypothesized set of latent variables (cf. Stone-Romero, Weaver, and Glenar,1995).
'M.J. Wheatley (1994) offers a riveting connection between scientific thought and the management of organizations.
|
From the Locker Room to the Board Room: Changing the Domain of Sport Management
|
Trevor Slack University of Alberta
|
1995
|
The North American Society for Sport Management is 10 years old. The actual field of sport management as we understand it today is at least 35 years older. Zeigler (1987) even goes as far as to suggest that there have been courses on the organization and administration of physical education and athletics in our colleges and universities since 1890. The first textbooks in sport management had titles such as The Organization and Administration ofIntramural Sports (Means, 1949), The Administration of Physical Education: For Schools and Colleges (Hughes & French, 1954), and Administration of Physical Education and Athletics: The Case Method Approach (Zeigler, 1959). As their titles suggest, the focus of these texts was on the management of physical education and athletic programs. Quite rightly they contained chapters on such issues as how to organize athletic contests, how to manage intramural programs, and how to maintain inventories of athletic equipment. These topics reflect the domain of sport management as it was in the field's formative years. Nike and ESPN were not yet created, the NHL only had six teams, merchandising and licensing agreements were virtually unheard of, and the only connection between McDonalds and the Olympics was if you stopped for a hamburger on the way to or from one of the events. Today things are different. Sport, as many commentators have noted, is big business (cf. Aris, 1990; Wilson, 1988) and big business is heavily involved in sport.
What I want to argue is that sport management has not kept pace with the type of changes that have occurred in the world of sport. I will try to provide evidence to show that our research is still very much dominated by studies of physical education and athletic programs. I will also suggest that we need to expand the domain and nature of our inquiries to include the vast range of organizations that constitute, what has been termed, the sport industry. We need, as my title implies, to move the focus of our research from the locker room to theboard room.
Where to begin! As I just noted, the focus of much of the early research in our field was on the management of physical education and athletic programs.
I also suggested that I felt that this had not changed a lot over the past 20 or more years. On what basis you may ask do I make this claim. Well, in preparing this article I went through all of the published copies of the Journal of Sport Management (20 issues in total). Of the articles published in these issues with an identifiable empirical focus, $65\%$ have dealt with organizations involved in the delivery of physical education or athletic programs. This, I would suggest, is a somewhat disproportionate overrepresentation given the relative position of these type of organizations within the broader spectrum of the sport industry. The only other type of organizations that show evidence of being subject to any sustained empirical investigation were professional sport franchises $(7.5\%)$ national-level sport organizations $(12.5\%)$ ,and fitness clubs $(10\%)$
However, while the fact that $65\%$ of published studies have focused on physical education and intercollgiate athletic organizations is striking, equally as striking, and in many ways maybe more of a cause for concern, are the type of organizations we have failed to include in our research. There are, for example, no studies of athletic footwear companies, a multibillion dollar business in North America, no studies of companies involved in the manufacture of any other type of sports equipment, no studies of the small entrepreneurial organizations that sell products such as sports equipment or trading cards, no studies of service providers such as ski hill operators or sport marketing companies, and no studies of the merchandising and licensing companies that market sport products. These, I would hasten to point out, are just examples. This list is by no means exhaustive. Suffice it to say that in terms of the type of organizations that sport management scholars have studied, our conception of the industry is a very narrow one. It is my contention that if our field is to grow and flourish and truly live up to the title "Sport Management,"' we need to establish ourselves as the leading experts on the management of the vast array of organizations that constitute this industry. That is to say, we need to broaden our domain of operation.
This will require us to move away somewhat from our emphasis on studies that look at physical education and athletic programs. We may wish to extend the work we have done on professional sport bodies, national sport organizations, and fitness clubs. But more importantly, we will need to develop a body of knowledge on the structure and operations of the many and various organizations that constitute the sport industry. Within this category I would include not only those type of organizations I just mentioned but also local sport clubs and leagues, private sport clubs, government agencies responsible for sport, multisport organizations such as the United States Olympic Committee and the Canadian Olympic Association, and Olympic Games organizing committees such as those operating in Atlanta, to name but a few. We must also, I believe, be prepared to look at companies that, while they may not have sport as their central focus, use sport for purposes such as promoting their product or as a vehicle to penetrate new markets. Coca Cola's sponsorship of the Olympics and the link between media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and the World League of America Football are examples of this type of situation. These organizations, I would suggest, are integral components of the sport industry, and as such, we need to understand the way sport influences and is influenced by their operations.
However, establishing ourselves as the experts in the management of sport will not only require us to broaden the range of organizations that we study, it will also necessitate a considerable change in the theoretical bases of our work, a broadening of the places we publish and present our research, a re-examination of the topics we study and the adoption of new- approaches to doing research. It is these issues I would like to explore in the rest of this article.
As far back as 1967, Spaeth noted that it seemed that many in our field appeared virtually unaware of developments in management theory. Twenty years later in 1987, Zeigler (p. 10) pointed out that despite positive efforts by a few scholars, awareness of the theoretical literature on management ‘'had increased only marginally.'’ I would suggest that today, almost ten years further on, the situation is not that different. Any analysis of the literature in our field would, I believe, reveal that much of our research has failed to take into account current concepts and theories from the broader field of management. This situation is, in my opinion, highly problematic. Studies that are not based on sound and current theories are limited in their relevance and generalizability. As such, they gain us little credibility with practicing sport managers or with scholars in the broader academic community. They also do little to move our field forward or to establish us as the leading experts in our chosen area.
How, then, can we position ourselves to fulfill the promise and potential that our field offers to us? The first and most obvious step is to ensure that we are familiar with current concepts and theories from the area of management and that we use these ideas to underpin our work. This is important because, while some of us may not like to hear it, this is where the leading developments in such areas as strategy, effectiveness, decision making, technological innovation, and change are occurring. It is important to note, however, that a familiarity with current developments in management theory cannot be achieved by a cursory read of a textbook that overviews organization culture, marketing strategy, or some other subdisciplinary area. Rather, it requires an ongoing engagement with the topics and debates that are found in the leading academic journals in this field. These include, but are no means limited to, such publications as Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Accounting Organizations and Society,Human Systems Management, Journal ofMarketing,andsoon.
We should also, I would suggest, familiarize ourselves with the latest books in our respective areas of management. Here, I would point out that I am not referring to those texts that in many business schools are known as‘Heathrow management theory,'’ a reference to the management books that one buys in airports. Rather I am referring to the many substantive, intellectual writings that are available from a wide variety of publishers. Engaging with this type of literature will not only strengthen our research, it will also help enhance our teaching in that the material we will be providing to our students will be at ""the cutting edge'’ of theoretical developments. For those of you who may see yourselves as more practically oriented, there are also benefits to any consulting that you may do in that practicing managers want to be familiar with the latest developments.It is no coincidence that there is a high correlation between business schools identified as strong research institutions and those identified as the leaders in consulting and executive development programs.
I must point out, however, that my emphasis on becoming conversant with the literature in the field of management should not be construed to mean that we shouldn't read our own journal and others that have emerged in our field. The Journal of Sport Management is our flagship and in my opinion the leading journal in the area. Given the recent surge of interest in sport management and the emergence of journals such as Sport Marketing Quarterly, the European Journal of Sport Management, and Managing Leisure,we need to work to maintain this position. To do this we need to use current concepts and theories from the broader field as both a backdrop against which to critically appraise our own work and as a tool with which to extend and strengthen this work.
Another way in which we will help our quest to become the leading experts on the management of the sport industry is to hold our work up to the scrutiny of the outside world. While I strongly encourage each of you to continue to support our conference and certainly as one of the editors of JSM I want you to support our journal, I also realize, however, that academics do not limit themselves to just one conference or restrict their publications to a single journal. Consequently, I am a strong advocate for those of us in sport management presenting our work at the top management conferences such as the Academy of Management, the EGOs (European Group on Organization Studies) Conference, or the World Marketing Congress. I also believe that we must make a concerted effort to publish some of our work in the leading management journals such as those I just mentioned. Presenting our work in these arenas will enable us to gain feedback from mainstream management scholars and also allow us to demonstrate to them, some of whom undoubtedly question our academic credibility, the rigorousnatureofourwork.
However, this is not a one-way street. As well as promoting our field in the broader realm of management, we must also strive to attract the leading management scholars to our conferences and to publish in our journal. We can do this by demonstrating the viability of our field and the utility of sport organizations-as a site for testing and extending theories on a wide variety of managerial topics.
Linked somewhat to my ideas about developing stronger ties with the field of management, I would also like to suggest that another factor that will help give our field credibility and move it forward is if we see more sport management scholars teaching in business schools and more business school people teaching on sport management programs. While I do not wish to overly personalize my paper, I can tell you that my own experience teaching on MBA programs and working with other faculty and graduate students in our business school at the University of Alberta and in the Centre for Corporate Strategy and Change at Warwick Business School has helped me a great deal in whatever small contribution I have been able to make to scholarship in sport management. It has also helped me and my colleagues in the establishment of anMBAprogram with a major in sport and leisure management,which is offered through the business school at the University of Alberta. Such innovations, I strongly believe, are a verypositivecontributiontoourfield.
A third concern, that I believe, we must address, if we are to move our field forward, relates to the topics we study in our research. While a definitive analysis of the subject areas that have predominated in our field is at best difficult, and at worst impossible, a cursory overview of the Journal of Sport Management and previous NASSM Conference programs reveals that issues related to sport management curricula and to the careers of sport management graduates have been our primary concern. While not wishing to downplay the importance of a sound curriculum or someknowledge of the success of ourgraduates,it would appear to me that these topics have received a disproportionate amount of attention. These are not central issues in management, nor are they representative of the type of concerns that practicing managers face. Rather they appear to be attempts tolegitimateourfield,somethingwewouldhavetobelessconcerned about if we broadened our domain of operation and focused on issues that are both more congruent with mainstream management theory and more closely aligned with the needs of practicing managers-two objectives that areby no meansincompatible.
What thenshouldwebefocusingoninourresearch?What arethecentral topics that we need to address?In many ways the answers to these questions are limitless and a familiarity with the leading management journals would reveal the range of topics available to us.Although we do not necessarily need to restrict ourinquirytothesetopics,I dobelieve thatthereis ademonstrable andsignificant overlapbetweenthemandthoseofrelevancetoourfield.Nevertheless,letme briefly provide a few examples that are by no means definitive but reflect my ownposition asanorganizational theoristas tothetypeofworkIbelievewe shouldbepursuing.
Inmanywaysoneof thecentralconcernsof anymanager,becauseof its inherent link to performance,is theformulation and implementation of organizational strategy. Mintzberg (1987) has noted that all managers,whether they know it or not,develop strategies for their organization.In addition, strategy has also been shown to be tied to organizational structure and design (Chandler, 1962; Miles &Snow,1978);it influences and is influencedby organizational culture (Schein, 1983),is mediated by technology (Scarborough & Corbett, 1992), and has been shown tohave strong links toleadership (Leavy & Wilson, 1994).Yet, despite the centrality of strategy to the operations of all organizations within the sport industry and thelinks strategy has to other organizational phenomena, there havebeenveryfewstudiesof thistopicin ourfield.Whether itbestudiesof the strategies an athletic footwear company such as Reebok is using to penetrate new markets, a study of the strategy groups such as the Canadian Olympic Association and theAtlanta Games OrganizingCommittee use toobtain corporate sponsorship, or research into the way small sporting goods stores strategize to surviveinarecessionaryenvironmentisnotimportant.Thepointisthatstudies ofthestrategiesusedbysportorganizationswouldnotonlybeusefulinour field, but research of this nature could also be used to extend existing concepts and theories about this important topic.
Muchof theexistingworkonorganizationalstrategyhascomefrom the industrialorganizationaleconomicsschoolbestcharacterizedbytheworkof MichaelPorter (1980,1985)or from researchers such as Prahalad and Hamel (1990),Mahoney and Pandian (1992)or Peteraf (1993) whofavor the more current resource-based view of strategy.Both of these approaches stress competitivestrategy as a source of competitive advantage.However,a numberofresearchers (Faulkner, 1995; Norhia & Eccles, 1992) have suggested that cooperative strategiesmaybe just asimportant as a means of gainingan advantagein the marketplace.Thesewritershavestressed theimportanceofunderstanding the different types of interorganizational relationships in which companies are involved in order to control environmental uncertainty. These types of relationships are becoming increasingly common in sport and are, I believe,worthy of our attention. Organizations such as the NHL, NBA, NFL, and MLB are, for example, creating joint ventures, strategic partnerships, licensing agreements, or loose cooperative networks with a variety of broadcasters, merchandising companies, sponsors, and community groups. Such relationships enable these professional sport leagues to penetrate new markets, increase their legitimacy, sell licensed merchandise and influence nonconsumer audiences. Nonetheless, they have received no attention from scholars in our field.
A similar dearth exists in the study of the impact that technology has had on sport organizations. There is not a single sport organization in North America that has not been touched by technology. Whether it be Reebok with its sophisticated computerized materials handling system or the local sports club that has computerized its membership list, all sport organizations are influenced by the changes that have occurred in microelectronic technologies. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single article within our field that looks at the impact of technological innovations on the structure and processes of sport organizations.
Organizational culture is yet another topic on which there is a relative void of information in our field. The study of culture is inherently appealing to macroorganizational theorists because it brings the concept of human agency into the field without resorting to psychological models of human behavior. It is also ‘"widely accepted by managers because [it] describes organizational realities that are hard to define but very relevant to running an organization'’ (Robey, 1986, p. 427). There has been considerable work on culture in mainstream organizational theory, and sports organizations offer a very viable site for testing and extending these theories. Yet, there has been virtually no work in our field on this topic.
Power and politics is also an area into which, I believe, we need to expand our focus-of inquiry.All organizations are political.Sport organizations areno exception, and as Kanter (1979) has noted, power is critical for effective managerial behavior. Whether we study the type of power that someone such as the late Horst Dassler exercised over the IOC, the power of a TV network to influence the nature of sporting competitions, or the political struggles between different factions of sport organizations, is not important. All are worthy of our attention. Since the time of Weber's writings on charismatic and legal-rational authority, organizational theorists have recognized the importance of understanding the role of power and politics in shaping the structure and operations of an organization, yet these topics have received scant attention in our field.
Strategy, interorganizational relations, culture, power, and politics are then just examples of the type of topics that I believe we as sport management scholars should be studying. To these I could add such other current topics as total quality management, business process reengineering, sexuality and organizations, human resources management, and service quality, to name but a few. My point is not to provide some sort of definitive list of topics to study but merely to stress the potential our field offers and the need for us to engage with research topics that will help us meet this potential.
In this final section I would like to argue that any expansion of the type of organizations we study and any broadening of the topics we choose to research will require a concomitant change in the approaches to research that we choose to employ. As a reviewer for several journals I see a fairly large number of articles that are submitted for publication. While I have not systematically monitored the approaches used in these articles, I would venture to suggest that the dominant mode of inquiry is survey research using questionnaires or some socio-psychological instrument. While there is nothing wrong with questionnaire research, I believe that its disproportionate use in our field limits our ability to fully comprehend the reality of sport organizations and their management. It is my contention that we need to broaden the approaches to research that we use in our field. As with the topics we study, there are a wide variety of different approaches available to us. While I do not wish to privilege one approach over the other, I would like to provide a couple of examples of what I mean when I call for a broadening of our approachestoresearch.
One of thecriticisms that hasbeenlevelled atthetypeofwork thatwedo is its over-reliance on quantitative approaches (Olafson, 1990). I agree and would certainlysupportthecallfor morequalitativestudies.While there areseveral ways of gathering and utilizing qualitative data, one approach that I believe has considerable merit for the study of organizations in our field is the biographical approachbeing promoted by JohnKimberly from theWhartonBusiness School. The essence of the biographical approach is to understand how an organization's past shapes its present and constrains its future. The biographer places his or her subject (in our case a sport organization) “in a historical context and traces how the subject both shaped and was shaped by external and internal events and forces’’ (Kimberly & Bouchikhi, 1995, p. 10). As such, the focus of the biographical approach is on a single organization. This organization is selected not because of the nature of the organization per se but because of the nature of the changing organizational conditions and demands it faces. An emphasis is placed not only on the commonalties that the focal organization has with other organizations but on its unique features. Adopting this type of logic would be a welcome addition and change to the dominant approach found in many of our studies. It is interesting to note that in the 9 years of our journal, we have had only one article in which one can actuallyidentify the organization being studied.Usually the data presented have little theoretical underpinning and have been aggregated through a variety of statistical treatments that the reality of organizational life is lost in a myriad ofnumbers.
Another approach that I feel has been underutilized in our field is the analysis of secondary data. In the last few years I have become increasingly cognizant of the vast amount of data that is available about sport organizations in the popular press, in business journals such as Forbes, Fortune, and Business Week, in trade journals such as Ad Age, Stores, or Marketing, and in company annual reports and related documents. This is a readily available source of data that I believe we have made insufficient use of in our work.
There are other points I could make. I could, for example, argue for more work that uses critical theory to study sport organizations, more ethnographic work, or more studies that use advanced computer programs such as LISREL. As I noted earlier, my point is not to privilege one research approach over another but merely to appeal for the use of a wider range of approaches in the work we do.
In conclusion then, I would like to say, I feel our field has made great strides over the last 10 years. We have a very successful conference, we produce the leading journal in the field, we have a program review registry up and running, and are beginning to establish links with the European Association for Sport Management and other similar groups. However, I feel our research has not moved at a similar pace. Our field is still dominated by descriptive surveys, many of which restrict their focus to athletic or physical education organizations. If we are to move sport management forward into the next 10 years, then, as I have outlined, I believe we need to expand the domain of our operations to encompass all those organizations that make up the sport industry. We need to provide a strong theoretical base to our research, establish a place for our studies in mainstream management, broaden the topics on which we focus, and utilize newapproachestoresearch.
Some of you may no doubt see my suggestions as overly ambitious; some of you may see them as unreasonable. If so, then let me leave you with a slight paraphrase of a quote from playwright George Bernard Shaw (1903). Shaw suggested that reasonable people adapt themselves to the world; unreasonable people persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves. Therefore, all progress dependson unreasonablepeople.
|
Aris, S. (1990). Sportsbiz: Inside the sports business. London: Hutchinson.
Chandler, A.D., Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Faulkner, D. (1995). International strategic alliances: Co-operating to compete. London: McGraw-Hill.
Hughes, W.L., & French, E. (1954). The administration of physical education: For schools and colleges. New York: The Ronald Press Company.
Kanter, R.M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75.
Kimberly, J.R., & Bouchikhi, H. (1995). The dynamics of organizational development and change: How the past shapes the present and constrains the future. Organization Science,6, 9-18.
Leavy, B., & Wilson, D. (1994). Strategy and leadership. London: Routledge.
Mahoney, J.T., & Pandian, J.R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 363-380.
Means, L.B. (1949). The organization and administration of intramural sports. St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby.
Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). Crafting strategy. Harvard Business Review, 65(4), 66-75.
Norhia, N., & Eccles, R.G. (Eds.) (1992). Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action.Boston,MA:Harvard Business School Press.
Olafson, G.A. (1990). Research design in sport management: What's missing, what's needed?Journal of Sport Management,4,103-120.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-192.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,68(3),79-91.
Robey, D. (1986). Designing organizations (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Scarborough, H.H.,& Corbett, J.M.(1992). Technology and organisation: Power, meaning anddesign.London:Routledge.
Schein, E.H. (1983, Summer). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. OrganizationalDynamics,12,13-28.
Shaw,G.B. (1903). Man and superman: A comedy and a philosophy. London: Constable & Company,Ltd.
Spaeth,M.J.(1967).Ananalysisofadministrativeresearchinphysicaleducationand athleticsinrelationtoaresearchparadigm.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Wilson, N. (1988). The sports business. London: Pitkus.
Zeigler,E.F.(1959).Administration of physical education and athletics:Thecase method approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management,1,4-24.
|
This paper was the Earle F. Zeigler Award lecture presented at the North American Society for Sport Management, June 1995, Athens, GA.
---
|
n/a
|
Toward Achieving a Focal Point for Sport Management: A Binocular Perspective
|
Robert L. Boucher University of Windsor
|
1996
|
If I might speak for those who have had the privilege of giving this lecture before me, I can say that this is truly a humbling experience. To illustrate exactly how I feel this evening, I would like to relate a true story about one of my all-time favorite historical figures- Winston Churchill:
In the summer of 1941, Sergeant James Allen Ward was awarded the Victoria Cross for climbing onto the wing of his Wellington bomber 13,000 feet above the Zuider Zee in Holland to extinguish a fire in the starboard engine. Secured only by a rope around his waist, he managed not only to smother the fire but also to return along the wing to the aircraft's cabin. Churchill, an admirer as well as a performer of swashbuckling exploits, summoned the shy New Zealander to 10 Downing Street (for our American friends that's like the British White House). Ward was struck dumb with awe in Churchill's presence and was unable to answer the Prime Minister's simplest questions. Churchill surveyed the unhappy hero with some compassion. “You must feel very humble and awkward in my presence," said Churchill. "Yes sir," stammered the young flyer. \*Then you can imagine how humble and awkward I feel in yours,”’ said Churchill. (Fadiman, 1985, pp. 122-23)
I use this story certainly not to compare myself to this great British parliamentarian and wartime leader but to express the sense of humility I have in addressing this very special gathering.
Perhaps the most daunting aspect of accepting an invitation to give this address is the fact that it is named in honor of Earle Zeigler. What a unique individual he is! How fitting it is that this organization honors his lifetime of scholarship and professional contributions with this lecture. The breadth and distinction of his accomplishments are, and will remain, uniquely impressive. Earle's values, dedication, lifestyle, achievements, and humaneness reflect the ideals of excellence to which all of us should aspire. So you now may be able to appreciate the dilemma one faces when preparing for this kind of lecture. On the one hand, expectations are indeed high! The burden of being profound in light of the articulate and insightful offerings of my predecessors is truly daunting. Russell Baker, a columnist for the New York Times, once said that writing such a speech involves “sitting in front of a blank piece of paper until blood appears on your forehead" (Ailes, 1985). I can attest that this actually happens . . . While humbled by the honor and daunted by the prospects of not measuring up to my predecessors, I am nonetheless challenged attheopportunitytopresenttoa“captured,well-fed"audiencemylimited visionofourfield,coupled,ofcourse,withsomeofmypersonalbiases.
In 1991, in Tampere, Finland, this author had the pleasure of addressing the General Assembly of the World Congress on Sport for All. At that time I made the followingobservation:
The 1990s finds the administration of sport, athletics, and recreation in a state of veritable transition.With the proliferation of sport opportunities and the commercialization of many forms of sport during the 1970s and 1980s, notionsofhowtomanage asport organizationefficientlyandeffectively have undergone marked and profound changes. (Boucher, 1991, p. 517)
In thefive years that havepassed sincemy trip toFinland,it is my contention that the thrust of these comments still rings true. There is no question that the field of Sport Management has grown and developed at a rapid pace, particularly over the past decade. Concurrent with this growth have been advancements made byprofessional and academicassociations,formed tofurthertheneedsofavariety ofindividualswho areaffiliatedwithSportManagement.TheNorthAmerican Society for Sport Management, in particular, has been noteworthy in this regard andisknownthroughouttheworldasthemodelforothernationalandinternational associationswithsimilarmandates.
Wealsohavewitnessed undergraduate andgraduateprogramsincreasing acrossNorthAmericatothedegreewhereaccreditationhasbecomeamatterof concern to both NASSM and theNational Associationfor Sport and Physical Education.It canbesafelysaid thatwehave emergedfroma decadeofunfettered growth, increased recognition, and, in some people's opinion, academic/professional respectability. In short, we are in the midst of a prosperous time for our field eventhoughhigher education,particularlyin Canada,isunder severefinancial and structural pressures. Even though I am generally optimistic about the future of SportManagementandgenuinelypleasedwiththedevelopmentsofourfieldover the past fewyears,Ifeelit prudent tostop and reassess the direction we are taking.
The famous sport philosopher, Yogi Berra is said to have made the comment,“If you come to a fork in the road,take it!"In myhumble opinion wehave inadvertently followed Yogi's advice. Somewhere along“our path of progress" wecametoaforkin theroad andwetookit!Theonlyproblemnowisthatweare on different paths, which are in some cases not even parallel, and will become more divergent the greater the time we travel on them.Having said this,I fully recognize thatdifferencesof opinion arehealthy and thatit isnotnecessary or requiredthateveryoneinourfield actinadoctrinairefashionholdingexactlythe same values and beliefs. What I am suggesting is that from time to time, and now is particularly appropriate,wemake some effort torefocuswhatwe are doingin order that thenext10years of progress canbe assatisfying and meaningful as the first10years.
While there are numerous areas of ‘fuzziness"that I could present to you this evening, in fairness to a very polite audience I will describe only two. Then, I will potentially strain the limits of my credibility by offering what I believe could be a focal point of our research and our curricula for years to come.At the risk of overextending Yogi's previous analogy, it is my contention that establishing a focal point would eliminate the blurred vision we sometimes experience when we come to“forks in theroad."
It has only been in the last three decades that Sport Management has attained an identity and a distinctiveness that has set it apart from its other siblings in the human movement field. While most of our Sport Management programs have evolved from traditional physical education programs, few bear any resemblance to these teacher preparation programs that were so heavily subscribed in the 1960s and 1970s. However, as other authors too numerous to mention,have cautioned, "The first pillar for the Sport Management profession should be built on the recognition that the focus be on sport! The emphasis of curricular offerings and, in fact, the research done at this time still resided with our physical education background, and a recognizable “business orientation” was noticeably lacking. One has only to peruse the Org and Ad textbooks of this era to confirm this observation. From these earlier times, Whitson and MacIntosh (1990) note the development of Sport Management in Canadian universities followed directly from the commitment of Canadian governments to fund a sport system focused on high performance. The development of programs in the United States followed a somewhat different pattern as outlined by Hardy (1987). In Canada, because federal dollars were being spent, there was considerable pressure on national and provincial sport organizations to professionalize their financial administration and to foster the development of managerial competence, particularly in the areas of planning and policy making (Slack & Hinings, 1987). Speaking specifically about Canada, Whitson andMacIntoshnote that
technical and administrative professionals, most of whom have graduate or undergraduate degrees in either kinesiology/sport sciences or sport administration, have effectively taken over the role once played by the volunteer community in the making and implementation of sport policy. (1990, p. 40)
This quest for a strong business orientation is well-documented and some of our finest scholars have subscribed to the notion that if our field is to improve, we must go theway of commerce and business.
Consider the following quotations:
Sport is business. It is bought and sold like any other service or commodity The symbolic relationship between television and sport has spurred the financial growth of both. (Zakrajsek, 1993, p. 2)
Sport, as many commentators have noted, is big business and big business is heavily involved in sport. (Slack, 1996, p. 98)
Further, it has been suggested by Parkhouse (1996) that the term Sport Management may, in fact, be misleading and “Sport Business"” may be, in fact, a more accurate descriptor of our field. There is, of course, a great deal of evidence that the lexicon of business finance and marketing is now firmly rooted in the working cultures of many of our sport organizations.
While fully recognizing the current state of affairs, one is left to wonder why the discourse of sport management has so little to do with sport and so much to do with the systematic marketing and production of the sportingperformance (Whitson & MacIntosh, 1990). Regrettably, we may have shifted our balance off center to thedegree that wehave a preoccupation with the structural and organizational aspects of sport at the expense of the experiential, social, and philosophical discourses that havebeenpart of our earliest connections withsport.This conditionis akin to one described by Boileau in 1982 as sportism. To illustrate the degree to which we have been swayed, I draw your attention to a presentation given by Dennis O'Malley, the president and owner of HaloDistributing at the 1994World Sports Management International Conference in Atlanta.The title of Mr. O'Malley's presentation was “New Markets for the Sports Industry: Beer, Sports, and Local CommunitiesDo They Mix?"The thrust of his talk,of course, was that for beer companies, a huge target audience exists through sports due to its “leisure components"(O'Malley,1994).
Call me naive, but is it possible that today's promoters of commercialism in sport have become intoxicated by sponsorship revenues? One is left with the question: Is it right for a sport manager only to be a conduit by which a sponsor can achieve greater market penetration? My contention is simply that in our quest for legitimation,wemayhavesold our collective souls to the interests of bigbusiness. It can be argued that much of what comprises the Sport Management domain is not related to business and producing entertainment for profit. In fact, a large percentageofsportenterprisesintheglobalcommunityareofanamateurnature where the motives of participants, spectators, and administrators are of a more altruistic nature.Perhaps Chelladurai's (1992) observation that there are really,in fact, two fields, that of management of human services in sport and management of entertainment services through sport, is entirely accurate. In any event, the need to return to a balance in orientation and to refocus has never been more pressing.
I recognize that not all of you will share my vision of the future nor my cursory analysis of the present state of affairs in our field. I fully recognize that I am attempting to satisfy at least two different audiences with somewhat incompatible orientations.The applied nature ofSportManagementleadsmanyinthis audience tojudgewhattheyhearandwhattheyreadbythedegreetowhichitcanbeapplied in a real-life setting. These individuals deal with the current challenges of their jobs and do not have the luxury of waiting for the academics among us to resolve our theoretical disputes and arrive at some definitive answers about how the management of sport enterprises might be improved. One criticism posed by this group is that Sport Management research has been focused for the most part on narrow esoteric questions that are of interest only to other scholars who publish in the same journals. The thrust for doing research with a theoretical underpinning was first articulated by Spaeth in 1968. Since that time, numerous authors have reinforced the notion that Sport Management will be improved and enhanced as an academic field only through research.A few years later in 1972,Bob Morford wrote a very insightful article for Quest entitled,“Toward A Profession,Not a Craft." While written with physical educators in mind, Morford's stinging criticisms had great impact on those who would go on toteach and researchin the newer subdiscipline of Sport Management. While most of Morford's article debates whether physical education is a discipline or a profession, he has this to say about theplace ofresearch:
My few years in the physical education profession have brought me to the realization that we are primarily a group of doers with little or no theoretical rationale for what we do. The issue here centers around the absence of any real concern for the disciplinary or theoretical framework to support the profession. (Morford, 1972, p. 88)
More recently, and in similar fashion, there are several authors who have written that the salvation of Sport Management lies in the establishing of a distinct body of knowledge based on sound research. Olafson (1995), Parks (1992), Slack (1996), Paton (1987), and Parkhouse et al. (1982) have been noteworthy in this regard over the past decade. There are, of course, others who have consistently stressed the importance of applying research results, and Parks (1992) and Weese (1995) have been particularly persuasive on this point.
So where does this leave us? Is the gap between theory and practice so great that it cannot be bridged? My feeling is that a true blending of the theoretical and practical concerns is virtually impossible the way we are going at the present time. Attempting to bring the two components together has meant overintellectualizing the real world environment and watering down research to the degree that only "action research,' which provides real answers to real problems, is appropriate.
I believe the answer lies in the separate consideration of our research concerns from those of our curriculum. It is my personal feeling that the chasm currently existing between “Theory” and “Practice” can be reduced if we make adjustments in focus with our research and our teaching. At the present time, some of our research suffers from problems of relevancy. In addition, our curriculum is overly dependent on the experiential components such as internships and field work. In short, our curriculum needs to be more theoretical and our research needstobemorepractical.
It can be said that studying Sport Management is akin to studying a truck at rest and then drawing inferences about how it operates when it is on the road. This, of course, creates difficulties for those among us who design course content and pose research questions. It seems that we have succumbed somewhat to the notion that internships and fieldwork will be our curricular salvation. Thus, our graduates usually have many and varied real world, hands-on, practical experiences when they graduate. I have to be careful not to denigrate this element of our undergraduate preparation as the evidence supporting an experiential component is persuasive. However, we definitely need to spend more time in our courses discussing, debating, and resolving some of the fundamental ethical and social problems involving the management of sport enterprises in our society. If potential managers are not prodded to examine their own values and to grapple with the ethical consequences of certain managerial practices while at university, it is highly unlikely they will attend to these concerns once in the job market.
In the extremely insightful 26th Amy Homan's address of the National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education, Janet Harris had this to say, There is only occasional recognition of the importance of critical/reflective competencies for sport managers by faculty members in this subdiscipline itself' (p. 400).
With respect to our research, the need for relevance is indeed acute. Parks and Bartley, in a recent 1996 article in JSM, make several salient points regarding the status of sport management scholarship, not the least of which is their observation that in this state of transition, an emphasis on scholarly activity is replacing the traditional emphasis on service (Parks & Bartley, 1996). However, Weese (1995)
warns us that our research must not be viewed as self-serving and must be judged by whether it makes a difference by managers in real world situations. One of our difficulties,of course,is the dilemma faced by researchers in selectingresearch problems. Pure research of a scientific nature is more valued by the academy, hence, more prestige and enhanced reputations will follow. Action research of a contract nature is more meaningful to sport organizations but, because of its very nature, is less generalizable and therefore has less credibility in academic circles. The first brand of research leads to academic reputation, tenure, promotion, and all the trappings of recognized scholarship. The second brand, of course, leads to contract income, possible consulting work, and closer ties to the actual sport enterprise. Perhaps the solution lies in what MacLean (1996) describes as “appreciativeinquiry.'
Originally conceptualized as an alternative to action research, appreciative inquiry does not focus on the solution to problems. It is fundamentally an approach to organizational analysis that is uniquely intended to discover, to understand,andtofosterorganizationallearningandinnovation.AsGotchesandLeidema (1995) indicate, the aim of this brand of research is to generate new knowledge that expands “the realm of the possible” and helps the members of an organization to envision a collectively desired future and to design improved organizational systems. Action research focuses on problems and problem-solving, whereas appreciative inquiry focuses on what's goingwell tofurther a more provocative and positive future. This may lead to solutions that address some of the concerns of multiculturalism and diversitybrought to our attentionbyJoyDeSensiin her 1993 Zeigler address. It is perhaps this renewal in a normative approach that deals with "what ought to be”’ rather than “what is’ that captures my imagination.
So where does this leave us when we attempt to find a focal point for this area of Sport Management? As a “practicing manager” for 22 of the last 25 years, my experiencescanbedistilledtotwoobservations:
1. All problems are people problems.
2. Sound decision-making solves problems.
I am fully aware of the numerous components of accredited curricula with courses in sport marketing, sport and the law, facility management, sport and government, and so on. We have done a very thorough job of designating the various components of degree programs in our field. The NASPE/NASSM joint project on accreditation has done us proud by clearly articulating what are the minimal and desirable curricular experiences for undergraduate and graduate students in our field. However, we must not become afflicted by a condition that I would describe as “Accreditation Complacency." This, of course, is characterized by a professional smugnessbrought on when one's programis certified and thus all exiting graduates are presumed to have the requisite skills and competencies required to “manage" in the real world of sport. Providing the best possible curricular experience is important and should not be dismissedlightly.However, a true measure of whether graduates are truly prepared is not the courses listed on their transcripts but whether they have been educated to think intelligently and make decisions about issues they will face in the dynamic world of managing a sport enterprise.
Referring back to our brief references to Sport Management and the “"business bottom line,” we presume our graduates will be able to turn a profit with the variety of sport enterprises that they will market and promote. We know they will be able to market these properties, but will they be able to manage them? The current emphasis on marketing in our field presupposes that getting the product to market is the foundational activity of Sport Management. The day-to-day activities of such managers, however, reveals the personnel matters, budget concerns, strategic planning, and a host of other activities are of equal importance. Regrettably, there is evidence to suggest that our graduates are less prepared to make the myriad of ethical, social, and philosophical decisions that involve the long-term viability of a sport enterprise.
Is there a solution to this? My crude analysis of our situation is that we are not spending sufficient time in our research and course offerings on the fundamental and irrefutable actions by sport managers that actually make a difference. What I am referring to is decision-making! As Vroom stated so appropriately in 1974,
All managers are decision-makers. Furthermore, their effectiveness as managers is largely reflected in their “track record" in making the “right decisions.” These “right decisions,”’ in turn, largely depend on whether or not the manager has utilized the right person or persons in the right ways in helping solve the problem. (p. 68)
This notion is, of course, not new to the field of management. The worldrenowned writer and researcher Herbert Simon in the 1940s was interested to know how decisions were made and how they might be made more effectively. The thrust of his writing was “management is decision-making” (Pugh & Hickson, 1989). Other notable proponents of decision-making as the essence of management were James March, Charles Lindblom, Arnold Tannenbaum, and Victor Vroom.
Referring specifically to sport organizations, Daniel (1974) stated that “decision-making is like the nervous system of a complex organism" (p. 47). While in some quarters, management theorists have abandoned this area of research, there has been a continuing school of thought that maintains “that it is the analysis of decision-making which is the key to understanding organizational management processes” (Pugh & Hickson, 1989, p. 135). And this, of course, is what I contend binds all of our various components together. Consider, for example, a typical day in the life of a sport manager. It is not inconceivable that he or she will do the following:
Approve a marketing plan ? Consult on a legal matter Interview a job prospect · Chair a disciplinary hearing Meet with a prospective sponsor Draft a facility use policy
This list, of course, could go on and, from my experience over the last 11 years, the above activities would probably take you to noon on a given day. . . . In any event, the common element in all these managerial functions is decision-making. Referring to the previous activities, there will be marketing decisions, legal decisions, planning decisions, and so on. It has occurred to me that we spend a great deal of time in our courses and our research dealing with the content of these subject areas, but precious little time is devoted to how decisions are actually made regarding their disposition. There has been a widely subscribed to misconception that the more you know about something, the better decisions you will make. While it is true that having appropriate and timely information can lead to more informed decision-making, the process is certainly not that simple.
Another common misconception about decision-making is that when intelligent individuals use all the information at hand, rational decisions will be the result. The research that refutes this notion is staggering, yet few courses and little research in our field is devoted to shedding light on this area. Consider, forexample. two incidents of which you will be familiar that debunk most rational decisionmaking models. The famous Bay of Pigs Invasion during the Kennedy Administration is described by Brunsson (1982) as being a classic example of irrational decision-making. Investigations revealed that in sessions leading up to the invasion, federal bureaucrats repressed large amounts of disturbing information and false impressions of unanimity were built up among the decision-makers, causing them to take unjustified risks of immense proportions.
Another classic example infaulty decision-making surrounds the Challenger space shuttle tragedy. Suters (1992) reports that assumptions were made about the safety of the launch which were not disproved until after the shuttle had exploded. Former Secretary of State William Rogers, the chairman of the committee investigating theChallenger disaster,repeatedly stated in hisreport that there wereflaws in the decision-making process.
But what about sport?Are there cases of faulty decision-making that attracts our attention as the Bay of Pigs and Challenger examples? While it has been 10 years since the scandal of Ben Johnson at the Seoul Olympics, the incident is still fresh in the minds of Canadians and others who value sport in its purest form. A Commission of Inquiry, chaired by the Honorable Charles Dubin, spent the better part of twoyears uncovering the use of banned substances toincrease athletic performance. In the 638-page report, Dubin (1990) chronicles a litany of “poor decisions” by government bureaucrats, volunteer board members, professional coaches and, of course, athletes. One does not have to spend much time reviewing the sordid details of drugs and sport to reveal that decisions made by those in managerial positions dictate the course of events. If the Canadian Government had not placed so much stock in the Olympic medals and the Canadian Track and Field Association had not turned a blind eye to obvious doping practices, the history of Canadian international sport would not be as it is written today.
I have used a Canadian case of world renown to illustrate the consequences of decision-making in the sport context. Other examples such as soccer hooliganism, exploitation of the college athlete, sport betting, and violence in sport might also have been appropriate to make the point that a series of poor decisions leads to our current state of affairs in the global sport arena.
At this juncture, it is probably warranted that remedies be proposed rather than to relate any more tales of tragedy and scandal. If those of us in the field of Sport Management were to give greater credence to “decision-making” in our curricula and our research, we could do much to provide a focal point for all of our various interests and concerns. Remember the aim is to prepare potential managers and assist practicing managers in making better decisions about sport. With respect to the parameters of this area of decision-making, the depth and breadth of the subject matter is inexhaustible. Potential sport managers could learn about heuristics and their affect on rational decision-making. They could study what Brockner and Rubin (1985) call the “entrapment syndrome" and the effects of sunk costs as identified by Ailes and Blumer (1985). Managers can learn of the relationship of values to decision-making and how this subconsciously influences personnel decisions and those with controversial overtones. Relying on authors such as Brunsson (1982), and Tallman and Gray (1990), the perceptual and intellectual activities involved when making choices between alternatives can be explored. Managers need to know the relationships between information and ideology as presented by Cummings (1983) as they relate to nonstrategic decisions.
The inherent appeal of this proposition is that decision-making cuts across all elements of our various curricula and our research. Irrational decisions impede and retard the implementation of the most sophisticated plans. Clearly, decisionmaking may be viewed as the weak link in the Sport Management chain.
In closing, I would like to point out to you that in terms of a philosophical disposition, I have been described as a realist who suffers occasional attacks of pragmatism. However, this evening for a short period of time, you have allowed me to reveal my heretofore hidden idealist tendencies. This was such a rare occurrence for me, I had to look up idealism. This is what I found: “An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup' (H.L. Mencken).
In hopes that we can all make better soup in the future, I thank you for your attention.
|
Ailes, R. (1985). Persuasive speaking: Esquire success series (Videocassette recording). New York: Esquire-Serendipity Associates.
Ailes, H.R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,35,124-140.
Boileau, R. (1982). Role et statu du professionel de 1'activite physique. In L'education Physique: Ou va La Profession? Montreal, PQ: Bellarniun-Desport.
Boucher, R.L. (1991). Enlightened management of sport in the 1990s: A review of selected theories and trends. In Sport for all (pp. 517-526). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Brockner, J., & Rubin, J.Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflicts. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Brunsson, H. (1982). The irrationality of action and action rationality: Decisions, ideologies, and organizational actions. The Journal of Management Studies, 19, 29-43.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management,6,215-219.
Cummings, L.L. (1983). The logics of management. Academy of Management Review, 8, 532-538.
Daniel, J.V. (1974, March-April). The organization and decision-making. CAHPER Journal,47-49.
DeSensi, J.T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management,8,63-74.
Dubin, C.L. (1990). Commission of inquiry into the use of drugs and banned practices intended to increase athletic performance. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Government PublishingCentre.
Fadiman, C. (1985). The little, brown book of anecdotes. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Gotches, G., & Leidema, J. (1995). An interview with David Cooperrider on appreciative inquiry and the future of organizational development. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 5-13.
Hardy, S. (1987). Graduate curriculums in sport management: The need for a business orientation.Quest,39,207-216.
Harris, J.C. (1993). Using kinesiology: A comparison of applied veins in the subdisciplines. Quest, 45, 389-412.
MacLean, G.N. (1996). Action research in organizational development: Rest in peace? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 1-3.
Morford, W.R. (1972). Toward a profession, not a craft. Quest, 28, 88-93.
O'Mally, D. (1994). New markets for the sports industry: Beer, sports, and local communities—-Do they mix? Proceedings, World Sports Management Conference, Georgia Tech University.
Olafson, G.A. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 338-345.
Parkhouse, B.L. (Ed.) (1996). The management of sport: Its foundations and application (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby-Year Books.
Parkhouse, B.L., Ulrich, D.O., & Soucie, D. (1982). Research in sport management: A vital rung in this new corporate ladder. Quest, 34, 176-186.
Parks, J.B., & Bartley, M.E. (1996) Sport management scholarship: A professoriate in transition? Journal of Sport Management, 10, 119-130.
Parks, J.B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottom line'” in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 220-229.
Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of Sport Management, 1, 25-31.
Pugh, D.S., & Hickson, D.J. (1989). Writers on organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
Slack, T., & Hinings, R. (1987). Planning and organizational change: A conceptual framework for the analysis of amateur sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 12, 185-193.
Spaeth, M.J. (1967). An analysis of administrative research in physical education and athletics in relation to a research paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587.
Staw, B.M. (1976). Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 27-44.
Tallman, I., & Gray, L. (1990). Choices, decisions, and problem-solving. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 405-433.
Vroom, V.H. (1974). A new look at management decision-making. Organizational Dynamics, 5, 66-80.
Weese, W.J. (1995). If we're not serving practitioners, then we're not serving sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 237-243.
Whitson, D.J., & MacIntosh, D. (1990). The scientization of physical education: Discourses in performance. Quest, 42, 40-51.
Zakrajsek, D.B. (1993). Sport management: Random thoughts of one administrator. JournalofSportManagement,7,1-6.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Sport Management ResearchWhat Progress Has Been Made?
|
Garth Paton University of New Brunswick
|
1997
| "Thispaper discusses the quantity and quality of administrative/management researchinsport andphysic(...TRUNCATED)
| "AAHPERD (1978-1984). Completed research in health, physical education and recreation, Vols. 20-26. (...TRUNCATED)
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
The Changing Fanscape for Big-League Sports: Implications for Sport Managers
|
Dennis R. Howard University of Oregon
|
1998
| "First, let me say that receiving this award was completely unexpected. Given my great surprise when(...TRUNCATED)
| "Angell, R. (1998, June 17). Comment: Rudy awakening. The New Yorker, pp. 8-9. \nBadenhausen, K., (...TRUNCATED)
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Vertical Integration in Sport
|
David K. Stotlar University of Northern Colorado
|
1999
| "In recent years, several multinational corporations have begun to implement a vertical integration (...TRUNCATED)
| "Antitrust gurus hit US businesses hard. (1999, May 24). Greeley Tribune, p. B1, B12. \nBart, P. ((...TRUNCATED)
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
Dataset Card for Zeigler Lectures Dataset
Dataset Summary
The Zeigler Lectures Dataset is a curated collection of key Earle F. Zeigler Award lectures, delivered annually at the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) conferences. These lectures span from the late 1980s to the 1990s and are authored by influential scholars in sport management. Each entry includes the lecture title, author, year of presentation, full content, references, and acknowledgments. The dataset offers rich historical and conceptual insights into the development of sport management as a discipline.
Languages
The dataset is entirely in English.
Dataset Structure
Data Instances
Each entry in the dataset is structured as a JSON object with the following fields:
{
"title": "Sport Management: Opportunities and Obstacles",
"author": "P. Chelladurai The Ohio State University",
"year": "1991",
"content": "...full lecture text...",
"references": "...bibliographic references...",
"acknowledgement": "...acknowledgment section...",
"notes": "n/a"
}
Data Fields
- title: Title of the lecture.
- author: Author's name and institution.
- year: Year of presentation.
- content: Full text of the lecture.
- references: Citations and works referenced in the lecture.
- acknowledgement: Acknowledgment text if present.
- notes: Additional notes or remarks.
Source Data
Original Source
The lectures were originally published in the Journal of Sport Management and presented at NASSM annual conferences.
Dataset Creation
The dataset was extracted and formatted from a structured JSON document that compiled several Zeigler Award lectures.
License
Check the terms of use with the original source publications or NASSM; usage may be restricted for commercial redistribution.
Citation
Please cite individual authors and the Journal of Sport Management if using specific lecture content in research.
- Downloads last month
- 1