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 andphysicaleducation.Thehistoricalfoundations ofsport managementarereviewedfollowedbyabriefanalysisofselectedtextbooks, andmasters and doctoral studies.A shift to a slightlymore theoretical perspectiveof thetextbookswasnoted.Thesestended toreflectamoretheoretical orientationduringthepost-1965period.Thebulkof theresearchwas descriptive in design and was directed toward post-secondary institutions. A major emphasis was onleaders andleadershipbehavior.The conclusions suggest thatfutureresearch shouldimprove thetheoretical base and strive to make the knowledge sensible and useful.Additionally,increased attention tononeducational organizationsis recommended.
No other subdiscipline within sport and physical education, with the possible exception of exercise itself, has such a long history and tradition as physical education and sport administration/management. Early professional preparation curricula included courses in administration, programs, and facilities. During the first 75 years of this century, the leaders in our field were those whose names were often associated with administration/management textbooks or those who were recognized as significant practicing administrators—Williams, Brownell, Nash, Esslinger, Staley, and more recently Alley, Frost, Wiley, and Zeigler.
Alonghistorydoesnotnecessarilyconnoteadistinguishedhistory.When the physical education profession began the great discipline debate in the 1960s, triggered in part by James B. Conant's criticism (Conant, 1963, p. 201), sport administration as a potential subdiscipline would have been ignored or eliminated by many scholars within physical education. We have witnessed a reemergence of sport administration, or sport management as it is more commonly called, during the late 1970s and 1980s. This reemergence has been so strong within our graduate programs that Spirduso (1986), in her presentation at the National Symposium on Graduate Studyin Physical Education,identified administration as one of the most frequently declared areas of graduate programs, faculty interests, and conferred doctorates.Does this reemergence of sport management permit us unqualified entry into physical education and sport academe? On the contrary!Now we must demonstrate our eligibility through the quality of the research developedwithintheseprograms.
This paperwill review our current status regarding the quantity and quality of the research.The historical foundations will be reviewed first as a means of providing some perspective. Then, closer attention will be given to the nature of administrative andmanagement research since 1965, and some general conclusions will be developed including comments about strengths and weaknesses. This paper will conclude with a few statements concerning current needs and possible future directions.
The decade of the 1960s may someday be viewed as a pivotal point in the development of ourfield.Manyfactors affected the shape of sport andphysical education, including pressure to improve all educational programs, a Zeitgeist favoring active life styles, a strong emphasis on science and scientific methods, unsurpassed technological advances, and the renaissance in higher education. One of the major issues in sport and physical education was the onset of the “Great Debate,'which forced scholars and practitioners to carefully consider the natureofourfield.
The problem of subdiscipline or area definition remains very real. Most traditional administration textbooks of a decade ago ignored management analysis and organization theory (except for a discussion of democratic administration) and paid little attention to human relations. Their major orientation was upon administrative principles, usually developed by authorities in the field, and upon program planning in physical education (Paton, 1970, p. 219). However, the last decade has seen a decided shift in the focus of textbook content.
It is risky to detail events without implying some cause and effect, which here may not be the case, but certain events in sport administration trace back to the mid-1960s. Considerable ferment was generated in the administration area at the University of Illinois during 1965 through 1970. Under the direction of Dr. Earle Zeigler, several students working in sequence completed studies analyzing administrative writing, research, and programs. A theme tended to emerge that physical education needed a new approach to administration, an approach grounded in administrative theory. Reference is made to the text Administrative Theory and Practice in Physical Education and Athletics (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975) for elaboration of thiswork.
Following closely behind the Mllinois studies was the publication Administrative Theory and Practice in Athletics and Physical Education (Hunsicker, 1973), developed out of the 6th Big Ten Physical Education Body of Knowledge Symposium. Textbooks in administration began relying more heavily upon theoretical bases. Some examples might include the following: Administration: Principles, Theory and Practice With Applications to Physical Education (Hall et al., 1973), works by Frost and Marshall (1977), Resick, Seidel, and Mason (1979), Jackson's books, Sport Administration (1981) and Leisure and Sports Centre Management (1984), Zeigler's books, Decision-Making in Physical Education and Athletics Administration: A Case Method Approach (1982) and Management Competency Development in Sport and Physical Education (Zeigler & Bowie, 1983), as well as Sport Management (VanderZwaag, 1984), and Sport Management: Macro Perspectives (Chelladurai, 1985).
The trend has been toward a more theoretical approach, including a greater focus on the dynamics of people in organizations, learning experiences designed to actively sharpen administrative skills and competencies, and clearer delineation of management theory applied to sport and physical education. It would appear that the progress has been steady.
One individual who has been a significant force in shaping the direction and thinking within sport management is Earle F. Zeigler. He was the first to chart a new course with the publication of his case method text (Zeigler, 1959) more than 25 years ago. He continued to advance the field with the publication of Administrative Theory and Practice in Physical Education and Athletics (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975), again, a ground-breaking text. The more recent book, Management Competency Development in Sport and Physical Education (Zeigler & Bowie, 1983) represented another “first'’ and was preceded by a re-issue of his case method approach (Zeigler, 1982). Additionally, he was responsible for the development of administrative work at the University of Michigan, establishment and development of a management focus at the University of Illinois during the 1960s, and the sport administration program at the University of Western Ontario during the1970s.
A review of more recent research in the sport management area is an awkward task because of the sheer difficulty of simply defining management and administration. Reference can be made to any number of definitions, such as the one accepted by Rockwood (1980, p. 3), who states, “administration can be considered . . . to be all of the processes or activities related to the formation and operation of an organization or a sub-division of an organization,'’ to the one by Jackson (1981, p. 29), who says, “Administration is philosophy in action." Parkhouse and Ulrich (1979, p. 271) tend to accept a definition of management proposed by Gulick as a “field of knowledge [that] seeks to systematically understand why and how men work together systematically to accomplish objectives and to make these co-operative systems more useful to mankind.''
The difficulty is compounded when one compares the impressions of research presented by different scholars. On the one hand, Applin (1986) remarked, ‘ sports management is in its embryonic state and almost entirely devoid of research content," while Spirduso (1986), at the same conference, pointed out that administration was one of the most frequently declared areas of conferred doctorates. Perhaps one represents a qualitative point of view and the other a quantitative perspective. It seems worthwhile, however, to review the situation.
Some attempts have been made to assess the research base of sport management. Spaeth at the University of Illinois in 1967 examined the status of research in physical education and athletics. Several of her conclusions were a serious indictment of the field, specifically the following: (a) there was an almost total lack of theoretical orientation in the research design; (b) due to the lack of a theoretical orientation, scientific hypotheses were not used; and (c) theresearch lacked methodological rigor (Zeigler & Spaeth,1975, p.44).
Zeigler and Spaeth (1975) compiled a number of studies,including doctoral studies completed at the University of linois and elsewhere.The breadth and diversity of thework is impressive.The introductory studies represent some early efforts to deal with the question of theory, including a review of the graduate administration courses in several universities,the previouslymentionedreview of researchconducted by paeth,and an investigationof similarities inmeanings attached to selected concepts in administrative theory. These early studies were directed toward an assessment of the knowledge. All three were pessimistic in tone and sharply critical.
The studies that followed,however, showed that research appeared to be pursuing new directions. These studies focused on leadership, group cohesion, organizational climate,and organizational communication,as well as economic factors and concerns regarding facilities. Overall, the studies reflect many of the difficulties of conducting management research--inadequate samples, questionable research instruments, difficulty of relating dependent and independent variables, and difficulty of determining adequate measures of organizational performance.In summary,the studies were essentially descriptive.
Given that descriptive research is an important and fundamental first step, the contribution of these studies collectively was that they helped bridge the gap between emerging theories inmanagement and social science and the research being conducted in sport and physical education. This shift in research empha sis, though subtle, was critical. Manifestation of this change can be noted in the sport management texts and monographs of a decade later.
Further review of the sport management research involved two steps. First, an analysis was conducted of a selected listing of doctoral studies prepared by R.H. Paris (1983). A second list of sport management studies was then developed based on a review of Completed Research in Health, Physical Education and Recreation (AAHPERD, 1978-84, Vols. 20-26). Paris’ list included completed doctoral studies between 1972 and 1978, whereas the second review centered on the years 1978 to 1984. A review of this nature has some limitations. Reports of completed studies by the participating schools were somewhat inconsistent in terms of regularity, a few duplicate entries were discovered, and there was the obvious difficulty of basing the analysis on only a title and an abstract.
The list compiled by Paris included 48 doctoral studies completed between 1972 and 1978. It was clear that the tendency to rely upon descriptive research still persisted during that time, since over $75\%$ of the studies employed descriptive methodology. However, the description was generally accompanied by analysis and efforts to understand situational dynamics, as well as attempts to explain phenomena rather than merely reporting status. The nature of leadership and leadership behavior were the primary concerns of the researchers (over $50\%$ Surveys of policies and procedures were next in popularity, at $25\%$ ,withemployee satisfaction receiving somewhat less attention.
A review of the dissertation list revealed again that the research design included use of management and leadership instruments borrowed from business and education, thus continuing a trend to strengthen the theoretical foundations of the research. Problems with research design persisted. Samples were generally small, apparently often based on convenience. Procedures most frequently involved the use of questionnaires, and typically results would not be generalizable.
The seven volumes of Completed Research in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1978-84 inclusive, yielded 122 studies deemed to be administrative or management oriented. Of these studies, 64 were doctoral level and 58 were master's level. The research design employed was almost totally descriptive in nature. Based on limited insight into the studies, it was determined that fewer than $10\%$ made use of other than“categorical' variables. Thomas and Nelson (1985, p. 17) referred to categorical variables as encompassing preexisting differences such as sex, race, age, or years of experience.
Graduate students and college/university faculty appeared to be fascinated with self-study, given that over $60\%$ of theses and dissertations utilized a university sample. The remaining $40\%$ of the studies were distributed between the public schools, recreation agencies, and outside agencies such as sport governing bodies.
From a slightly different point of view, it should be noted that the primary focus of over one third of the studies was on the leader or leadership position in the organization. Another third examined members of the organization, organizational structure, and organizational policies. The final third of the research examined a variety of other topics such as finance, marketing, the role of women, and legal liability.
Several key factors come to light as one reviews the research of the past 15 to 20 years. The post-1965 period saw a discernible change in the management/administration studies as researchers borrowed theories and instrumentation from allied social science fields. In general, basic design did not change and reliance on descriptive approaches persisted. A considerable segment of the research studies examined leadership roles and behaviors, and much of this research was directed toward post-secondary educational instructions. There appeared to be a parallel shift in the orientation of textbooks in the field as well. The more recent texts (post-1975) were clearly based more heavily upon management theory. Will these textbooks lead to improved research? Perhaps by 1995 we will have the perspective to answer this question.
Five research characteristics were suggested by Thomas and Nelson (1985, p. 3), outlining that research should be systematic, logical, empirical, reductive, and replicable. The review of the research included in this paper does not suggest that our work has been systematic. Rarely does one find a concentration of studies at one university that would appear to be part of an ongoing research program, or studies from separate programs that appear to be interrelated.
Due to the disparate pattern of sport management research, the studies as a group do not meet the criterion of reductiveness. It is difficult to discern the development of a general relationship based on individual events or data. Thus, if we were challenged to identify our body of knowledge, it would be difficult todevelopapictureofwhatweknow.
The amount of research relating to sport management is substantial. Scholars in the field appear tobe confrontedwith somemajorproblems,two ofwhich will bebriefly addressed here. One concerns the type of research whereas the second problemrelatesmore to thefocusof theresearch.
Administrators andmanagers tend to bepractical people.The day-to-day task of both personal and organizational survival requires such an orientation. Research and theory that will help solve problems, suggest directions,or address real concerns has appeal to them.The success of thePeters and Waterman (1982) book,InSearch ofExcellence,substantiates this statement.Thebookhassold well because it makes sense out of theoretical perspectives that have application in the real world of organizations.The research design was not tightbut it made sense!There may be a lesson for those of us in sport management:We do need tomaintain our theoretical base,butwe must make ourknowledge sensible and useful.
The second problem,focus of research, develops out of the newer directions our field seems to be pursuing,and job placement. Considerable attention hasbeen given to the questionofalternate careers,orcareers other than those in the educational systems. Our research has been heavily weighted toward education, higher education in particular. Future projections suggest that we must turn our attention to other areas such as professional and amateur sport organizations and the increasingly diverse organizations in private enterprise.
The concerns of these noneducational organizations may be different; finance, marketing, personnel, and programs may differ from our previous concerns. We may need new curricula and new texts, and our research may need a new direction. We face a significant challenge in the future.
|
AAHPERD (1978-1984). Completed research in health, physical education and recreation, Vols. 20-26. Arlington, VA: Author.
Applin, A. (1986). Sport management: Whose responsibility—Physical education or business?Presented at AAHPERD Convention, Cincinnati.
Chelladurai, P. (1985). Sport management: Macro perspectives. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.
Conant, J.B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw Hill.
Frost, R.B., & Marshall, S.J. (1977). Administration of physical education and athletics. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.
Hall, J.T., Cooper, J.M., Frost, R.B., Shenk, H., Warren, N., & Wiley, R.C. (1973). Administration: Principles, theory and practice. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hunsicker, P. (Ed.). (1973). Administrative theory and practice in athletics and physical education. Chicago: The Athletic Institute.
Jackson, J.J. (1981). Sport administration. Springfield, IL: C.C Thomas.
Jackson, J.J. (1984). Leisure and sports centre management. Springfield, IL: C.C Thomas.
Paris, R.H. (1983). A selected listing of doctoral dissertations in administrative theory and practice related to physical education and sport (1972-1978). In E.F. Zeigler & G.W. Bowie, Management competency development in sport and physical education (pp. 292-295). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Ulrich, D.0. (1979). Sport management as a potential cross discipline: A paradigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application.Quest, 31,264-276.
Paton, G.A. (1970). An analysis of administrative theory in selected graduate administration courses in physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Resick, M.C., Seidel, B.L., & Mason, J.G. (1979). Modern administrative practices in physical education and athletics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rockwood, L.R. (1980). Public parks and recreation administration behavior and dynamics. Salt Lake City: Brighton.
Spirduso, W.W. (1986). Current status of graduate education: Program demography and the issue of program ranking. Presented at AAHPERD Convention, Cincinnati.
Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1985). Introduction to research in health, physical education, recreation and dance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
VanderZwaag, H.J. (1984). Sport management. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Zeigler, E.F. (1959). Administration of physical education and athletics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zeigler, E.F. (1982). Decision-making in physical education and athletics administration: A case method approach. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Zeigler, E.F., & Bowie, G.W. (1983). Management competency development in sport and physical education. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Zeigler, E.F., & Spaeth, M.J. (1975). Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
---
|
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 Stan Brassie informed me, I was immediately overwhelmed with a rush of conflicting thoughts. My very initial reaction, “Me? Why me, when there are many qualified members so much more deserving than me? led to, "Oh my, am I that old?" which led finally to the realization: “"Oh my goodness, now I've got to give a speech! Well, here I am, flattered but a bit overwhelmed. I'm obviously greatly appreciative of the honor NASSM has bestowed upon me, especially given the great admiration I have for all of those recipients that have precededme.
And, of course, I must first thank Earle Zeigler, for whom this honor is so appropriately named. I am so very pleased that you are here this evening. Before I present my lecture, I'd like to share this special moment with some people who have largely defined my professional life for the past 15 or 20 years. I have had the great fortune to be partnered for more than 30 years with my wife, Lin, who, because of work conflicts, couldn't be here tonight. As my primary sounding board and editor, she will play a prominent role this evening, as always, even in her absence. Ihave also had the great pleasure of serving as the advisor to a wonderful group of Ph.D. students (21 to be exact!) who are all now productive members of faculties on four different continents. They have brought me so much joy and are a great source of pride. If I am to have any kind of legacy, it will be through their contributions. I'm pleased that several of these former students could be with me this evening.
I thought long and hard about tonight's presentation topic. In the end, I used two framing criteria. One, keep it short. When I heard someone mention that there was a 3-hour open bar prior to the banquet, I thought for all our sakes, something along the lines of the Gettysburg Address would be appropriate. And two, talk on a topic I know something about. That narrowed my options dramatically. So after seriously considering a few possibilities, I decided to focus on a topic I've spent a lot of time thinking and writing about: the current reality of professional sports in North America. In my judgment, the Golden Era is over. In fact, "big league” sports have been on the decline for years. The owners and managers of these organizations face a muchmore difficultfuture thanmostrealize or arewilling to admit. I'd like to talk about some of these issues and what they might mean to those of us charged with the responsibility of preparing the next generation of students to enter the sports industry.
I recognize that professional sports is just one facet of what is now estimated tobea $\$350$ billion managed sports industry (The Nation, 1998). But it is certainly, a prominent segment. I was surprised to find that 31% of the graduates from the Ohio State University Sport Management program are working in some capacity in professional sports. I believe that many of the issues I'll touch on transcend major league sports and are relevant to many collegiate and amateur sport organizationsaswell.
First,let me takeyou back abitactually, about four decades.I'd liketoput the current economic reality of professional sport into an historical context—-mine! When I was a young boy, my father took me to my first major sporting event. Alongwithmymom andolderbrother,wewenttoseetheSanFrancisco49ers at old Kezar Stadium, where the seagulls outnumbered paying spectators. In fact, I even saved the program——-it cost 25——-of that 1957 game between the 49ers and what was then the Chicago Cardinals.You can imagine my thrill at seeing heroes like Y.A. Tittle, Joe the Jet Perry, John Henry Johnson, and Hugh McElhenney. The media called them“The Million Dollar Backfield,”even though in fact, they werenotpaidnearly that much!I wonder whatthey'd beworthtoday.Sadly,no oneteamcould affordtohaveallfouroftheseHallofFamersontheirroster.
Using one of today's favorite expressions,mydadwouldsurelyhavesaid, "fo' gedda bout it' if faced with the choice of taking my mom, my brother, and I to a game in today's market. Table 1 shows the striking economic differences between the NFL of 1957 and 1997. In 1957, according to the National Football League Player's Association, the average player was paid $\$15,000$ perseason. In contrast, last season players on average made \$785,00o. With the new national television contract in which theNFLreceives \$17.6 billion from ABC,CBS, ESPN, and Fox over the next 8 years, salaries for the 1998 season are projected to exceed on average \$1 million. In 1957, the 49ers realized \$85,000 from a local broadcast agreement with KPIX and Falstaff Beer. Next year, their share from the NFL's new television dealwill be an estimated\$73million.
Table 1 The Changing Economics of the NFL
<html><body><table><tr><td>Variable</td><td>1957</td><td>1997</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$15,000</td><td>$785,000</td></tr><tr><td>Averageplayersalary TVrevenue</td><td>$85,000</td><td>$41,500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Start-upcosts</td><td>$250,000</td><td>$500,000,000</td></tr><tr><td>Cost tofamily of four (FCI)</td><td>$12.50</td><td>$257.00</td></tr></table></body></html>
Vic Morabito, the original owner of the 49ers, spent lavishly, reputedly investing \$250,000 to buy and outfit the team in the mid-1950s. You may have seen recently that the expansion fee alone for the new Cleveland Browns team is projected to reach \$500 million. That's just for the “privilege” of buying the team and doesn't include costs associated with players’ salaries and franchise operation costs. It cost my dad \$12.50 for the entire experience, including tickets and concessions for the entire family. There was no parking available! Contrast that with the 1997 Fan Cost Index (the FCI is published regularly by Team Marketing Report) which estimated that a family of four would have spent an average of \$257 last season for tickets, concessions, parking, and souvenirs to attend a 49ers game at 3 Com Park.
With all this television and gate revenue, you'd think the financial position of the 49ers would be solid. Unfortunately, this is far from reality. Their 1997 before-tax and depreciation profit margin on \$90 million in gross revenues was about 3%. 1 suspect their margins were better in 1957. You and I could do better with an individual passbook savings account.
The reality is that a lot of major league teams are currently losing money. Some facts to consider:
· Net income has steadily declined across all leagues; the average net earning in 1996-1997 was just $3\%$ 78% of the teams in Major League Baseball and 75% of the teams in the National Hockey League finished in the red in 1996-1997. Since 1993, Major League Baseball has lost money each year, usually between \$200 and \$300 million annually. The National Football League's profitability fell 30% in 1996-1997.
As these facts indicate, net income has steadily declined across all leagues with three fourths of major league baseball teams and 20 of 26 National Hockey League teams losing money or finishing in the red in 1996-1997 (Bernstein, 1998; McGraw, 1998). Even the league with the deepest pockets, the NFL, saw a serious plunge in profits last season (Badenhausen & Nikolov, 1997).
Bringing it down to the micro or team level, the Cleveland Indians are a troubling example of just how hard it is for even the most successful teams to make money in the current economic environment. Since the opening of Jacobs Field, the Cleveland Indians have been one of the most successful teams in all of professional sport. Over the last two seasons, they have pre-sold over 3 million tickets, in contrast to most major league clubs, which struggled to sell 50% of their inventory.Yet the teamclaimed,ina recentSecuritiesExchange Commission filing,that only their successful appearance in the post-season playoffs allowed them toturn amodest profit.
Excerptsfrom aprospectusfiledbytheClevelandIndianswiththeSECto offer $\$73.6$ million public stock sale, stated:
Managementbelieves that theIndians’local revenuepotentialhas already been realized, and that future increases in net income, in any, are likely to be substantiallyless than in the past fiveyears.
Without the contribution of postseason playoff revenues, the team would not have produced a profit in 1997.
How can it be that one of the most successful teams in sport is struggling to make a profit? The answer is obvious. The salary structure of major league sport has long been out of control. Costs are growing more rapidly than revenues. Over the last 5years,player salarieshaveincreased $123\%$ across allfourmajor professional leagues (Badenhausen & Nikolov, 1997).
Speaking on the need for restructuring the current labor agreement with NBA players,Russ Granik,Deputy Commissioner of theNBA,commented,"Wehave an economic system we thinkis out of whack."That the economics of professional sport leagues are out of whack comes as no revelation to most of those who own and (or) operate individual franchises. Owners keep shooting themselves in the foot. After all, ultimately they are responsible for paying the players’ salaries. Some owners, like Jerry Reinsdorf of the Chicago Bulls (NBA) and White Sox (MLB), express their disgust at the current situation.Ironically,Reinsdorf is the owner whoispayingAlbertBelle $\$10$ millionperseasontoplayforhisWhiteSox.Teams are engaged in a protracted arms race. Those with more, spend more, driving labor costs ever-upward. The ante gets larger and larger. The leagues have tried to impose salary constraints, but the NFL and NBA salary caps are so ineffectual, one could argue that they aggravate, rather than impede, salary inflation.
In paying ballplayers, we are at the mercy of our dumbest competitor.
—Jerry Reinsdorf, Chairman, Chicago White Sox and Bulls
With salaries continuing to spin out of control, most owners have responded by frantically scrambling to find new revenues. In 1988, William Davidson showed the way.Davidson,owner of theDetroit Pistons of the NBA,built thePalace at Auburn Hills. Into this new state-of-the-art arena, Davidson stuffed 180 luxury suites,whichhewas abletopre-sell,generating $\$18$ millioninannualrevenues. He was the first to demonstrate the tremendous income-generating capability of "fully loaded" sports venues. Davidson started what I call the palace revolt. Seeing the tremendous success of thePistons new arena, every owner wanted his or her own cash machine. The result has been an unprecedented building boom in the
1990s. Since 1990, 124 sport stadiums and arenas have been built or renovated. Total spending for specialized sport venues in this decade is projected to exceed \$16 billion. What makes this figure so impressive is that combined spending on sports facilities over the previous two decades amounted to $\$3$ billion.In 1998 alone, $\$2$ billion will be spent on sport facility construction, more than was spent during the entire decade of the 1980s.
After an exuberant run of sweetheart stadium deals, public taxpayers? enthusiasm for underwriting the cost of these expensive new sport edifices has waned considerably in recent years. In the 1970s and 1980s, taxpayers paid $90\%$ oftheconstruction costs, but in 1994 and 1995, the public's contribution dropped to an all-time lowof $46\%$ Voter resistance to publicly financing new arenas and stadiums has grown fierce. Just ask stadium proponents in Columbus (Ohio), Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, the Triad (Greensboro) area of North Carolina, and most recently, Birmingham (Alabama). Referenda failed in each of these areas within the last 12 months. In each of these cities, voters resoundingly defeated propositions to finance new sports facilities with tax dollars.
There's no sound argument for the construction of publicly funded sports stadiums. Period. End of story. You can look it up.
From the June 16, 1997, editorial in the Toronto Globe & Mail
Voter resistance comes as no surprise. In the past several years, researchers have provided overwhelming evidence that these major sports projects do not provide substantial economic benefits (Rosentraub, 1997). Economists Roger Noll and Andrew Zimbalist (1997) claim the economic return of professional sports teams to be equivalent to a large supermarket in terms of job creation and payroll effects—-hardly the engines driving local community development proponents would have us believe. As the above remark suggests, the media has certainly taken up this drumbeat.
As a result of taxpayer resistance, teams and their owners have been forced to dig much deeper into their own pockets to finance new sports facilities-—-to the tune of about $\$120$ million on average for projects recently completed or underway. The San Francisco Giants borrowed $\$160$ million from a bank to build their new Pac Bell Ballpark. Abe Pollin, owner of the Washington Wizards, owes $\$200$ million on his new MCI Center Arena. Even where there is public financing involved (as is the case in Dallas, for a new $\$240$ million arena), the team's share can still be very substantial (in this case, $\$100$ million).
The results of this dramatic shift to team or private financing has created serious repercussions that the sport industry has not yet faced up to. Let's look at three of thesevery troubling consequences.
As Michael Ozanian (1997) noted in Forbes magazine,“All 12 teams that have borrowed heavily tofinancenewvenues havedebt-to-worthlevelsof over $70\%$ ；8 inexcessof $100\%$ :...The incremental income from new arenas for hockey and basketball is almost laughable." Over the past 2 years, almost every team that has borrowed to finance the construction of a new facility is awash in debt. In fact, three fourths of these franchises now owe more than they are worth! While owners built them to be cash cows, they have proven in most cases to throw off modest amounts of “incremental income,” the amount of money a new venue generates after debt expenses. Ozanian (1997) estimates that a new arena for basketball and hockeywillatmostgenerateadditionalincomesof $\$5.4$ million and $\$7.7$ million, respectively. The debt service owed by the teams is so expensive, there is simply not much left over. In the context of today's salaries, an additional $\$5-7$ million per year—about one fourth of the annual salary of the Minnesota Timberwolves' Kevin Garnett and about one third of the annual salary of the Colorado Avalanche's Joe Sackic-is not going to buy much.
The teams that build new facilities are“hocked to the gills,”"as CNBC's Don Dahler described the San Francisco Giants (who have recently taken on $\$160$ million in debt to construct their new Pac Bell Park), is a growing concern. Of the 24 venueprojects currentlyunderwayor ontheboards,17will requiretheteamswho occupythemtoassumeanaverageof $\$100$ millionin debt.It is conceivablethat by the year 2000, as many as 32 teams—approximately one third of all major league franchises--will be in debt over $50\%$ of their actual value.Does this highly leveraged situation mean we will see many teams declaring bankruptcy in the near future? Probably not, but it does mean that teams will be under unrelenting pressure toraiserevenues toservice theirmassivedebt.As a consequence,fans and those corporations whousesport tofurther their businessinterests willbe asked to spend ever more in order to enjoy access to their favorite teams. (The implications of teams increasing dependence on fans and companies’ willingness to spend more to view and (or) attend major league sports will be discussed later.)
As an increasing number of teams have borrowed in order to finance new sports venues, they have come to rely on the sale or lease of luxury suites as the primary source of income to pay off their debt obligations. The money received from leasing luxury suites has been increasingly used as the primary security on construction financing. Their reliance on suite sales should come as no surprise. Dan Funk (1997) found that premium seating in sports venues in the U.S. and Canada generatescloseto $\$1$ billion annually. However, while most of these suites are leased for 3-, 5-, and 7-year periods, the loans they secure extend for periods of 20-30 years. The math is pretty simple: Some suites will have to be “resold" 10 times to cover theextendeddebtobligation.
This situationraises someserious what-ifquestions.Severalpossible scenarios exist, and a team could face any one or a combination of them.First, growingevidencesuggeststhatanincreasingnumberofmarketshavemoresuites available than can be sustained by demand. The primary purchasers of suites are corporations, and there is serious concern as to whether the corporate community is big enough and motivated enough to gobble up all the suites in several areas. Suite sales have been very sluggish in Buffalo, South Florida, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Montreal, just to cite a few.
In Table 2, I compare the number of “prime corporate prospects"” in selected markets against the number of suites built or proposed. After talking with suite directors at a number of venues, Iused companies with \$100 million in annual earnings as a threshold for determining prime corporate suite holders. This seemed to be the best single criterion for qualifying those companies most likely to lease luxury suites based on current purchase patterns. In each of the markets I examined, there are substantially fewer prime prospects than available suites. For example, my suite-corporation ratio indicates there are almost twice as many suites as prospective tenants in the Baltimore-D.C. area. It appears we are on very tenuous ground here; there should be lots of very nervous investment bankers, bond holders, and team owners out there. In addition, when we take into account reports that teams facing their first generation of suite renewals are struggling to convince current suite holders to recommit, we find ourselves edging closer and closer to the abyss.
According to Team Marketing Report, “Ticket prices for teams that moved to new venues since 1990 have increased by 34% on average the year following the move. . . . When the Washington Wizards moved into the MCI Center in 1998, the average ticket price jumped to $\$51.63$ ,a $42\%$ increase over the previous season.' Corporations are not the only ones paying the freight for these new facilities. Individual consumers (i.e., fans) have been required to pay substantially more. In some venues, though, teams appear to be squeezing fans too hard. The Buffalo Sabres are struggling to fil seats in just the second season of residence in the MarineMidland Arena. The MCI Center has seen dwindling crowds in just the first year of operation. It is apparent that teams can't simply count on the novelty factor to fill seats any more.
Table 2 Luxury Suites: At the Brink
<html><body><table><tr><td>Market</td><td>Suites</td><td>Corporations with$100M+ sales*</td><td>Suites: Corporations</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baltimore/Washington,D.C.</td><td>524</td><td>274</td><td>1.91</td></tr><tr><td>Miami SanFranciscoBayArea</td><td>337 499</td><td>192 354</td><td>1.76 1.41</td></tr><tr><td>Seattle</td><td>194</td><td>158</td><td>1.23</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table></body></html>
Table 3 Cost of Attending Rising Two to Four Times Faster Than CPI
<html><body><table><tr><td>League</td><td>1991</td><td>1997</td><td>%change</td><td>Projectedfor 2003</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$77.41</td><td>$106.44</td><td>+37.5%</td><td>$146.36</td></tr><tr><td>MLB NBA</td><td>$138.82</td><td>$214.28</td><td>+56.3%</td><td>$296.93</td></tr><tr><td>NFL</td><td>$152.55</td><td>$222.45</td><td>+46.3%</td><td>$285.57</td></tr><tr><td>NHL</td><td>$132.62</td><td>$228.97</td><td>+77.0%</td><td>$367.22</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></table></body></html>
Note.From1991to1997,theConsumerPriceIndexrose $18.6\%$ intheU.S.Thesefigures are based on the Fan Cost Index as calculated by TMR to represent the average cost for a family of four attending a major league game.
Therehasbeenasteadyandsubstantialincreaseinthecostofattendance across all leagues (see Table 3). Using the Fan Cost Index (created by Team Marketing Report) that estimates the average cost for a hypothetical family of four, I compared the four major professional leagues over a 6-year period. All of the price figures are adjusted to 1995 dollars to allow for “apples to apples" comparisons. I then compared the changes from1991 to1997against the ConsumerPriceIndex forthatperiod.Theresultsshowthatthepriceofattendancehasrisentwotofour times the magnitude of the rate of inflation. The National Hockey League leads the way, with a $77\%$ price increase over the 6-year period. A recent report indicated that the cost this season for a family offour to attend anNBA $(\$214.28)$ , NFL $(\$222.45)$ ，or NHL $(\$228.97)$ gameamounted to about $30\%$ of an average household's weekly earnings (McGraw, 1998). You can see from my straight-line extrapolations through 2003that projected fan costswill be truly stratospheric. The projected cost of attendance for that mythical family of four, ranging from $\$146.36$ (MLB) to $\$367.22$ (NHL), places me in the same frame of mind as my father, and I can imagine myself saying, “fo' gedda bout it!"
Even the owner of theWashingtonWizards,Abe Pollin,is embarrassed by whathe charges fans athisMCI Center-on average almost $\$52$ aticket.Ina Washington Post story in 1997, Pollin admitted,“It bothers me enormously that no longer can a family of four see a game . . . tickets are too expensive." But he also hasa $\$200$ million loan on his new arena to pay off.
It is clear that attending a live major league sport experience is now beyond the reach of a vast majority of the general population. According to a recent report by the Sports Marketing Group, 9 of 10 Americans say ticket prices are so high that it is difficult for them to attend a professional sporting event.
Itisnotsurprising,then,tofinddatathatdocumentstheincreasinglynarrow demographics of those attending big-league games. Growing empirical evidence andopinionindicatesthatmiddle-incomeandblue-collarfans,thetraditionalbedrockconsumersofprofessional sports,havebeenpushedoutofstadiums andarenas and replaced by more affluent spectators. Roger Angell, columnist for The New Yorker, recently proclaimed that “going to a ball game is becoming a perk of the new rich" (p. 9). Angell's claim is given credence by a recent report indicating that the household income of Washington, D.C.-area residents attending Baltimore Orioles games averaged $\$87,500$ (Fehr, 1997). According to the most recent census data, the average household income of those residing in the Baltimore-D.C. area is around \$53,000. The most compelling evidence, however, for the gentrification of big league sport fans is found in an article that appeared recently in American Demographics (1996). The study reported by Shannon Dortch found that adults with household incomes of $\$75,000$ and abovewere $72\%$ more likely than average wage earners to attend Major League Baseball games. As we've seen, baseball is by far the biggest bargain of all professionalsports.
Clearly, the changing demographic composition of professional sport attendance is being dramatically influenced by the increasing number of tickets purchased by corporations for their customers and employers. While it is difficult to get an exact reading on the proportion of those attending games with tickets furnished by corporations, estimates provided in the popular press commonly fall in a range of 50 to $80\%$ , particularly for NBA and NHL games (Burke, 1997). I hesitate to refer to these corporate spectators as fans, because it is problematic to assume they bring the same level of emotional commitment or loyalty to a game as consumers who pay out of their own pockets. In fact, the no-show or “drop-rate" is becoming a serious problem at many venues around the country. The Charlotte Observer recently reported that the NBA Charlotte Hornets suffering one no-show for every four tickets sold!
Although there is no empirical evidence, I believe columnist Glenn Dickey (1997) was on to something when he wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle, "Youngsters grow up with little or no experience of actually going to a game. If not playing video games, they grow up watching sports on TV. . .. When they become young adults, they head to the sports bars. For many in this generation, their idea of fun is going to a sports bar and watching the game with friends." We should pay attention to his assertion that we are in jeopardy of losing an entire generation to video or virtual representations of sport. With many young people denied the opportunity to attend the “real thing” and their exposure strictly limited to electronic consumption, Dickey speculates that the primary social arena for young adults spectators will move from the living room to the sports bar.
Dickey's scenario actually seems optimistic. At least his prediction still has young people watching sport. If the price of live attendance continues to place professional sports beyond the means of the vast majority of the young (and old), it is certainly possible that they will be attracted to an increasing array of entertainment options that have nothing to do with sport.
When such a narrow segment of the market (according to the latest U.s. Census data,only $13.6\%$ of the households in the U.S.have incomes in excess of $\$75,000$ can afford to attend professional sporting events on a regular basis, it is not surprising to find a substantial number of teams? revenues slipping at the gate. During the 1997-1998 season, $61.1\%$ of teams in the NBA and NHL (where ticket prices averageabout $\$40$ )reported flat or decliningattendancecompared to theprevious season (Sport Business Daily, 1998).
I am particularly concerned about the NHL. Even some of the league's most venerable franchises, including Montreal, Boston, and Chicago, have struggled recently at the gate. The Buffalo Sabres, even though playing in a new arena (the 2-year-old Marine-Midland Arena) and advancing to the Stanley Cup playoffs, suffered a $14\%$ attendance loss this past season, selling only $74\%$ of their seating inventory. This is a disturbing situation given the fact the NHL depends on gate receiptsfor almost $61\%$ of its gross revenues (Badenhausen & Nikolov, 1997). This past season national television ratings, never high to begin with, dropped by double digits (Bernstein, 1998). With the league's national TV deals up for renewal at the end of next season, there is real concern that Fox and ESPN will terminate their relationships with the NHL. The loss of exposure would be more damaging than the approximately $\$47$ million per year the league would lose in rights fees.
It is important to point out that the NHL is not the only league suffering from a loss of viewers. Network ratings for all major professional leagues have been declining for the past decade with the MLB down $30\%$ ,theNBA, $14\%$ ,andthe NFL, $22\%$ . There is a double whammy effect here, with consumer interest dissipating for both live and televised offerings of major league sports. Dan McGraw (1998), in his recent appraisal of big league sports, concluded that the greatest danger facing professional sports was fan “apathy."' As part of his evidence for this assertion, he cited a 1998 Los Angeles Times poll in which $59\%$ of the respondents did not consider an NFL team in the LA-area important to them.
It appears obvious that there are some very tough issues ahead for the students we are preparing for entry into professional sport. Some of the key challenges they must addressinclude:
°Bringing the cost structure of professional sport under some kind of control.
° Preserving affordable opportunities for middle and lower income fans to experience major league sporting events.
Sustaining corporate investment in luxury seating opportunities in an increasingly crowded and competitive marketplace.
Finding the right answers to these questions may determine the fate of professional sports, at least the economic vitality of major sports leagues, in the next millenium. It is clear that we cannot simply perpetuate the status quo. My hope is that we are seeding the industry with a new generation of managers who will recognize and be reactive to——-better yet, proactive to—the serious problems facing major league sports in the U.S. and Canada. As educators, we face an exciting and daunting challenge.
Although the “Big Four'’ of major league sport face a number of troubling issues, it is important to place my remarks about the current state of professional sport into a broader context. To dwell on the economic difficulties of big-league teams would provide a very distorted view of the overall status of professional sports. In fact, professional sport leagues at the “minor league" level are generally thriving.
Figure 1 illustrates the current state of several major and minor sports leagues on a product life cycle continuum. The product life cycle concept is one of the most familiar in marketing. The concept is based on the notion that companies or specific products, like people, evolve through a development cycle. From birth to death, the cycle is generally divided into five stages that may be broadly described as a period of ascending (where the rate of growth accelerates), a period of maturity (where the rate of growth begins to dissipate), and a period of decline. The life cycle has been used as a way of determining the stages of a company's acceptance (according to consumer demand) from its introduction to its inevitable decline.
Not surprisingly, the Big Four leagues are nestled on the maturity-decline side of the slope, as their rate of growth across the board has been flat or declining. It is interesting to note that through the first half of the current season, Major League Baseball attendance has not improved perceptibly (to date) over the 1997 season. In fact, in the American League, 8 of 14 teams have declined or shown no improvement in gate receipts from last season, with overall league attendance down $1\%$ (Sporting News Daily, July 13, 1998).
Figure 1 - Where the Action Is and Will Be
However, when we examine the so-called “"secondary” or minor leagues, a much different picture emerges. I have placed two of the new women's sports leagues on the PLC continuum. As they enter their second seasons, it appears that the Women's National Basketball League (WNBA) is poised to explode. Preseason ticket sales for new WNBA franchises in Detroit and Washington have been particularly impressive and suggest that this new summer league will continue a rapid rate of growth through its sophomore season.
While also in its embryonic stage of development,the Women's Pro Fastpitch (WPF) league is entering its second season with a great deal of positive momentum. Although its presence has been mostly confined to the southern region of the U.S., the league recently entered into a broadcast agreement with ESPN2 that promises to greatly expand WPF's national exposure. The WPF plans to expand from its current 6 teams to a coast-to-coast 18-franchise league by 2002. While it is difficult to imagine the WPF ever supplanting one of the major leagues in mass popularity, it appears that women's professional softball is finding a comfortable niche in the marketplace and has a promising future.
Minor leagues across a number of sports are thriving. Minor league baseball has enjoyed sustained growth in the 1990s. In 1992, 168 minor league ball clubs drew 27 million fans. By 1997, attendance had reached 34.7 million, an increase of almost $29\%$ in just 5 years. Perhaps the most surprising development of the decade has been the explosive growth of minor league hockey. While its roots are in the Great North, hockey's future appears to be in the Deep South and Southwestern U.S. Minor league hockey teams are now successfully established in places like Waco, Texas, and Jacksonville, Florida. Such developments would have been almost unthinkable even 10 years ago. The East Coast Hockey League (ECHL), for example, has grown from 5 to 29 teams in just 9 years. Over the past four seasons, ECHL attendance has more than doubled, topping 4.7 million in 1997- 1998.
McGraw (1998) suggests that the ascendance of minor league sports may be a function of fans “shifting their allegiance away from big-money sports" (p. 46). In minor league sports, fans have found a “fan friendly,”’ low-cost alternative to the wallet-emptying major league experience. This point was made convincingly in a recent cost comparison of the Washington, D.C.-area's two professional hockey teams. Writing in the Washington Times, Tom Knott (1998) concluded that a night out at an ECHL Icebreaker's game cost $\$156.34$ less than attending an NHL Cap's game at the MCI Center, “but was not $\$156.35$ less pleasurable' (p. 3).
To me, the fun, excitement, and greatest opportunity exists at the minor league level for our students interested in pursuing careers in professional sport. The upside is tremendous. According to the 1997 edition of The Sport Market Place, there are almost 800 professional sports teams in the U.S. and Canada. By the year 2000 and accounting for the announced expansion plans for the five preeminent leagues (which include Major League Soccer), the number of major league teams willtotal131.
The real explosive growth, however, has occurred and will continue to occur at the “secondary" league level. There are already more than six minor league teams for every one major league franchise. The gap will become even greater over the next few years. In 1998-1999, in addition to planned expansion across almost all existing minor league sports (e.g., two new teams will be added to the WNBA, two new teams will join the ECBL), at least four new leagues are planning to begin play by late-1999 or early-2000. If the International Basketball League, the National Rookie League, and the Collegiate Professional Basketball League all come on line as planned, as many as 22 new “minor league basketball franchises will be added to the professional sports club inventory. In addition, there is a good chance that NBC and TBS will combine resources to launch a new 10-to 12-franchise football league in the spring of 2000. Although it is unlikely that all of these new enterprises will survive the furiously competitive entertainment mar-- ketplace, the overall prospects for so-called secondary sports looks very promising.
I expect the reason I'm so bullish about the future of minor league sports is that the experience of attending a minor league game today most closely resembles that wonderful first game impression I had as a child attending a 49ers game in the late-1950s. You can still buy a program for two bits at some minor league ballparks!
While I sometimes yearn for that simpler and, in my mind at least, bucolic era, when pro football was just emerging from baseball's shadow and the NHL was still mostly Canadian, I have to admit that I'm more excited about the many daunting challenges facing professional sports in the U.S. and Canada today. Along with these many challenges facing the industry come an infinite number of exciting opportunities for those entering this segment of the industry. Never has there been so many opportunities for the next generation of managers, and never has there been so much potential for them to make such a difference. Sustaining, or perhaps more correctly, resurrecting, the economic viability of big league sports will occur only if (a) player costs can be brought under reasonable control, (b) corporate investment in sport properties can be maintained and extended, and (c) access once againbecomes inclusive of middle-and lower-incomefans.While resolving the many serious issues facing major sport leagues will preoccupy many of our graduates into the next millenium, substantially more of this next generation will assume key roles in sustaining the vibrant, often entrepreneurial growth of secondary sports leagues.
|
Angell, R. (1998, June 17). Comment: Rudy awakening. The New Yorker, pp. 8-9.
Badenhausen, K., & Nikolov, C. (1997, June 17). More than a game. Financial World, 166, 40-50.
Bernstein, A. (1998, June 22-28). The NBL's troubles: Blip or trend? Sports Business Journal,1(9),1,10.
Burke, B. (1997, September 22-23). Major league roundtable. Bond Buyer 2nd Annual Stadium and Arena Finance Conference, Chicago, IL.
Dortch, S. (1996,April). The future of baseball. American Demographics, 18(4), 22-28, 57.
Fehr, S. (1997, October 31). Pricey new sports venues help make Washington No. 1 for high-cost tickets. Washington Post, pp. C1, C5.
Funk, D.(1997, May 28-31). Economics of professional sport franchises: The role of luxury suites andclubseats intheconstructionof sport stadiums andarenas inNorthAmerica. Paper presented at the 12th Annual North American Society for Sport Management Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Knott, T. (1998, March 3). Capping out? Washington Times, p. 3.
McGraw, D. (1998, July 13). Big league troubles. U.S. News & World Report, 125, 40-46.
Noll, R.G., & Zimbalist, A. (Eds., 1997). Sport, jobs, & taxes: The economic impact of sports teams and stadiums. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ozanian, M. (1997, December 15). Fields of debt. Forbes, 160(13), 174-175.
Rosentraub, M. (1997). Major league losers: The real cost of sports and who's paying for it. NewYork:BasicBooks.
The Sports Business Daily. (1998, April 22). Turnstile tracker: Final NHL regular season attendance.South Norwalk, CT.
The Sports Business Daily. (1998, April 23). Turnstile tracker: Final regular season NBA attendance.South Norwalk,CT.
Why sports? (1998, August 10-17). The Nation, 267, 3, 21.
---
|
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 strategy in sport. This paper will examine the theoretical underpinnings, recent cases of engagement in the strategy, regulation of vertical integration, and contemporary tactics employed by corporations in the sport and entertainment industry to successfully implement vertical integration. Vertical integration has been defined as a strategy by which growth occurs through the acquisition of other entities in the channel of distribution. It is, in essence, a diversification tactic. The intent is to gain control over production and distribution in an effort to maximize profits with greater efficiency (Cerato & Peter, 1991). Mintzberg's (1989) “Mintzberg on Management’ portrayed vertical integration as outdated and relegated it to the “great merger movement of the 1960s" (p. 153). Mintzberg and Quinn (1998) questioned the appropriateness of vertical integration in the downsizing and outsourcing economy of the late 1990s, yet other authors contend that the success of vertical integration as a strategy depends more on the maturity of the industry than prevailing strategic thought (Cerato & Peter, 1991; Harrigan, 1983).
Traditionally, vertical integration has been defined as a strategy wherein a corporation extends its scope of operations either backward toward suppliers or forward toward retailers and consumers (Megginson, Mosley, & Pietri, 1991). Risks of vertical integration exist in both cases. In backward vertical integration, a company is exposed to increased risks as capital investment demands typically increase. This is clearly visible in sport where integrating backward exposes the firm to the continued escalation in player salaries. The risks of forward integration exist through fluctuations in consumer demand. If demand falters, producers are left with inventory that no one wants. Thus far in sport, consumer demand has continued to rise, although in some sports, spectator attendance has declined.
The benefits of vertical integration include cost savings realized through a reduction of redundant services and personnel (Harrigan, 1983). Disney provides the best example of this advantage. With ownership of the Anaheim Angels and the Mighty Ducks, Disney personnel can provide services to both operations at critical times during their respective seasons. While some season overlap is unavoidable, the winter-summer dichotomy does provide economies of labor for
Disney. In addition, Anaheim Sport recently sequestered Cheryl Lumpkin from Disney's corporate personnel office to assist with staffing needs for Anaheim sport operations.
One of the drawbacks of vertical integration is that some business units of the integrated corporation resent having to purchase from mandated suppliers (Harrigan, 1983). This was one of the key elements that prompted Disney Sport to change its name to Anaheim Sport. Under the Disney moniker, the purchase and supplier requirements were deemed by management to be too restrictive.
In 1995, when Disney acquired Capital Cities/ABC, it consolidated its cable, pay TV, and Buena Vista Television production operations under Capital Cities/ ABC management. This demonstrates the efficiencies that were gained through the acquisition (Littleton, 1996). Disney CEO Michael Eisner commented that "these changes will bring a more logical alignment of our production and distribution capabilities and take full advantage of our strong management depth" (p. 33).
Primary players in the vertical integration game (Disney, News Corp., and Time-Warner) are essentially distribution entities for an array of sport program content. Every distributor knows that the supply of product and material is critical to success in any industry. Backward vertical integration is performed, in part, to assure sources of supply. It presents a classic “make vs. buy” dilemma. The sport industry, as segmented by Pitts, Fielding, and Miller (1994) introduces three ingredients: sport production, sport performance, and sport promotion. Disney, News Corp., and Time-Warner operate primarily in the performance and promotion segments of sport. Yet, if we take a broader view of the industry and envision these companies operating in an industry called sport and entertainment, they may actually participate in production, distribution, and retail sales of properties in the industry.
Considerable debate over the scope of an industry and applicable SIC codes may materialize. However, Fahey and Randal (1994, p. 176) suggest that “industries should be defined by companies that share customers or technologies." The important point is that many sport and entertainment businesses are linked and, thus, share attributes that eventually affect the profitability of the parent corporation. The most important link is the sport programming component. Disney CEO Michael Eisner commented that “we are a content company,”’ thus, without content, the company has no product to distribute or sell (Rose, 1998, p. 273). Disney's former head of television said,μ“you can work the content, which is like a rolling stone covered with Velcro that picks up dollars as it rolls through the distribution chain" (Reeve, 1998, p. 18). The following is a partial listing of the sport and entertainment properties owned or controlled by Disney:
·A&E Network (minority position)
·ABC Sports
·ABCTelevision
·Anaheim Angels (MLB)
Buena Vista Pictures
Disney Channel (43 million households)
·Disney's Wide World of Sport E! Entertainment (minority position, reaching $24\%$ of all US households) ESPN (75 million households) ESPN2 (61 million households) ESPN Classic (15 million households) ESPN International (150 million households, 20 languages) ESPNEWS (10 million households)
? History Channel (minority position)
? Hollywood Records Lifetime Television $(50\%)$ Lyric Street Records Mammoth Records Mighty Ducks of Anaheim (NHL) Miramax (film) Ownership of 10 Broadcast Stations
Rupert Murdock acknowledged that much of News Corp.'s success was attributable to the formation of a “ vertically integrated global media company."' He also stated that “it is true that Disney and ABC form an immense and powerful vertically integrated company," but he added, “"we built the prototype” (Reeve, 1998, p. 18). Central to the issue of content is television programming. According to Peers (1997, p. 40), “"programming is the only strong growth business in the entertainmentindustry."
Murdock's attempt to purchase England's Manchester United soccer team (through subsidiary BSkyB) for 627 million pounds $(\$1.05$ billion U.S. dollars) was centered on “providing content for his media empire” (Reeve, 1998, p. 18). News Corp.'s attempt to purchase the team was eventually thwarted by the Monopolies and Merger Commission as anticompetitive (Stuart, 1999a). However, the Manchester United deal is not the only source for content. Murdock was also able to negotiate a deal in early 1999 with Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI) through their joint Fox/Liberty Networks to buy $40\%$ of Cablevision's sport assets (multiple regional Fox Sport stations, the Madison Square Garden Network, and $40\%$ of the Knicks and Rangers) for $\$850$ million to add to the regional coverage for Fox Sports Network (Brockinton & Rofe, 1999; New sports network, 1999).
Higgins (1998) noted late last year that when the Madison Square Garden Network's TV package with the Yankees expires at the end of the current baseball season, "it would be cheaper for Cablevision to buy the team than face continuing rights escalation" (Higgins, 1998, p. 10). Industry analysts had valued the team at around $\$500$ million and with rights fees for 1999 at $\$55$ million, a long term contract renewal would easily eclipse the price of the team. The final transaction was shelved because of Steinbrenner's demand for total control of the team and management authority of other MSG properties (Rangers and Knicks). Examples of this phenomenon are extensive. News Corporation has ownership or partial control of the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Los Angeles Kings, and interest in other professional franchises, as well as dominance in international media inventory (20th Century Fox studios & production, FOX Network, FOX Sports, BSkyB, Asia's StarNetwork, Seven Network). It has been estimated that Murdock's internationalsatellitenetworksserve $66\%$ of global households with TVs (Carter, 1998; Kaplan & Mullen, 1998; Wertheim, 1998).
Australia's Seven Network was able to secure rights to the 2000 Sydney Games and last year added the 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008 Olympic Games at a price reported to be $\$187$ million (Australian). In addition, he attempted to purchase controlling interest in France's Canal Plus, but the deal never materialized. He was, however, successful in securing $35\%$ of Telecom Italia's Stream (digital TV operator), which included partial ownership of four major soccer clubs. In Germany, Murdock just purchased $66\%$ of a small TV station (TM3) then purchased the German rights for the UEFA's Champions (soccer) League for $\$109$ million as programming for TM3 (Stuart, 1999b). According to Reed (1998, p. 179),“it seems certain that European soccer is headed the way of US professional sports, where lots of franchises are now in the hands of big corporations, most of them in the entertainment business."
The Manchester United tactic also was predicated, in part, to allow Murdock to sit at both sides of the negotiating table. As the current rights holder for the league, BSkyB (Murdock) would be looking to extend their contractual rights to televise Premier League matches. Yet, as the primary shareholder of Manchester United, Murdock would alsobe entitled to a seat on the League side of the negotiations (Reeve, 1998). Ownership of the team would provide access to the team's players, team highlights, videos, and international pay TV around the globe, as well. Manchester United is, perhaps, the most popular sports team in the world, and Murdock's publishing arm, Harper-Collins, would be sure to profit handsomely.
Murdock'spurchase of theLosAngelesDodgers $\$311$ million,whichincluded Dodger Stadium and the surrounding land) and LibertyMedia( $\$1.4$ billion) provided the same benefits. Through these acquisitions, Murdock gained both product (sport programming) and distribution (shares in Madison Square Garden Network and control over several regional sport channels; Brockinton & Rofe, 1999). This appears to mirror Disney's move to develop sport properties (Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Anaheim Angels), sport facilities (The Arrowhead Pond and Disney's Wide World of Sports), and media outlets (ESPN, ESPN2, ABC Sports; Carter,1998; Ostrowski,1998).
Disney'spurchaseof $43\%$ of Infoseek in 1998 and ultimate creation of their own Internet portal (GO.com) also provides Disney with the capacity to promote their properties across the spectrum of telecommunication. If you doubt that this is happening, just tune into ABC or ESPN or visit any Web site currently under Disney control and view the multiplicity of links between their holdings. In early 1998, Disney emailed previous customers about an upcoming Beanie Baby offer and sold out in four hours (Rose, 1998). News Corp. and Time-Warner were reportedly searchingforWeb-based properties.
Time-Warner's arsenal includes the venerable Warner Brothers studios, the WB Network, HBO, and Turner's media holdings (CNN, WTBS, TNT). The sport properties comprise the MLB Atlanta Braves,NBA Atlanta Hawks,NHL Atlanta Thrashers (1999), and Sports Illustrated (Miller, 1999). Turner was adamant with other MLB owners that Murdock's purchase of the Dodgers be blocked. His arguments failed, as the purchase was approved 27-2 (Bart, 1998; Stroud, 1998).
The U.S. courts always have had an interest in reviewing vertical integration in light of the anticompetitive schemes that occurred in the 1920s. Morse (1998) noted that while the U.S. government issued guidelines on vertical mergers in the 1980s, the revised guidelines of 1992 and 1997 fail to provide direction to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission on vertical integration. Consequently, few recent courts cases have been heard on this topic. The most recent Supreme Court case on vertical integration is over 25 years old; however, high profile hearings such as those involving giant corporations like Microsoft have resulted in a rise in the collection of fines from $\$26.8$ millionin1996toover $\$1$ billion already in 1999 (Antitrust gurus, 1999).
The Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged the proposed 1994 merger between Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) and Liberty Cable on the grounds that the vertical merger would result in the ability of TCI to restrict competition for programming. This test would fail if applied to the situations subject to review in this paper. The sport programming involved is part of arrangements through various sport leagues; therefore, other carriers have ample opportunity to purchase and air similar programming. In fact, ESPN (Disney), WTBS (the Time Warner-owned Turner Superstation), and Fox Sport (Murdock's News Corp.) are available to over 75 million households. Therefore, competition clearly exists, and program access has not been restricted by vertical integration. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also intervened in Time-Warner's purchase of Turner Networks because TCI held $7.5\%$ of Turner stock. The FTC required TCI to divest itself of that stock to prevent possible collusion.Additionally, the FTC ordered the dissolution of a 20-year contract that required TCI to carry Turner networks. Lastly, the FTC prohibited Time Warner from bundling“marquee” channels with less desirable programming that could coerce cable carriers into accepting unwanted programming.
The lack of action of the DOJ and the FTC seems grounded in the fact that these vertical mergers do not raise prices to consumers. Rather, the net effect has been that consumers havebenefited from reduced costs andgreatervariety of programming throughdiminishedprogrammingcostsrealized throughthevertical merger. Because an adequate supply of programming is available, at least for the present time,inadequate legal grounds could befound toblock these actions as being detrimental to market entry (Morse, 1998). This situation brings to light the environment of the1980swhen the Supreme Court ruled that theNCAA's control over college football did constitute a restraint of trade and reconfirmed the colleges? right to control their own broadcasts. Could it be that individual teams may eventually block leagues from selling packaged broadcast rights? A similar controversy is brewing in Europe over the legality of sports leagues collective broadcast agreements (Stuart,1999a).
One of the issues that remains to be investigated is the effect of vertical integration on salary policies in the professional leagues. All of the U.S. professional sport leagues have formulas established through the collective bargaining agreements concerning the percentage of club revenues which must be available for distribution as salary to players. If the parent corporation were to purchase the TV rights to the team for $\$1.00$ , the receipts that constitute “defined gross revenues" would be diminished. The parent corporation naturally would be the beneficiary with significantly enhanced revenue-to-expense ratios, but the overall profit picture would not have changed. The opposite situation could also occur. The parent corporation could provide a TV payment farin excess of industry standards, which would supply clubs with additional dollars for player salaries. Major League Baseball has rarely enforced its 60-40 rule enacted in 1982, which mandates that franchises maintain a ratio of assets to liabilities of a least $60\%$ to $40\%$ . In 1998, ten teams were in violation of that ratio. To the surprise of many, they were not the big spenders like the Yankees and the Dodgers (Payroll restraint, 1998). These teams have significant assets in their TV contracts, and, in the case of the Dodgers, their land holdings surrounding the stadium.
The time-tested business strategy known as vertical integration appears to be running rampant in the sport industry. Disney, News Corp., and Time-Warner collectively own or control a substantial portion of the world's sport and entertainment complex. Perhaps we may want to adopt Mintzberg's (1989) nomenclature of a “divisionalized corporation” as opposed to a vertically integrated conglomerate. From satellite services, cable channels, production facilities, sport teams, and content sources, these vertically integrated, divisionalized multinational corporations may well represent the future of sport. In conclusion, Reeve (1998) surmised that these entertainment giants are dependent on continued vertical integration: “I don't think there is any way the model can work unless you are making the programming and owning it through every part of the value chain you can find"' (p. 18). The question remains, where does the value chain and this madness end?
|
Antitrust gurus hit US businesses hard. (1999, May 24). Greeley Tribune, p. B1, B12.
Bart, P. (1998, August 31). Ted's trail of tears. Variety, 372(3), 4.
Brockinton, L. & Rofe, J. (1999, April 5-11). Murdock grows his sports empire again. Sport Business Journal, 1, 47.
Carter, D. (1998, May 4-10). Eisner, Murdock slug it out for control of L.A. Sports Business Journal, 1(2), 39.
Cerato, S.C. & Peter, J.P. (1991). Strategic Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fahey, L. & Randal, R.M. (1994) The Portable MBA in Strategy. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Harrigan, K.R. (1983). Strategies for Vertical Integration. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Higgins, J.M. (1998, November 30). Cablevision/Yankees deal collapses. Broadcasting and Cable,128(49),10.
Kaplan, D., & Mullen, L. (1998, July 6-12). Fox roars with creation of a new sports unit. Sports Business Journal, 1(11), 1, 43.
Littleton, C. (1996, April 22). Disney, ABC integrate operations. Broadcasting and Cable, 126(18), 33.
Megginson, L. C., Mosley, D.C., & Pietri, P.H. (1991). Management: Concepts and Applications. New York: HaperCollins.
Miller, S. (1999, August 23-29). Taking sports to the next level. Sports Business Journal, 2(18), 23-32.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management. New York: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J.B. (1998). Readings in the strategic process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morse, M.H. (1998, August). Vertical mergers. Business Lawyer, 53, 1217-1248.
New sports network aim in Fox, TCI deal (1999, April 6). Greeley Tribune, p. A9.
Ostrowski, J. (1998, June 29-July 5). Media parents prize teams as assets. Sports Business Journal, 1(10), 20.
Payroll restraint; geting fiscal: 60-40 or fight (1998, Dec. 21). Sports Illustrated, 89(25), 116.
Peers, M. (1997, June 9). Cable net rise takes Liberty. Variety, 367(6), 40.
Pitts, B.G., Fielding L.W. & Miller, L.K. (1994). Industry segmentation theory and the sport industry. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3(1), 15-24.
Reed, S. (1998, October 5). The new lords of soccer. Business Week, 179.
Reeve, S. (1998, September 14). That's entertainment. The European, 18.
Rose, F. (1998, September 28). Mickey online. Fortune, 136, 273.
Stroud, M. (1998, March 23). Murdock 27, Turner 2. Broadcasting and Cable, 128(12), 14.
Stuart, J. (1999a, February 22-28). Decision will shape British soccer. Sport Business Jour nal, 32.
Stuart, J. (1999b, May 17-23). Murdock scores a European double. Sport Business Journal, 18.
Walt Disney Company 1998 Annual Report (1999). Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Company.
Wertheim, J. (1998, September 21). The sky's the limit. Sports Illustrated, 40-41.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Sport Management at the Millennium: A Defining Moment
|
Brenda G. Pitts Florida State University
|
2000
|
The millennium has presented the world with the opportunity to evaluate progress up to this point in time. Many have used this as a way to look back at achievements, disappointments, brilliance, and mistakes. In addition, it has offered a chance to reevaluate predictions for the future, make adjustments in goals, question ego, and ponder the state of inequitable human rights.
As the title of my address suggests, I believe we in sport management academia are presented with an opportunity to evaluate our progress. First, it is the eve of the millennium. And second, the North American Society for Sport Management is 15 years old as of this conference. I see these marks of time as an opportunity to look at our past, analyze our current status, and to envision the possibilities of our future. I believe it is now time to critically examine who we are and where we are in reality in relation to who and where we think we might be. Moreover, I propose that we start this examination now and use the first five to ten years of the millennium as an era for critical examination.
In this address, I will put forth my evaluation of the past, present, and future of sport management as a field of study and issue challenges for your discussion. The focus of my address is limited to issues that I call identification markers those issues and factors that define, describe, and create an identification for sport management as a field of study. Additionally, I will challenge what is called “"box thinking,” which I define, for the purposes of this paper, as the passive acceptance of constructed definitions and positions about sport management and its content without question or analysis. Box thinking is dangerous. It stifles critical examination and growth that can free us to move and progress.
My perspective is derived from observation of sport management academia for 16 years as a university professor, some limited study of the historical development of sport management, experience with different aspects of sport management as a field of study, analysis of the literature, and 35 years as a sportswoman and athlete participating and working in the sport industry. Moreover, my perspective is informed by the works of several Zeigler scholars before me who analyzed the field at their time, a wealth of literature (relative to 15 years ago), and numerous sport management academics of all ages from whom I have learned.
Beginning with the question of what constitutes a field of study, sport management can be measured against the answer. Among other things, a field of study is recognized as consisting of
1. a body of knowledge and literature in relation to theory and practice,
2. professionalsthose who educate, those who pursue research, those who
practice,
3. professional organizations dedicated to the advancement of the field,
4. professional preparation, and, dare I say it,
5.credibility.
A field of study cannot exist without a body of knowledge and literature regarding the theory and practice of the field. A body of knowledge can be evaluated based on its (a) practical and theoretical literature, (b) all directly and indirectly related literature, (c) agreement of content, and (d) depth and breadth of content.
Practical and theoretical literature. Sport management practitioner literature has existed for many years. There are numerous publications that target the practitioner in relation to career and industry segment. Some examples are Sports Travel Magazine, the NCAA News, Boating Dealer, Club Business Industry, Sporting Goods Dealer, and Team Marketing Report. The practitioner literature addresses such topics as marketing and business ideas, job related issues, customer service, and annual market reports. As each industry segment expands, so toowill their literature.
Sport management theoretical literature is found primarily in the academic literature, is comprised of scholarly journals and textbooks, and is relatively young. In the past, it consisted of those books written about the organization and administration of physical education and athletics (Paton, 1987; Ziegler, 1987). Today, the literature has grown in number and expanded in content. For example, there are now 16 journals of which I am aware, 13 of which reside primarily in North America. (Included are five sport law journals, the Journal of Sport Management, the European Journal of Sport Management, Sport Marketing Quarterly, the Cyber Journal of Sport Marketing, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, International Journal of Sport Management, Journal of Sport Economics, Journal of Sport Tourism, International Sport Journal, Sport Management Review (Australia), and the Korean Journal of Sport Management.)
Sport management textbooks have also proliferated (Mahony & Pitts, 1998). The first books with sport management titles were all inclusive books. They included individual chapters on the different content areas. Today, there are complete books on the individual content areas. In the future, there will be more.
Related literature. Related literature refers to the literature related to sport management and that is used as conceptual frameworks and foundational matter. For sport management, this includes such fields as recreation administration, dance, leisure, sport tourism, sociology, communication, marketing, finance, and law. In the past, when there were no sport management journals or books, we relied heavily on the literature in these fields. Moreover, we have used these fields to develop the sport management literature. This is common among developing fields and influences the credibility of the literature. For instance, those of us in sport marketing use marketing as a conceptual framework. From this, definitions, models, fundamentals, and theories of sport marketing are developed.
In the future, I hope to see a consistent use of foundational works as conceptual frameworks in the sport management literature. It is both necessary and wise.
Agreement of content. In relation to the question of agreement of content, I find that there has not been agreement in two areas: how we define sport management and how we apply the definition. It appears as though there have been two schools of thought—-one school is that sport management is managing sports; the other is that sport management is all management practice in all of the sport industry. What I also find, however, is that how we define sport management is slowly evolving and expanding beyond athletics administration or managing sports. When studies of the size and breadth of the industry appeared, such as the Wharton School studies in the mid-1980s, many started to broaden their scope of thinking to include more segments of the industry.
The curriculum standards discussions in the late 1980s and early 1990s helped, and today more definitions of sport industry and sport management are becoming more similar. Most of the literature, for example, quotes the recent work of Meek (1997) when defining and describing sport management and the depth and breadth of the sport industry. Descriptions will state that the sport industry is a multibillion dollar industry and that it is vast and varied. The description will include the information that the industry consists of participation sports as the largest segment, sporting goods as the second largest, sport management businesses, and so forth.
On the other hand, the application of the definition seems to stop at chapter one of the textbook or at the introduction of the research paper. Beyond chapter one, the preponderance of cases, examples, and discussions is heavily focused on college athletics and some professional sports. Therefore, I find that our definition of sport management has advanced, but the application of it appears to be lingering inside a box of thinking. I challenge us to question and analyze this practice.
Depth and breadth of the literature. Similarly, there is much room for improvement of the depth and breadth of our research literature. The lack of scope of our research has constantly been questioned by such sport management scholars as Parks, Paton, Olafson, Chelladurai, and Slack.1 When one reads the totality of our literature, one gets the distinct impression that sport management is nothing more than the study of managing college athletics and some professional sports.
In 1987, Paton reported that our literature had a heavy focus on careers in higher education and college athletics, and he called for broadening the scope (Paton, 1987). Eight years later in 1995, Slack reported that $65\%$ ofthefocusof the research in the Journal of Sport Management was on physical education and intercollegiate athletics (Slack,1996).
Today, 5 years after Slack and 13 years after Paton, I find it disappointing to report to you that there has been little change. It is perhaps more disturbing to learn that when all other sport management journals and conference proceedings are evaluated, the focus is still heavily on college athletics.Additionally, sport management textbooks reveal the same heavy focus. Therefore, the concluding perception is that the study of sport management is still really nothing more than athleticsadministration.
I submit to you that we have no right to be surprised or insulted when someone proclaims that sport management is just a new and contemporary buzz word for athletics administration. If this is all we are, then we deserve the criticism we get. However, if we are preparing people for careers in the many different segments of this multibillion dollar industry, then we must move outside the box of focusing only on college athletics and a few professional sports. I am not suggesting that we ignore these, rather, I believe we have a responsibility to expand the scope of our research and add the other many areas of the sport industry. Therefore, in the near future, I challenge us to critically examine the state of our literature and begin the work toward expansion.
Historically, sport management as a practice has existed as early as any person who organized a sports or recreational activity or event, made equipment for or participated in a sport or recreational activity. Today, sport management is practiced in one of the largest industries. Therefore, there are numerous sport management practitioners with a plethora of opportunities. In the future, I believe this will continue.
In relation to those who teach and who pursue research, sport management is a yearling. It is ironic that one of the world's oldest professions is one of the world's newest fields of study. Sport management education is a fast growing area, especially in relation to the consistently increasing number of students and programs.
On the other hand, the number of faculty has not kept pace. This is somewhat understandable in an era of budget cuts, institutional downsizing, and reorganization.Regardless, it is incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to increase the number of full time sport management faculty in programs.
In the future, I believe there will be continued growth in the number of professionals in all three areas, but especially in academia. Already, for instance, the number of advertised faculty positions outnumber the number of doctoral graduatesinsportmanagement education.
Today, there are sport management professional associations for practitioners, educators, and researchers. For practitioners, numerous organizations exist. Such organizations as theNational Federation of StateHighSchool Athletics Association, Sports Information Directors Association, International Racquet Sports Association, and the Snow Sports Industries of America exist to serve its members inmanycapacities.
For sport management academia, there is the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) and similar organizations in other countries. Although the construction of sport management as a field of study did not start with the establishment of the NASSM, this association has had a profound influence in its development. NASSM has served as a center of activity and a focal point around which those interested in sport management academia have gathered and have been able to share and grow as a family. NASSM has provided outlets for scholarly research and discussion through the Journal of Sport Management and the annual conference. In addition, NASSM has been a model for the start of similar organizations around the world. To the founders of NASSM as well as the pioneers before NASSM, such as Janet Parks, Bob Boucher, Gordon Olafson, Joy DeSensi, Earle Ziegler, Garth Paton, Beverly Zanger, Bonnie Parkhouse, Pakisnathan Chelladurai, and others, we owe a great debt. It is the establishment of NASSM and the work of the pioneers that have put sport management as a field of study on the academic map.
On the other hand, NASSM must confront some critical point decisions in relation to this question: Can NASSM continue to be the “everything” association and conference for all sport management content areas as those specializations develop? With the increase in the number of faculty, the need to expand the scope of our literature, and the need to develop the content areas, NAsSM must examine its current status and future direction. For example, should NASSM consider expanding its current 3-day conference format to a 4- or 5-day format? Conference abstract rejection has reached nearly $50\%$ . Should NASSM be turning so many people away while we are still developing? Of course, some rejections are justifiable. However, a certain number of rejections take place because of the limited 3- day conferenceformat.
Additionally, perhaps NASSM could consider sponsoring journals and conferences in individual content areas, such as sport marketing and sport finance. I submit to you that it will be best for our field if those of us in the field produce such ventures as opposed to sitting back and allowing those in other fields to do this.
The individual content areas are in need of attention and development (Chelladurai, 1992; Mahony & Pitts, 1998). The addition of associations, conferences, and journals will provide the needed academic resources for growth.
A field of study will include professional preparation for practitioners and for its professoriate. Today, sport management has both. However, the history of sport management education has not yet been studied and recorded, and this leaves us void of the true beginnings of our field.
The history of sport management preparation. In the past, sport management as a degree did not exist -or did it? How old is sport management as an academic area? There is no historical research on sport management in order to determine its academic roots.
The void of historical research has allowed a few claims to surface. For example, it has been stated that the first academic program in sport administration was established at Ohio University in 1966 (Mason, Higgins, & Owen, 1981). This statement has been repeated in several places in our literature even though there has been no historical research to either substantiate the claim or to discover our history (Parkhouse, 1996; Parks & Olafson, 1987; SportsBusiness Journal, 2000). On the other hand, there is evidence of a program nearly two decades before that. Between 1949 and 1959, Florida Southern University offered a sport management program approved by the State Department of Education of Florida titled “Baseball Business Administration" (Isaacs, 1964). The program was considered to be the first and only of its kind at the time, and it consisted of courses similar to today's sport management curriculum standards. Which claim is correct?
The executive council of NASSM believes history is important. This is evidenced by the fact that NASSM established an official archives to preserve its history. The archives consist of such items as personal papers, records, budgets, and minutes, as well as a videotape library of past NASSM executive council members. In addition, at the request of the executive council to preserve more history, the Journal of Sport Management publishes the annual Ziegler Address.
Therefore, before the box closes on our thinking, I submit to you that the history of sport management academia is important and deserves the attention of NASSM and all of us. Perhaps NASSM could commission a study of the history of sport management and offer it in a special edition of the journal. Nevertheless, we should embark to discover our history.
Practitioner preparation in the sport business industry. In the 1980s, several studies by Parkhouse and others examined the state of sport management undergraduate and master's programs. The studies revealed, for the most part, that sport management programs were primarily physical education curricula with a sport management title. The results of those studies encouraged us to critically examine the state of sport management education and served as the impetus to develop the curriculum standards.
Although no studies on the state of those programs have been conducted since then, we can use the curriculum standards and program review process as one measure. Today, 16 programs meet the curriculum standards of 1993 and another 12 are under review (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001). In the future, I believe more programs will be submitted for review. However, we are approaching the last few years which will mark approximately two decades during which there will have been no published research examining our curriculum. Before the box of time closes, I encourage us to conduct this important research.
Professoriate preparation in sport management. Today, there appears to be a healthy job market for sport management faculty. A simple count of faculty position advertisements shows that there have been over 50 faculty positions in sport management each year for the past 3 years. Yet, how many of these positions get filled? How many are carried over from the previous year because they went unfilled? And, perhaps more importantly, who is filling the positions? What is their background? Do they have doctoral degrees in sport management? If so, what is the state of that person's doctoral-granting program? If not, is it important that sport management faculty have achieved a doctoral degree in sport management? After all, the vast majority of these people will be expected to teach the undergraduate and master's sport management content according to the curriculum standards and to conduct sport management research. Therefore, if they do not have a degree in sport management, does this not negatively affect the growth and credibility of sport management? If anyone can teach sport management, why are we here? Why are we building a body of knowledge? And why do we have curriculum standards for a doctoral program in sport management?
Today, I have a growing concern about doctoral education in sport management. Because I worked to develop the doctoral program at Florida State upon arriving there four years ago, I examined other doctoral programs. I found a few to be model programs with a majority of curriculum content in sport management. On the other hand, there were many programs that are just a physical education curriculum with a sport management title. Moreover, there is no research involving doctoral programs in sport management. Therefore, I submit to you that doctoral education in sport management is in need of examination.
Additionally, some recent changes to the 1993 curriculum standards will soon go into effect and one of these changes will have a negative impact on doctoral education. The change lowers the degree requirement of one of two of a program's sport management faculty from a terminal degree to a master's degree. The consequence of this change is that doctoral students in sport management might be working with faculty who has only a master's degree. This deserves questioning and I therefore challenge us to give attention to this and work to change it.
A field of study needs to attain and sustain a certain level of credibility within its own group and among other fields. Credibility has to do with quality, accountability, and credentials. Criteria to measure credibility might be found in the level of quality and rigor in such areas as curriculum standards, credentials of faculty, student quality, meeting the demands of the job market, the literature, and scholarly associations, conferences, and awards.
Today, it is reported that sport management is gaining a relatively positive reputation (Crosset, Bromage, & Hums, 1998; Parkhouse & Pitts, 2000; Parks, Zanger, & Quarterman, 1998). In my perspective, this is because we have established many of the areas of criteria that influences credibility. However, we must be vigilant in critically examining all that we have accomplished, make changes as needed, and push ourselves to grow.
Lastly, in relation to credibility, I want to touch on a topic that I believe affects our credibility. It's a topic that has hounded us for many years-where should sport management be housed?The discussion almost always centers around the question of placing sport management either in departments of physical education or recreation, or in a school of business. Why box ourselves in? I propose that sport management should be in its own house. We have been hard at work building that house and its foundation and deserve to move in anytime now. In other words, we should be our own department or school. I challenge you to consider the possibilities of a school of sport management, or sport business. The school will contain departments focused on each content area, such as sport marketing, sport in the social context, sport finance, and sport law.Each department will have full faculties who specialize in the content areas. As you walk through the hallways, you will see signs stating, for example, the Nike Endowed Professorship of Sport Marketing, the Louisville Slugger Endowed Professorship in Sport Economics, and the LPGA Professorship in Sport Finance.
As a field of study, sport management has achieved quite a lot in a relatively short period of time.However, it is time to examine all of the elements of ourfield of study,make adjustments where they are needed, and reevaluate predictions and goals. It is time to question the state of our literature and begin to expand its scope. It is time to address our identification markers and challenge our boxes of thinking before too much more time slips through our fingers and we miss our defining moment in the history of the development of the sport management field of study.
Lastly, I issue a challenge for the Zeigler recipient of the year 2015 to compare the next 15 years to the first 15 years. It is my hope that the Zeigler recipient will be able to report to us that we examined the state of the field, we challenged the boxes of thinking, we addressed the concerns of today, and we made sport management at the millenium a defining moment in our history.
|
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management,6,215-219.
Crosset, T.W., Bromage, S., & Hums, M.A. (1998). History of sport management. In L.P. Masteralexis, C.A. Barr, & M.A. Hums (Eds.), Principles and practice of sport management.Gaithersburg,MD:AspenPublishers.
Isaacs, S. (1964). Careers and opportunities in sports. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co.
Mahony, D., & Pitts, B.G. (1998). Research outlets in sport marketing: The need for in creased specialization.Journal of Sport Management, 12, 259-272.
Mason, J., Higgins, C., & Owen, J. (1981, January). Sport administration education 15 yearslater.AthleticPurchasingandFacilities,pp.44-45.
Meek, A. (1997). An estimate of the size and supported economic activity of the sports industry in the United States. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(4), 15-21.
Parkhouse, B.L. (Ed.). (1996). The management of sport: Its foundation and application (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Pitts, B.G. (2001). Definition, evolution, and curriculum. In B.L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport: Its foundation and application (3rd ed., Pp. 2-14). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Parks, J.B., & Olafson, G. (1987). Sport management and a new journal. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1),1-3.
Parks, J.B., Zanger, B., & Quarterman, J. (1998). Introduction to sport management. In J.B. Parks, B. Zanger, & J. Quarterman (Eds.), Contemporary sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of Sport Management,1(1), 25-31.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
SportsBusiness Journal. (2000, April 17-23). “Two centuries of sports business." (a poster enclosed with this issue). Available from SportsBusiness Journal.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987 ). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management,1(1),4-24.
|
n/a
|
'For instance, study the works of Robert Boucher, such as Boucher, R.L. (1998). Toward achieving a focal point for sport management: A binocular perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 76-85; Pakisnathan Chelladurai, such as Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 215- 219; Gordon Olafson, such as Olafson, G.A. (1990). Research design in sport management: What's missing, what's needed? Journal of Sport Management, 4, 103-120; Janet B. Parks, such as Parks, J.B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottom line” in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 220-229; Garth Paton, such as Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research: What progress has been made? Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 25-31; and Trevor Slack, such as Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
---
|
Opportunities and Headaches: Dichotomous Perspectives on the Current and Future Hiring Realities in the Sport Management Academy
|
W. James Weese University of Windsor
|
2001
|
I am moved by the privilege of delivering the 2001 Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture. Joining the list of previous Zeigler recipients is like joining a “who's who" of sport management academicians. I have great respect and admiration for every member of this group, and I am pleased and honored to be in their company.
Another tremendous source of pride for me is the fact that I am joining two of my University of Windsor colleagues as Earle F. Zeigler Award Recipients. Both Bob Boucher and Gordon Olafson have been mentors and friends whose contributions to my development as a sport management academician cannot be overstated. Gordon introduced me to the area of sport management over 20 years ago, and Bob fueled my enthusiasm for the field as my graduate supervisor, mentor, and advocate. I am delighted to join them as recipients of this prestigious award.
Finally, I am pleased to receive this award named in honor of Dr. Earle Zeigler. Earle has also inspired my work and served as a tremendous role model. His unfailing support and encouragement of young faculty members and students is particularly noteworthy. While one cannot match the scope or volume of Earle's academic contributions to the field of sport management, or the broader field of Physical and Health Education, our area of sport management and, for that matter, all areas in higher education would be well served by adopting his approach of encouraging and supporting students and young faculty members. It is in honor of his modus operandi that the topic of this paper was selected. Current graduate students hoping to gain entry to the sport management academy and/or mobile faculty members remotely interested in pursuing other opportunities should draw inspiration from the contents of this paper. Conversely, sport management academicians assuming or planning to assume administrative roles will find the recruitment and retention of quality sport management faculty members to be their biggest challenge.
Many factors impact the quality of one's educational experience, but nothing is more important than the quality of professors who make significant contributions to the areas of teaching, research, and service. Naturally, I'm talking about professors who are physically present to counsel, teach, and guide students through their words and actions. A scene in my favorite movie, Mr: Holland's Opus, drives this point home when the school principal (played by Olympia Dukakis) mentors a young,non-committed teacher (played by Richard Dreyfuss) and transforms his affection and commitment to the field.In one scene she tells him that teachers not only fill the minds of young students with valuable information, but they must alsoprovide students with a compass toguide them in their careers and lives. Implied in this advice is the need to develop positive and trusting relationshipswithstudents,somethingthatcanonlybedoneeffectivelyonaface-to-face basis.Further testimony to the profound and lasting impact that professors can have ontheirstudentscanbeuncoveredinTuesdayswithMorrie.Readersofthis book will be moved by the immense influence that Sociology professor Morrie Schwartzhad onhisformerstudent(MitchAlbom)whoauthors thebook.Infact, this title should be required reading for all faculty members.
There have been futurists who predict that universities will change in immeasurable ways.Peter Drucker suggested that our current teaching centers will be replaced by virtual classrooms, and program delivery will be offered almost entirely through distance education and Web-based delivery vehicles (Beatty,1998). While this would expose students to the very best professors in their respective fields, and we have dabbled in this mode of delivery in sport management (e.g., theUniversityofOttawaSportManagementTeleconferencingLectureSeries),it is my opinion this type of learning will increase to complement the educational experience,not replace the traditional university teaching experience for our futurestudents.Irecently attended aconferencewherethetopicofdistanceeducation was raised, and a professor from a northwestern university spoke of a colleague who was approached by a busy student inquiring about taking his course through distance education. The professor replied, “sure, you can do this course through distance education, just sit in the back row of the classroom."
Universities are steeped in a tradition of exploring concepts, pushing back one another's ideas, as well as learning and growing from exposure to the cocurricular opportunities that exist on our respective campuses. We will always need professors“on theground"to teach,conduct research,and provide service to ourfield of study,our universities,and our communities.
The area of sport management has undergone explosive growth over the past 35years. That growth will be briefly chronicled in the next section of the paper followed by an analysis of the challenges that will emerge for our area due to its popularity. The concepts of“population push” and"participation pull" will be discussed, outlining the implications of these concepts on institutions of higher learning and programs like sport management. These factors will create tremendous opportunities forentering and mobile professors, and immense headaches for program administrators forced to deal with sport management faculty recruitment and retention issues. Some suggestions for meeting these challenges are presented attheend ofthepaper.
Many sport management academicians (Chelladurai, 2001; Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001; Stier, 2001) have chronicled the evolution and explosion of sport management programs since their formal introduction as an area of study in 1966. This explosive growth has been particularly evident over the past 15 years, coinciding with the development of the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), a fact that should bring justifiable pride and satisfaction to our NASSM founders. At present,the NASSM Web page (http://www.nassm.com) boasts 178 sport management academic programs. Chelladuari (2001) noted that there are over 200 sport management programs in North America and correctly asserts that sport management is one of the fastest growing programs of study in American universities. Alsop and Fuller (2001) offered that students can choose from “some 200 programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels" (p. vii), while Stier (2001) estimated the number of programs to be in excess of 250 and that "this rapid growth speaks to the need that is perceived for professionally prepared and knowledgeable sport managers" (p. 44). Regardless of the exact number of programs in existence, there is support for the claim of Parkhouse and Pitts (2001) that sport management is “one of the fastest growing areas on many college campuses" (p. 3). We continue to grow as a respected academic area of study (Parks, in Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001), with more of our programs being taught by faculty members holding doctoral degrees in sport management. Professors are pursuing defined research agendas, and the quality of their work continues to improve.
While we can be proud of our progress, we must turn our attention to some pressing questions. For example, how much can we grow? There will be pressure and temptation to increase the size and number of programs. As professors retire, campus administrators will look to reallocate resources to areas of growth. Sport management is a growth area on most North American university campuses. There may be capacity in the employment sector to increase the size and number of our programs, if we broadly and effectively prepare our graduates. We would be negligent if we did not heed the warnings of people like Brassie (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001) and Stier (2001), who cautioned us on the overgrowth of our programs, leading to a market saturation of graduates and un- or under-employment of our students. This overgrowth is inevitable if we narrowly define our programs and focus exclusively on elite sport applications. We must strategically design and deliver programs that align favorably with the demographic fit and the needs of our field. How can we strategically focus our programs to sustain successful growth? We must consider the advice of Michael Porter (1998) and ensure our competitiveness by keeping our programs both current and innovative. We must also heed the insights of Chelladurai (1999) and Zeigler (1987) and focus our programs broadly on the management of sport and physical activity programs targeted to women and men, able and disabled populations, mass participation programs, as well as the elite sport areas. We must also consider the realities of demographics (e.g., focus on the expanding seniors′ market). As Clement (1990) noted, “successful sport managers will be sensitive to trends and events, will welcome change, will anticipate the needs of society, and will develop new programs when requested ”(p. 264).
Arguably the most relevant question is where will we find faculty in the future to teach our students? While it appears that we will not have any trouble finding students for our programs or possibly resources to operate them, we will have tremendous difficulty finding and keeping faculty members to teach our students. In fact, we cannot satisfy the current demand for sport management professors.
Mondello, Mahony, Hums and Moorman's (2001) 3-year review of sport management faculty searches (1997-2000) uncovered 74 sport management faculty positions advertised in 1998-99; 93 advertised opportunities in 1990-2000, and 82 positions advertised in 2000-01. Many of the 249 positions were repeat advertisements, signifying a failed search. The areas noted in the advertisements wereverybroadinmostcases,castingthenetwidetoattract theinterestof as many people as possible, an effective strategy in any market, and especially prudent in the attractive market in which young and mobile professors find themselves today. Their survey of search committee chairs uncovered that the primary reason for a failed search was “the lack of qualified candidates." This finding would not surprise the Deans and Directors of Physical Education/Kinesiology in Canadian universities (CCUPEKA) who have identified sport management as a particularly difficult area for which to find qualified professors. Some have noted that "they can't get any candidates.?"
While some would attribute the faculty shortage to a thinning of the candidate pool due to an increase in number of programs currently offered in North American universities, others would argue that there is an insufficient supply of fresh PhDs to fill the current and anticipated vacancies within the sport management academy. The NASSM Web page lists 13 doctoral programs in North America, two in Canada, and 11 in the United States. Stier (2001) claimed that there were 18 U.S. doctoral programs and three Canadian programs; however, the Canadian number is inflated by one, and the United States number may be overstated as well. Most sport management academicians could identify six to eight of these programs but would be hard pressed to name the others. Many have shared the frustration that our Masters students experience in finding a sport management doctoral program to continue their studies in North America. This supports my contention that the number of doctoral programs is insufficient to meet the current demand, to say nothing of the future demand we will face given the demographic realities. As noted below, a pending demographic shift coupled with sustained societal interest in higher education will magnify the problem for a number of academicfieldsincluding sport management.
Demographics refers to the study of human populations. Acclaimed management author Peter Drucker (1997) underscored the importance of understanding demographics as a planning and forecasting tool by stating that “the most dominant factor for business in the next two decades . . . is not going to be economics or technology. It will be demographicsstudy of human populations" (p. 20). Keller (2001) offered that “"higher education leaders and scholars would be prudent to understand the underlying demographic shifts shaping the future”’ (p. 234). According to noted economist and demographer David Foot (2000), the study of demographic profiles can be “the most powerful—-and most underutilized-- tool for understanding the past and to foretell the future" (p. 8). Foot's work is predicated on three assumptions. First of all, every year, every person gets 1 year older. Secondly, he suggested that it is easy to accurately measure the demographic profiles and, based on the first assumption, anticipate future demographic profiles. The 30-year-old baby boomer in 1971 will be 40 years old in 1981, 50 years old in 1991, and 60 years old in 2001. Finally, Foot noted that there is a predictability of behavior and needs for each cohort group. Specific to the example of higher education, we know that the core university student market is the 18- to 24-year-old person. Given the predictability of aging, we know that the young people who are 13 years old today will be in the prime university-age bracket in 5 years while many of the 8-year-old children in 2001 will be entering our universities in 2011. We can measure the size of these groups and, given the predictability of aging, anticipate the demand for university education.
Foot's (2000, 2001) work has certainly informed my thinking in this area and has served as a foundation for this paper. Statistics Canada (http:// www.statcan.ca/) and U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/) reports have also been informative, as have reports prepared by the U.s. Department of Education and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Based on a review of these sources, it is clear that university enrolments will escalate over the next decade. I anticipate a commensurate increase in sport management enrolments during the same time period.
North American society is experiencing a demographic shift that will have a profound impact on the study, teaching, and staffing within sport management programs in our institutions of higher learning. Enrolments are expected to increase in many regions of Canada and the United States due to a number of factors, including the large cohort of 18- to 24-year-old citizens who are currently creating enrolment challenges in many Canadian and United States secondary schools and the senior levels of elementary schools.
The impact of a demographic shift will be felt within our sport management programs. Have we considered the demographic realities and planned accordingly? An honest answer would undoubtedly lead to a negative response.
The Statistics Canada Census Data lists Canada's population at 30.7M while the U.S. Census Bureau lists the U.S. population at 284.9M. The United States population is approximately nine times larger than Canada's total population. Of course, one's analysis needs to run deeper than total population figures, and Foot (2000) has provided a thorough analysis with his Boom, Bust and Echo text. The title of this text refers to three demographic cohorts (the Baby Boom Cohort, the Baby Bust Cohort, and the Baby Boom Echo Cohort). According to Foot (2000), and confirmedbyreviewingStatistics Canada and UsCensusBureauData,these three demographicpopulation patterns are evident andvirtuallyidenticalin relativescopeinbothCanada and theUnitedStates.
The Baby Boom Cohort is a large group in both Canada and the United States. It is such a large group for a number of reasons. Following World War I, the servicemen returned home to a booming economy in the period between the mid-1940s through the mid-1960s, when a fewer percentage of females were pursuing higher education and employment outside the home, and fertility rates peaked (e.g., 4.0 children per family in Canada; 3.7 children per family in the U.S.). Canada and the United States also experienced high levels of immigration during this time frame, particularly by immigrants in their child-bearing years. In Canada, the Baby Boom Cohort refers to those citizens born between the years 1947-1966who are aged 35 to54 in the year 2001.This large cohort bubble represents $30\%$ ofCanada's total 30.7M population. In the United States, the Baby Boom Cohort started 1 year earlier (i.e., in 1946 due to better economic conditions) and ended 2 years sooner (i.e., in 1964 due to more expedient acceptance of the birth control pill). The United StatesBabyBoom Cohort is comprised of 79M people ( $28\%$ ofUSA's284.9M population) who are aged 37 to 55 in 2001.
The advancement of the birth control pill, coupled with societal changes in Canada and the United States whereincreased numbers of females pursued higher education and greater participation in the workforce, resulted in a decreased fertility rate (1.5 children per family in Canada; 2.0 children per family in the U.s.) as couples decided to postpone childbirth and/or have fewer children. These realities gave way to the Baby Bust Cohort, a group that is half the size of the Baby Boom group. These citizens were born in the mid- to late-1960s through to 1979. Many citizens from the tail end of this small group are in the final stages of their universityprogramsin2001.
Although women continued to enter institutions of higher learning and the workforce in greater numbers, and the fertility rates remained low, birth rates started toincrease in the early 1980s due to thefact that the largeBaby Boom Cohort were in the prime child-bearing years. This produced another large population group, known as the Baby Boom Echo Cohort, and the tip of this group has just started to significantly impact university enrolments. Citizens of this group were born between the years of 1980 and 1995 and are aged 6 through 21 in 2001. The relative size of this cohort is comparable to the significant Baby Boom Cohort group, and it represents $23\%$ of Canada's 30.1M population and 76M or $27\%$ of theUnitedStates' $284.9\mathrm{M}$ population. It is anticipated that this cohort will drive up and sustain university enrolments for a 15-year period. Many of these students, like those who went before them, will be drawn to the area of sport management.
The next cohort group, the Millenium Busters (born 1996-2110), will have the exact opposite effect. It is anticipated that this will be a small group due to low birth rates (i.e., children of the small Baby Bust Group) and low fertility rates. This cohort will present different challenges for institutions of higher learning and new headaches for administrators in the years 2014 through 2028.
The impact of population push will be felt in both Canada and the United States, although most suggest the impact will be felt in specific regions. Universities in other less populated regions, if effectively positioned and marketed, will benefit from the spill-over effect. Robert Giroux (1999), the President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC), predicted that Canadian universities can expect a $20\%$ increase in enrolment by 2010 based on demographic growth. However, he was quick to note that the increase due to population push would be felt primarily in the Provinces of Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. In Ontario, the increase has been estimated to be $40\%$ (due to the Baby Boom Echo enrolment and high school reform that will place students in universities 1 year earlier and create a double cohort of students who will take 4 years to move through the system).
Keller's (2001) review of U.S. Census Bureau Data led him to conclude that universities and colleges in the United States would be significantly affected by the demographic shift. James Duderstat (2000), President Emeritus from the University of Michigan, predicts burgeoning university enrolments in the United States based on the demographic profile that shows a $13\%$ growth in the traditional U.S. college-age population (18 to 24 years) through 2010. However, like Canada (where the population push is concentrated in Ontario and the Western Provinces), the impact from population push will be felt most in the southwestern United States, notably in Arizona, California, Texas, and Nevada, where the 18- to 24-year-old population is expected to rise by $40\%$ over the 1995-2015 time frame. Schmidt (1999) reported that college enrolments in California will increase by $36\%$ by the fall of 2010. Ironically, the majority of sport management programs are found in the eastern United States (Alsop & Fuller, 2001). Given the popularity of sport management coupled with its underrepresentation in the American southwest where immense population push exists, it seems reasonable to predict the emergence of more sport management programs. The question of course is, where might these universities find faculty members to teach in these programs? My prediction is from existing programs, which will create faculty recruitment and retention issues and contribute to the professorial shortage we are now experiencing.
Population push may not only be felt from the expanding 18- to 24-year-old cohort. One must remember that the expanding Baby Boom group will be entering their retirement years with greater frequency, seeking further challenge and enrichment and perhaps a desire to return to school. Many of these Baby Boomers may have already been to university, therefore increasing the likelihood that they may return if they are interested in furthering their education (Foot, 2001). MIT professor Lester Thurow sounded this alarm in a New York Times Magazine article (1996), when he talked of the “woopies,” the “well off older people” growing in larger numbers and embarking on enrichment experiences. Some institutions like Oberlin College in Ohio and the University of North Carolina at Asheville have established special units like the “Living and Learning Institute” and the “College for Seniors" in direct response to this demographic reality.
While the impact of demographics will significantly drive up university enrolments in both Canada and the United States, especially in regions where there is a large Baby Boom Echo enrolment, growth on the basis of population push is only part of the equation. Another factor that will also drive up enrolments is "participationpull."
Participation pull refers to the attraction that a university educationhas on thecitizensofaregionandismeasuredinthepercentageofcitizenswhoenrollin our university programs. More Canadian and U.S. citizens are attending institutions of higher learning than in previous generations, and in the knowledge society,thistrendwillundoubtedlycontinue.DavidSmith(2000)notedthat $23.1\%$ of Canadians-and $21.7\%$ of Americans aged 18-21 years attend university programs. According to Galt (2000), the United States and Canada lead all of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED) countries in the percentage of people (aged 25-64) who complete University programs. Increased societalvaluefor university education,coupled with the understanding that a university degree is often a requirement for entry positions in the knowledge society, has fostered higher levels of participation pull.
As testimony to the heightened levels of participation pull, Keller (2001) noted that $27.1\%$ of Americans have 4 years of college or more in 1996,compared toonly $4.6\%$ in 1940. A higher percentage of females are being drawn to higher education as evidenced by Giroux (1999) when he noted that female student participationin Canadian universitieshasrisenfrom $10\%$ in 1980 to $21\%$ in 1999, whilemalestudent participationrosefrom $10\%$ to $14\%$ during the same time frame.
Anotherfactorimpactingparticipationpullis the educationlevelattainedby one's parents.Thechildren ofparentswho attended universities aremorelikelyto attend themselves (Foot, 2001), and more baby boomers have completed degrees than any other generation that preceded them.As noted above, the exploding Echo Generation(aged 6to21 today) are the children of this large,educatedBabyBoom Cohort.
The picture is clear. The demographic realities (i.e., population push) coupled with an increased interest in pursuing higher education (i.e., participation pull) will drive up university enrolments in both Canada and the United States. The popularity of sport management as an academic area of study and as a career choice makes it a prime area for growth, particularly in regions where there is an emerging Baby Boom Echo Cohort. Ironically, many of these regions are underrepresented with respect to offering sport management programs. In addition to channeling new resources into the development of programs in this growing and attractive field, senior officials may divert existing resources to the initiation/expansion of sport management programs. A wave of professorial retirements are expected to take place on our campuses, and senior officials may be interested in diverting resources to programs of growth. Twenty thousand professors are expected to retire in Canada by 2008 (Giroux, 1999), yet Canada only produces half the number of required PhDs to fill these vacancies. The University of Alberta expects to hire 140-170 professors a year for each of the next 5 to 7 years. The University of
Toronto requires 500 to satisfy student demand by 2004. The University of British Columbia will introduce 900 professors by 2005. Some have labeled the pending faculty shortage in Canada a national crisis. Leatherman (2001) sounded the alarm of a pending faculty shortage by reporting a decline in the number of doctoral degrees awarded by American research institutions, supporting Rice, Socinelli, and Austin's (2000) concern of a faculty shortage in the United States. Evidence of a growing demand for professors can be taken from a review of the job postings advertised in the Chronicle of Higher Education, which have increased $28\%$ since 1998-99 and $34\%$ for tenure track positions (Rice et al., 2000). The situation will get worse when the retirement waves emerge. Tabs (2001) U.S. Department of Education report contains frightening information on the greying professorate in the United States university system. He notes that over $60\%$ of faculty members are between the ages of 45 and 64 ( $62\%$ are in this age cohort for Faculties of Business, and $71.8\%$ are in this age range for the Faculties of Education).
The early retirement programs, implemented for austerity purposes in the 1990s, have amplified the situation. An additional 4,000 professors are required in Canadian universities to re-balance the student:faculty ratio. At the University of Ottawa a senior official noted that their student:faculty ratio has risen from 17:1 to 23:1, and they have an institutional plan to return it to a 19:1 ratio, a goal that will require an additional 115 professors per year for each of the next 5 years (Gilles, 2001). Given the popularity of sport management as a potential growth area, it may be a candidate for investment and/or reinvestment of institutional resources. The demographic realities (i.e., a large number of professors in the aging Baby Boom Group and the exploding student pool coming from the large Baby Boom Echo Cohort) highlight a pressing need for professors over the next 12 years. Where will theycomefrom?
As Mondello and his colleagues (2001) have illustrated, we do not have a sufficient number of sport management professors to meet the existing demand. Our search committee chairs are claiming that they are not getting enough (or any) qualified candidates, and faculty searches are not successful. As illustrated above, the demographic realities will soon amplify the problem, especially if universities in high population areas that are currently underrepresented in sport management enter the mix by launching sport management programs to meet student demand. Administrators of programs with competent, young faculty members should be concerned, as their professors may be prime targets for Deans and Department Heads from other institutions looking to jump start a sport management program.
Competition for new and mobile faculty members in sport management is acute at present and likely to intensify. We can learn from the experience of administrators in academic programs like business, electrical engineering, and computer science. Like sport management, these areas are experiencing a tremendous shortage and competition for faculty. Bidding wars for fresh PhDs and mobile faculty have taken on a new significance. Existing faculty complements are being eroded.
In my own institution an entire department (i.e., the professors, their research grants, and theirgraduatestudents)wasrecruited by anotherinstitution.Itis certainly one waytojump-startaprogram,and thisscenariocouldbeplayedoutinthearea of sport management,much to thechagrin of theraided institution.
Asfor entrylevel positions,wemaylearnfrom thesituationexperienced in some Faculties of Business, where competition for freshly minted PhDs (or soon tobePhDs)generates multiple offers to candidates,institutions offering six-figure salaries,subsidized housing, attractiveresearch start-upfunds, and two course teachingloads.In the area of Finance,entryprofessors are securingsalaries of $\$1308$ often more than their colleagues with 10 years of experience (Mangan, 2001). Although on a smaller scale, we have started to see some of this in sport management, and we will undoubtedly see more of it in the future.
The limited sport management PhDgraduate pool is further reduced when one considers the growth of sport management in the college system. Colleges are also mounting programs to capture an expanding prospective student pool (Halworth, 1999). Finally, we cannot count on all PhD graduates taking up the existing and future vacancies within the academy. Like other academic areas, some graduates will be drawn to colleges or toindustry, specifically the area of athletic administration. Jisha (2001) noted that a survey of PhD candidates indicated that $20\%$ would be seekingpositionsin athletic administration upongraduation.
ItisclearthatsportmanagementPhDproductiondoesnotmeetthecurrent or anticipateddemandforprofessorsgiventhedemographicrealitiesof theEcho Boom Cohort. Economists would suggest that the supply and demand ratio be balanced by either increasing the supply of candidates or decreasing the demand side of the equation. While we do need more quality PhD programs in North America, the fruits of this solution would not be realized for 5 years, perhaps longer, if there are stringent institutional and other regulatory procedures that need to be followed in starting a PhD program. By the time the first graduates emerge from these new programs, we will be well into servicing the expanding Echo Boom Cohort and starting to worry about the different enrolment challenges created by theMilleniumBustCohort.Theimplementationofthissolutionshouldhavebeen undertaken 7years ago,not today.Addressing the other side of the equation would require a moratorium on the development and/or expansion of sport management programs. While this idea may have merit, holding the line on sport management growth is not a realistic option. Sport management is too popular as an area of study. Prospective students are interested in the area, and senior administrators will re-invest resources to support programs that have growth potential. Given the demographic realities, especially in the American southwest where sport management is underrepresented as an area of study, program expansion and development is acertainty.However,weneed tomakebetteruse of theresources availablein the academy.Students shouldbe encouraged to take courses from universities currently offering programs (e.g., distance education, student exchange programs, spending a term on another campus, etc.).
We do need more PhD graduates, so increasing the size of current PhD programs might be the answer for some institutions, but this alternative must be explored with great caution. We must prepare future professors through quality educational and mentoring experiences. These students must be sufficiently prepared to make meaningful contributions in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Increasing the size of programs without ensuring the appropriate student:faculty ratio is a plan doomed to fail and bring about long-term consequences. Novel programs that use the expertise of graduate faculty from two or three universities that do not have PhD programs might also be an attractive approach to increasing the PhD pool. Doctoral students could be mentored by these academics and, in the process, enrich their doctoral experience (as well as decrease the burden on the few universities currently offering PhD programs). In addition, these candidates might be able to teach a class or two to help the participating institutions cope with the undergraduate enrolment pressures brought on by the Echo Boom Cohort. Video-conferencing and Web-based learning with adjunct professors throughout the world, especially those from institutions that currently do not offer PhD programs might be another way of increasing the PhD capacity of existing programs and, consequently, the pool of candidates for future faculty positions.
The use of visiting scholars might also provide relief to this escalating problem. The demographic pressures are not consistent in all parts of North America (or throughout the world). Perhaps a professor from an area where student pressures are less intense would be interested and made available to serve as a timebound visiting professor in a program experiencing tremendous growth at another institution.
Many universities have established domestic and international student and faculty exchange programs that allow students to take courses from another institution that count in the student's program of study. These should be expanded and encouraged as a way of coping with increased demand. The faculty exchanges may help institutions cope with enrolment pressures in specific areas of study. These 1-year to 2-year exchanges may need to be arranged at the senior levels of administration (i.e., Vice President-Academic) so campus-wide priorities can be considered. For example, a faculty exchange between two universities might exchange a chemistry professor in one institution for a sport management program in another institution, to the advantage of all parties involved.
The use of part-time faculty members may also be a viable solution (Sommer, 1994). Some part-time faculty may secure full-time opportunities that exist throughout North America. Others may decide to stay in a part-time capacity. United Statesbased institutions tend to rely more extensively on part-time faculty, and some (Benjamin, 2001; Duderstat, 2000) suggest that this approach may be used to meet the challenges of population push and participation pull, much to the chagrin of scholars like Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, and Chronister (2001) and Schuster (1998) who have written on the perils of this approach (e.g., lack of a research climate/focus, decreased levels of institutional commitment and accountability, decrease in the number of faculty eligible for important committee work and student counseling).
Keeping members from taking early retirement programs should be helpful as would extending the age of retirement (assuming government legislation/institutional policy compliance). A graduated retirement program (e.g., $70\%$ load for $70\%$ salary from age 58 to 60; $50\%$ load for $50\%$ salary from age 60 to 63; $30\%$ load for $30\%$ salary from age 63 to a determined retirement date thereafter) might stemtheflowofearlyretirementsandresultinnumerousspin-offbenefitstothe involved parties. Senior faculty would remain involved at a lower level of responsibility, and the salary saving could be used to bring in a fresh PhD or nearly completed PhD student. The program would enjoy the synergy of more people in the area at no additional cost to theinstitution.ThePhDcandidate could be mentored by the senior faculty member, thehost institution might assist them financially as theycompetetheirdoctoralstudies,and theirtenureclockwouldnotstartuntil they had completed their studies. This plan would make financial sense to the institution and provide it with a plan for overcoming the undergraduate enrolment challengesbroughtonby theEchoBoom Cohort.
We may also learn from Columbia University who established the Society of Senior Scholars, a group of approximately 30 professors emeriti who teach two courses a year, maintain their research programs, and publish and present their research. While respecting legislation and any Collective Bargaining Agreements that may exist on our campuses, we may need to look at ideas like this to help us overcome the demands placed on programs given the demographic shift. The deploymentof $100\%$ retired faculty is a viable option that we should consider, but it will take more than sending them a notice of the opportunity. Retired faculty need to be encouraged to exchange their freedom for the opportunity to stay involved in the academy. They may require office space, attractive sessional stipends, and most of all, a feeling that they are genuinely welcome to contribute. Many of these faculty members were employed at times when there were few opportunities for young faculty, not the times we are now experiencing. They need to know that they are needed, wanted, and not taking an opportunity away from a young faculty member.
Having experienced faculty members on the ground can provide many benefits. In addition to helping the unit cope with the human resource issues of few available faculty to mount courses and programs, the use of retired faculty has the potential to benefit all involved. The program needs faculty, and retired faculty have the skills and expertise to provide valuable assistance. They often stay in the area and therefore are available to provide help. They can enrich their retirement years by staying involved and continuing to learn. In addition, they can provide valuable insights to young faculty members through a mentoring relationship. They might also mentor the PhD candidate who contributes to a program through the shared PhD program idea forwarded earlier in this paper. University programs might be in a better position to attract young faculty and PhD candidates if they will be given the opportunity to be involved with respected retired faculty members who can provide mentoring enrichments. The senior/retired faculty know the formal and informal methods of getting things done in a university and have a wealth of experience and wisdom honed and tempered by a career of experience.
As Benjamin Franklin once noted, “Life's tragedy is that we get old too soonand wisetoo late."
The recruitment and retention of sport management professors has been challenging in recent times, and as outlined above, it will become a greater challenge in the next few years. The times will call for creative, aggressive action in compliance with any existing Collective Agreements/University Faculty Hiring/Retention policies as well as any pertinent State/Provincial and/or Federal laws. Administrators will need to utilize a full array of strategic plans and bargaining chips to attract, secure, and retain faculty. Traditional advertising will not be effective, as the marketplace is too thin. Candidates have too many options. “Post it and they will come will not work in this marketplace. Administrators need to develop relationships with prospective candidates prior to their graduation, and they must be kept abreast of possible opportunities long before they become available. Some institutions are considering the development of a career award for a sport management position, a program that would provide someone without a doctoral degree the necessary funding to complete a PhD in exchange for a minimum commitment of 3 to 5 years of service as a faculty member upon graduation. Identifying current graduate students who may be potential faculty members (e.g., through their publications/scholarly presentations and interaction with PhD professors) is a good starting point. Maintaining contact with these candidates can be an effective method of positioning future employment opportunities within the competitive marketplace. Hosting a sport management conference is also highly recommended to showcase one's program, faculty, campus, and city to prospective faculty members (e.g., graduate students long before they enter the marketplace, current professors who will entertain other opportunities). The international marketplace may also be a place to look for quality faculty in a highly competitive marketplace. Although sport management is growing internationally, there are some international regions where the demographic cohorts are small and programs are not moving forward, creating another market for potential faculty members.
Cluster hiring is another popular way of attracting key faculty members to a program. The excitement and benefits of being part of a group are appealing to faculty who seek collaboration and synergy in their workplace. Bradford (2001) noted that collegiality and team building are key factors in a decision to join and/ or stay in a faculty. While this plan might have more appeal and practicality to universities starting a program, it has been used effectively in some universities with existing programs, and it certainly aligns with the hiring/retention literature.
Getting prospective candidates interested in the position is only the first step in the process. Getting an employment commitment is another matter entirely, and one that will be even more challenging in the years ahead, given that a small employment pool will have a multitude of opportunities available to them. Candidates will compare their experience in the interview with the interviews experienced at other institutions. Every effort must be made to treat all candidates with respect and dignity. Boucher, Chant, and Morse's (2001) article on the public relations of the hiring process contains a number of helpful suggestions that an Appointments Committee should consider in staging employment interviews (e.g., treatment of all candidates in the process, importance of including a brief visit with the UniversityPresident if at all possible).
Naturally,theofferofemploymentwillneedtobecompetitivewiththe marketplace (e.g., a competitive salary that is also sensitive to equity theory and how significant imbalances can negatively impact morale, a considerable dowry of benefits such as research start-up funds, conference travel, research assistance, and, due to housing prices in some North American cities, housing supplements). Fortunately, professors in our area of study do not require extensive and expensive researchequipmentlikeourcolleaguesinthebio-physicalscienceswhere $\$1001$ start-upsarebecomingthenorm,andinsomeNorthAmericanuniversities, $\$250K$ and more is required. A reduced teaching load may also be required, although administrators must be cognizant of the fact that students need classes taught by professors. Spousal hiring is becoming more of an issue in the competitive marketplace and, in response, some universities are developing spousal hiring programs.At theUniversity ofAlberta,theVicePresident-Academicprovides 1/3 of the funding for a spousal hiring, and 1/3 of the funding comes from the faculty hiring the professor (Owran, 2001). The unit receiving the spousal hire only needs to contribute 1/3 of the funding for the person, an incentive to increase their participation in the program and facilitate a faculty hire.
While the successful recruitment of sport management faculty continues to evolve as one of the most important and difficult challenges facing program administrators, it is only one piece of the puzzle. The growth of sport management hasgivenway to a jobmarket wherebyyoung and mobilefacultyhave awealth of opportunities available to them.Faculty retention is a significant issue facing program administrators. While administrators might take comfort in the quality of their faculty members who are desired by other universities, the shallow supply pool makes the replacement of these faculty a challenging feat.Projections call for an increase in mobility within the sport management academy. Professors who are lured away from one Canadian university to another institution are given a letter indicating that they have been granted a “leave,” therefore keeping a link to the institution and keeping the option open for them to return. Salary “top-ups” to retainfacultymembers are commonplacein Canadian universities in response to keeping faculty, and we are in the preliminary stages of servicing the large Echo Generation and coping with the large faculty retirement bulge. Most of these salary top-ups are in the $\$2K$ to $\$3K$ range, although some top-ups are now in the $\$108$ to $\$20K$ range at the University of Alberta. The need to respond to increasing demandsfor salary top-upsis evident at theUniversity of Albertawhere the dedicatedfundhasgrownfrom $\$600$ in 1998-99 to $\$2.3\mathbf{M}$ in 2001-02. Their current Vice President-Academic has noted that the University will “go to the edge of bankruptcy to keep their faculty”(Owran, 2001).
Zinghein and Schuster (2001), in their article entitled “Retaining Top Talent,’ noted that administrators can take pro-active steps to retain their best staff members. They suggest that a competitive salary, positive workplace, team approach to decision making, and culture that values people and celebrates accomplishments of members are generally the units that retain top talent. Bradford (2001) concurred on the importance of a positive, supportive culture in the retention of superstars.
As illustrated in this paper, there are dichotomous perspectives at play within the sport management academy, brought on by the popularity of our field of study coupled with the realities of demographics. We will have no trouble finding students, but we will have tremendous challenges finding and keeping faculty to teach them. We'll have relative ease attracting students into our programs. Programs will expand and new programs will crop up throughout North America. However, students will face un- or under-employment upon graduation if we do not ensure a broad perspective/quality education taught by quality faculty members who have taught these graduates to critically analyze situations, make sound decisions, communicate effectively, work in teams employing a multitude of acquired skills, and most importantly, be prepared to apply these skills in a multitude of sport areas including recreational sport for women and men, able and disabled populations, and especially the expanding senior sector. Central to these issues is the quantity and quality of the professorate which is already in limited supply.
Doctoral students coming out of our PhD programs today and in the next few years should feel positive about the opportunities that await them in their academic careers. Those interested or willing to move should alsobe comforted by the contents of this paper. Current and future administrators should have another perspective.While we should feel good about the growth of our field of study, we will spend increasingly more time strategically recruiting faculty to our programs, and ensuring existing faculty are supported and satisfied given the opportunities they will have elsewhere.
We will have some challenging times ahead of us. How we lead our programs and area through the next 10 years will be interesting as well as challenging. It will also be a test of our resolve and commitment, things best measured in times of challenge and change. That being said, and being an eternal optimist, I have great faith in the current sport management academy and those who will join us in effectively leading us through these challenging times.
|
Albom,M.(1997).Tuesdays with Morrie: An old man,a young man,and life's greatest lesson.NewYork:Doubleday.
Alsop, W.L., & Fuller, G.F. (2001). Directory of academic programs in sport management. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Beatty, J. (1998). The world according to Peter Drucker. New York: Free Press.
Benjamin, E. (2001, January). Doing more with less: “The America Way". Paper presented at the meeting of the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, Toronto,Ontario.
Boucher, R.L., Morse, K., & Chant, P.L. (2001). Employee-selection practices and public relations.NIRSAJournal,25(1),57-65.
Bradford, R. (2001).Atract and retain your best people. Executive Excellence, 18(4),p. 13
Chelladurai, P. (199, September). Sport management and the next Millenium. Keynote address presented at the $7^{\mathrm{th}}$ Congressof the European Association for sport management, Thessaloniki, Greece.
ChelladuaMinrgantinp d ilatiyt AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers.
Clement, A. (1990). The future of sport and fitness. In J.B. Parks and B.R.K. Zanger (Eds.), Sport and fitness management: Career strategies and professional content (pp. 257- 265). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Drucker, P (1997). The future has already happened. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 20- 24.
Duersta0r),in,rdin the fuureAviwfrm southof theboarderPaper preseted at theAnnualeeng of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Calgary, Alberta.
Foot, D.K. (2000)om,ust and ech:Profing fromthe demgraphic shift in t $2I^{s t}$ century. Toronto, ON: Stoddart Publishing Co.
Foot, D.K. (2001,February).Demographics and higher education.Presentation at the Uiversity of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario.
Frank, T (2000, Jauary), Cmetiton forfaculty heats u UiversityAffairs, 411),, 10 12.
Galt, V. (2000, February 22). Canadians pursuing higher education in record numbers. The Globe and Mail, A10.
Gilles, G.P. (2001, March). Faculy recruitment and retention. Panel presentation at the Strategies on Faculty Recruitment and Retention seminar, Ottawa, Ontario.
Giroux, R.9,Otber).Facuty rewal: h ers, te ditinPa re at the annual meeting of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Brandon,Manitoba.
Halworth, K. (1999). More community colleges push to hire Ph.D's as professors. Chronice of Higher Education, 45(8),A12-A13.
Harper, E.P., Baldwin, R.G., Gansneder, B.G., & Chronister, JL. (2001). Full-time women faculty of the tenure track: Profile and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 237-257.
Jisha, J. (2001). Factors in selecting a doctoral program in sport management. In B.G. Pitts (Chair), Contribution to the so you want to be a sport management professor: From program selection to tenure and promotion. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the North American Society for Sport Management, Virginia Beach, VA.
Keller, G. (2001). The new demographics of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 219-235.
Leatherman, C. (2001). The number of Ph.D's drops for the first time since 1985. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(22), A10
Mangan, K.S. (2001). The shortage of business professors leads to 6-figure salaries for new Ph.D's. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(35), A12-A13.
Mondello, M.J., Mahony, D., Hums, M., & Moorman, A. (2001). A survey of search committee chairpersons: Candidate qualifications preferred for entry-level tenure track sport management faculty positions. Unpublished manuscript.
Owran,.00, March)Faculy rumnt and etntion.a prentatinat that egies on Faculty Recruitment and Retention Seminar, Ottawa, Ontario.
Parkhouse, B.L., & Pitts, B.G. (2001). Definition, evolution, and curriculum. In B.L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport (pp. 2-14). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Porter, M.E. (1998). On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Rice, R.E., Sorcinelli, M.D., & Austin, A.E. (2000). Heeding new voices: Academic careers for a new generation. (Rep. No. FRO7WP). Washington: American Association for Higher Education.
Schmidt, P. (1999). Applications to California's public schools predicted to rise $36\%$ by 2010. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(6),A50
Schuster, J.H. (1998). Reconfiguring the professorate: An overview. Academe, 84(1). 48- 53.
Smith, D.C. (2000). Will there be enough excellent profs?: Report on prospective demand and supply conditions for university faculty in Ontario. (COU No. 673). Toronto, ON: Council of Ontario Universities Report.
Sommer, B. (1994). Recognizing academe's other faculty. Planning for Higher Education, 22,7-10.
Stier, W.F. (2001). Sport management: The development of sport management. Perspectives. In D. Kluka, and G. Schilling (Eds.), The business of sport (pp. 39-56). Oxford, UK: Meyer &Meyer Sport.
Tabs, E.D. (April, 2001). Background characteristics, work activities, and compensation of faculty and instructional staff in post secondary institutions: Fall, 1998. (NCES 2001 - 152). Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education Report.
Thurow, L. (1996, May, 19). The birth of a revolutionary class. New York Times Magazine, 46-47.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management,1(1),4-24.
Zingheim, P.K., & Schuster, J.R., (2001). Retaining top talent. Executive Excellence, 18(13), 20.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
A Different Lens to View Mentoring in Sport Management
|
Donna L. Pastore The Ohio State University
|
2002
|
During the past 11 Zeigler presentations, many questions have been raised for us to ponder as professionals. For example, in 1995, Dr. Trevor Slack (1996) suggested that we expand the domain and nature of our research to include all aspects of the sport industry. Dr. Brenda Pitts (2001), in 2000, indicated the need for us to “think outside the box” and examine our doctoral programs in sport management. Last year, Dr. Jim Weese (2002) discussed the current and future issues relative to hiring sport management faculty members. Each of the previous Zeigler lectures has challenged us and helped us to define and improve our field. In order to keep our field moving forward, we must contemplate other areas as well. In this paper, I will focus on the topic of mentoring.
In 1990, Dr. Darlene Young (1990) completed a study on athletic administrators’ perceptions toward mentoring and networking. At the end of the article, Young (1990) stated, “the data from this study suggest that educating young professionals in sport management about these two phenomena should be an essential part of their professional training” (p. 78). I whole-heartedly agree with Darlene Young. Both mentoring and networking are essential areas for not only professionals in athletic administration, but sport management educators as well. If we are to continue improving our field, we need to consider ways to mentor and assist each other.
Dr. Gordon Olafson (1995) indicated in his Zeigler lecture the hallmarks of Dr. Zeigler’s leadership as “sensitivity, commitment, creativity, curiosity, and scholarship” (p. 339). I will add one more to this list, that is, mentoring. Dr. Zeigler was a wonderful mentor to many individuals as Dr. Zeigler’s former students remember him as a compassionate teacher and mentor. I recently spoke to Dr. Chelladuari, one of Dr. Zeigler’s protégés, who mentioned that Dr. Zeigler was very generous to his students and helped promote his students throughout their academic careers (personal communication, March 5, 2002).
Mentoring is an important topic of study in many fields as wide-ranging as business, education, and physical education. However, according to Bloom, DurandBush, Schinke, and Salmela (1998), “the largest body of research on mentoring has been conducted in the field of education” (p. 268). Therefore, since we are educators at heart, I propose that our field revisit mentoring. In this address, I will provide a different lens through which to view mentoring in sport management.
The term mentor is derived from Greek mythology (Young, 1990). Wright and Smith (2000) indicated that Odysseus left his son to a man named Mentor so that he could fight in the Trojan War. Odysseus requested that Mentor provide guidance, education and nurturing to his son. Odysseus was away for ten years and during this time, a relationship between Mentor and Odysseus’s son developed (Wright & Smith, 2000; Young, 1990). Thus, the concept of mentoring evolved.
A review of the literature on mentoring indicates that there is not one precise definition for mentoring, mentor, or protégé (Weaver & Chelladurai, 1999; Wright & Smith, 2000). Schweitzer (1993) indicated that mentors are “individuals who go out of their way to successfully help their protégés meet life goals” and protégés are “individuals who have received special assistance from other persons (mentors) in reaching their life goals” (p. 50). Ragins (1997) stated that mentors have experience and knowledge and are committed to enhancing their protégés’ careers. For this presentation, I will use the definition of mentoring developed by Weaver and Chelladurai (1999) who defined mentoring as “a process in which a more experienced person (i.e., the mentor) serves as a role model, provides guidance and support to a developing novice (i.e., the protégé), and sponsors that individual’s career progress” (p. 25).
Mentors serve many functions. Kram and Isabella (1985) indicated that mentors help protégés in both career development and psychosocial functions. Career development functions refer to the mentor providing assistance in coaching, sponsorship, challenging assignments, protection, and exposure and visibility (Kram & Isabella, 1985; Ragins, 1997). Psychosocial functions include: support, friendship, acceptance and confirmation, counseling, and role modeling (Kram & Isabella, 1985; Ragins, 1997).
Weaver and Chelladurai (1999) provide excellent descriptions for each of the aforementioned career and psychosocial functions. Related to career functions, when a mentor informs a protégé of the games played in the organization and the necessary strategies to be successful, they are providing coaching. Coaching allows the protégé to learn about individuals in the organization (e.g., individuals whom the protégé can trust and receive support from, and those individuals who have power and may attack the protégé). Sponsorship assistance occurs when the mentor “highlights the protégé’s potential and presents the individual in a highly favorable light” (Weaver & Chelladurai, 1999, p. 28). Challenging assignments refer to the process whereby the mentor assists the protégé with the development of “technical and managerial skills that will be useful later in a career” (Weaver &
Chelladurai, 1999, p. 29). Relative to protection, the mentor’s function is to help the protégé avoid mistakes. Significantly, if mistakes are made, the mentor takes responsibility for the mistake. The function of exposure and visibility occurs when the mentor gives the protégé a chance to develop relationships with those in power, or the decision makers.
The psychosocial function is best described as a social interaction between the mentor and protégé. Weaver and Chelladurai (1999) indicated that this interaction involves the protégé sharing personal and work experiences with the mentor. Related to the acceptance and confirmation function, “the mentor expresses confidence in the protégé, confirms the individual’s abilities, creates mutual trust, and lends support and encouragement” (Weaver & Chelladurai, 1999; p. 29). Counseling utilizes the mentor’s guidance to solve conflicts. Role modeling involves the mentor setting an example which the protégé desires to follow.
In addition to the functions of mentoring, the benefits and outcomes of mentoring are also highlighted throughout the literature. Benefits and outcomes are presented at both the individual and organizational levels. However, I will focus only on the individual benefits and outcomes associated with mentoring as described in a number of research studies. In May of 2000, Wright and Smith published an article in Quest titled, “A Case for Formalized Mentoring.” A section of their article highlighted the benefits of mentoring for teachers. Wright and Smith (2000) cited a study by Odell (1990), which determined that protégés were motivated to stay in teaching and had positive attitudes toward teaching. Wright and Smith (2000) further mentioned that other studies found protégés were less stressed than their colleagues who did not have mentors (Ganser, 1992, cited in Wright & Smith, 2000; Odell & Farraro, 1992, cited in Wright & Smith, 2000).
Mentors also benefited from these relationships. According to Wright and Smith (2000), mentors underwent rejuvenation (Brzoska, 1987, cited in Wright & Smith, 2000) and reflection (Ackley & Gall,1992, cited in Wright & Smith, 2000) in their own teaching, and felt they made a contribution to the profession (Ganser, 1992, cited in Wright & Smith, 2000).
Weaver and Chelladurai (1999) presented a comprehensive mentoring model in an article in Quest that describes outcomes for both the protégé and mentor. According to Weaver and Chelladurai (1999), a protégé can experience advancement outcomes (i.e., salary, promotion, status, and power) and growth outcomes (i.e., competence, identity, and effectiveness). Outcomes for the mentor can include both intrinsic rewards (e.g., satisfaction) and extrinsic rewards (e.g., continued promotion throughout an organization because of the possible network of past and present protégés).
In the 2002 April issue of the Journal of Sport Management, Weaver and Chelladurai (2002) presented a study that investigated selected aspects of their mentoring model. A total of 262 Division I and 226 Division III assistant/associate athletic administrators responded to a survey. The results of this study indicated that “an equal proportion of males and females had experienced mentoring relationships, and mentored individuals were more satisfied with their work than their non-mentored counterparts” (p. 96).
Young (1990) studied the perceptions of 263 NCAA athletic administrators toward mentoring and networking. A total of 157 females and 106 males responded to a 68-item survey. The results suggested that the top five benefits administrators received from their mentors included: (a) encouragement and support, (b) advice, (c) an opportunity to increase their knowledge, (d) guidance and direction, and (e) constructive criticism. Young (1990) indicated there were other benefits as well. Perhaps, the most interesting was “strategies and inside information to ensure success in the profession” (p. 75). When I read this benefit in the article by Young, I kept thinking about ways we can help each other be successful in the profession. Many of us are under pressure to publish and present in order to achieve tenure. Others are striving to balance teaching, research, and service. Mentoring is a way for us to help each other. We are aware of the benefits, but how can we encourage mentoring among our professional members? What can we do?
I found the answer to my questions. I suggest we consider a different lens to view mentoring; an alternative to traditional mentoring. Instead of mentoring, I propose that we as professionals consider adopting Kram’s (1988) concept of peer relationships. In 1988, Kram published a text called, Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. One chapter of her text caught my attention, a chapter called mentoring alternatives, which highlighted the types, functions, and characteristics of peer relationships. In addition, one of her recent articles regarding a new lens to view mentoring provides the inspiration for this address (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Kram’s text on mentoring is based on two studies, and throughout her text she employs a conceptual framework based on these studies. Both studies were qualitative in nature and involved extensive interviews.
One aspect of Kram’s (1988) framework described how mentoring functions can be achieved through peer relationships. Further, while a mentoring relationship can last for 3-8 years, a peer relationship often lasts 20–30 years. Peer relationships, similar to mentoring, comprise both career and psychosocial functions. Kram (1988) listed information sharing, career strategizing, and jobrelated feedback as career functions in peer relationships. According to her text (1988), information sharing “gives both individuals technical knowledge and perspective on the organization that help them get their work done” (p. 136). Peers discuss their own career options and problems by career strategizing. Also, peers can discuss situations that are work-related and “clarify their own strengths and weaknesses” (p. 136).
Kram (1988) characterized the psychosocial functions of peer relationships as being more intimate, longer in duration, and involving self-disclosure and trust. The psychosocial functions included: confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship. Confirmation referred to peers sharing their perceptions, values, beliefs, and finding areas of commonality. Emotional support provided opportunities for peers to listen to and advise each other during difficult periods of time (e.g., changing jobs or having a manuscript rejected). Feedback allowed peers to learn about one another, often extending beyond professional concerns. Perhaps most important of the psychosocial functions is that of friendship which occurs when peers develop a concern for each other that extends beyond the professional setting.
Although Kram (1988) acknowledged that several functions of peer relationships are similar to those of mentoring, she does acknowledge several differences. First, Kram (1988) used the word “mutuality” to describe a peer relationship and indicated that each person in the relationship is a helper and recipient of help. According to Kram, this is not the case in a mentoring relationship where one person assumes the role of “guide or sponsor” (p. 136). Mutuality allows each person to feel as though they are on the same playing field and, thus, provides equal assistance to one another. A second advantage to peer relationships is that they are more available and can occur at any time; it is often more difficult to contact and find a mentor. Regardless of where an individual is in his/her career, a peer relationship can be formed. The last advantage, longer duration, occurs because peer relationships extend beyond work situations.
There are some disadvantages to peer relationships. Competition can occur if two individuals are working in the same organization. Also, because of the close interaction between peers, pessimistic perceptions about an organization can be reinforced. Regardless of these negatives, the benefits of peer relationships outweigh the negatives. Throughout our professional careers we have had numerous peers influence us. Kram (1988) has identified three types of peer relationships and places these on a continuum. The types of peers include: information peer, collegial peer, and special peer.
The information peer’s primary function is information sharing where the demands are few, yet the benefits are many. The interaction between peers at this point is social and there is a small amount of personal disclosure. The information peer also “increases an individual’s eyes and ears to the organization” (p. 139) and serves as a “source of information regarding career opportunities” (p. 139).
The next reference point on the continuum is a collegial peer. This peer’s primary functions are: “career strategizing, job-related feedback, and friendship” (p. 138). An increased level of trust and self-disclosure characterizes this peer relationship. In addition, the individuals in this relationship provide feedback to one another and discuss their personal lives.
The last point on the continuum is a special peer. The primary functions of this individual include: “confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship” (p. 138). A special peer can be considered as a best friend or an individual in whom a discussion of one’s professional as well as personal life can occur. Kram (1988) indicated that these types of relationships were rare. According to Kram (1988) “this type of peer relationship provides reliable and candid personal feedback, emotional support, career strategizing and ongoing validation of individuals’ competence and potential” (p. 141). Kram (1988) stated that a special peer relationship could sometimes evolve from an information or a collegial peer relationship and that we may experience 1 to 3 of these types of relationships during our careers.
Another topic Kram (1988) highlighted was peer relationships at various career stages. She identified four stages of career development: establishment, advancement, middle career, and late career. An individual at the establishment stage is usually in his/her twenties and has “concerns about competence and a sense of professional identity” (p. 145). Peer relationships can assist a person just beginning his/her career. Kram (1988) indicated that peer relationships at this stage are similar to those of a mentoring relationship.
During this stage, as an information peer, I can assist a younger colleague to learn how to use the various services on campus to get things done efficiently. As a collegial peer I can provide information about their role as a teacher, researcher, and member of the campus community. As a special peer I may establish a personal friendship with that individual based on common interests outside of work (e.g., movies, music, books, recreational activities). The special peer relationship enables me to offer confirmation, emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship and, in turn, help my younger colleague gain competence and confidence.
In the advancement stage (i.e., individuals in their thirties), Kram (1988) indicated that “as the individual becomes established in his or her chosen profession and has a sense of competence and mastery, needs and concerns associated with advancement in the organization and profession take on new importance” (p. 145). At this stage, individuals have a desire to move forward. This is an important stage in which each of us can assist others to move forward in NASSM and in his/ her professional career.
As an information peer during this stage, I can provide knowledge about the university and its culture and this, in turn, can help another advance. As a collegial peer I can identify opportunities for advancement and recognition, such as publishing and grant opportunities, committee assignments, working with graduate students, teaching awards, and assist with career strategizing. As a special peer I can help an individual with concerns about their potential at the university and within the profession. I may also assist them with situations dealing with balancing work and family. My experience dealing with these issues may be valuable information to younger colleagues struggling with the demands of teaching, research, service, and family life, particularly for individuals who have spouses or partners working outside of academia.
The middle career stage, when individuals are typically in their forties and fifties, is when we reevaluate the choices we have made and the events that occurred in our lives and careers. Kram (1988) characterized this stage as having established histories. Decisions made and passed up shape these histories. At this stage, as an information peer I can help a colleague network with others who have similar research interests and maintain visibility in professional organizations through different committee positions. A collegial peer helps one learn “how to develop subordinates and how to depend on, as well as coach, junior colleagues”
(p. 147). In this role I might help another colleague who is interested in pursuing an administrative or leadership role in a university or professional organization. As a special peer I can help an individual not feel out-of-date and deal with personal and professional issues. Kram (1988) indicated that peer relationships at this stage are beneficial because they offer security, comfort, camaraderie, and “a chance to celebrate oneself through another” (p. 147).
The late career stage occurs when an individual is transitioning to leave the organization and retire. The information peer according to Kram (1988) helps an individual feel a part of the organization and continue working. As an information peer I can reinforce the positive contributions that a colleague has made to an academic program and the profession. A collegial peer assumes what Kram has termed a consultative role. This individual passes on responsibilities to younger workers. As a collegial peer, I can let go of certain responsibilities and pass them on to a younger colleague. An example would be stepping down as a program coordinator or committee chairperson. As a special peer I can help a colleague prepare psychologically for retirement. At this stage, an individual reflects back on his/her career. A special peer at this stage is rare according to Kram (1988). In addition, a special peer is considered essential, since this person has been through the same steps. Kram (1988) mentioned a special peer is “like a home away from home—a chance to be understood and liked by someone who has been through it all, too” (p. 148).
Although Kram’s (1988) work is focused within an organization, I believe we can apply the concepts to NASSM. Each of us has the potential to serve as an information, collegial, and eventually a special peer. While we may be able to develop peer relationships with people at NASSM, it would be much easier and more effective to start with our own students. Therefore, I would like to make a few recommendations that we first as individual professionals can implement to serve as effective mentors with our own graduate students.
Due to time, I will focus on recommendations for doctoral students. These recommendations can be modified for master’s degree students and, in some cases, undergraduate students. One recommendation is to develop a contract between the protégé and mentor. The contract is a method to set up goals and activities that can occur outside the classroom. The contract also is a way to establish what the mentor expects from the protégé and an opportunity for the protégé to list expectations for the mentor. For example, from the mentor’s perspective, the mentor could include expectations for publishing, presenting, and readings. An important point to mention is that the mentor must be willing to assist the protégé with the recommended tasks in the contract. The protégé needs feedback and guidance from the mentor. Otherwise, the activities outside the classroom will be difficult to achieve. Of course not every protégé will be able to achieve the established goals, and the mentor will need to be flexible and work with that protégé. For some protégés, the doctoral coursework may be enough.
The mentor may also consider adding parts to the contract which state that the mentor will provide timely and constructive feedback on the protégé’s work, help the protégé get ready for a tenure track position, and teach the protégé everything that the mentor knows to help the protégé become successful after graduation. The mentor may also want to consider pursuing activities with the protégé that encourage social interaction. A part of the contract should allow the protégé to list his/her expectations for the mentor. For example, the protégé should be given the opportunity to indicate how often he/she desires to meet with the mentor, the type of feedback he/she desires from the mentor on papers, and other areas.
In addition to a contract, the mentor may consider setting up an independent study course for the protégé during his/her first semester in school. The focus of the independent study may be to introduce the protégé to research, the field, NASSM, the Community of Science Database, the Social Science Citation Index, being a tenure track faculty member, and other topics. The mentor can provide readings and assignments that assist the protégé to understand each of the aforementioned subjects.
Another area in which the mentor may prepare the protégé is the job market, and this may be one of the most difficult and challenging tasks. The goal is to help the protégé establish his/her line of inquiry. The dissertation, as we all remember, can serve as a foundation for our future research. However, the dissertation can also burn out the protégé and make him/her develop another line of research. Therefore, as mentors, it becomes important for us to help our protégés find dissertations that they are very interested in and will hopefully serve as a foundation for their future research. The mentor can assist the protégé with not only a line of inquiry, but also a research agenda and curriculum vita.
The aforementioned recommendations are just a few of the ways in which a mentor can assist the protégé. These recommendations require a commitment from the mentor and protégé and will only work, if both agree to them. If a protégé enjoys the experience he/she has as a doctoral student, then there is a strong potential for a peer relationship to develop between the protégé and mentor after the protégé graduates.
As previously mentioned, I believe that we can apply Kram’s (1988) work to NASSM. Every one of us has the potential to serve as an information, collegial, and eventually a special peer. We do not have to be in daily face-to-face contact to serve in these roles because with today’s technology we are capable of communicating with our peers every day. So how can we encourage and develop peer relationships? One of my recommendations is for NASSM to create a clearinghouse that Webster (1974) defined as a central office for information. The clearinghouse could be a place for our members to find out who is interested in a peer relationship. It would also serve as a mechanism for sharing this information. The purpose of the clearinghouse would be to foster information peer relationships among our professional members.
Schweitzer and Dolan (2001) recommended a clearinghouse in their article. They described the University of Minnesota Alumni Association’s mentoring program that is used by 16 different colleges and programs and included 1400 student and mentor participants (University of Minnesota Alumni Association, 2002; Schweitzer & Dolan, 2001). A NASSM task force could develop the specifics for a clearinghouse with a focus on establishing mentoring initiatives for our members. For example, a database could be developed of NASSM members who are interested in establishing information peer relationships. This would require developing a form that would request information such as the NASSM member’s research, teaching, and service interests and initiatives. Members would be matched with other members based on the information from the mentoring form. The task force would determine the individual or group responsible for maintaining and updating the database. Perhaps, it could even be housed in the NASSM business office.
In addition to a clearinghouse to help establish information peer relationships, I recommend that we add another component to the clearinghouse that focuses on our graduate students. In other words, NASSM should develop a formalized mentoring program for our graduate students. We should remember that our students are the future of our profession. They are our future leaders and colleagues. Dr. Zeigler (1992) indicated in his 1989 address that “we should search for young people with all of 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” (p. 213). During the past several years, our professional society has developed ways to make students feel more a part of the association. However, I believe with a formalized mentoring program we will serve them much more. Mentoring can occur informally or formally (Noe, 1988; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000; Tepper, 1995). In a formal mentoring program, mentoring happens when organizations or programs match mentors and protégés (Ragins et al., 2000), whereas informal mentoring occurs without external involvement (Tepper, 1995). I believe a formal mentoring program would benefit our professional members and our students; it would enhance networking opportunities for our students and the job selection process for our members.
The first step in developing a formalized mentoring program is to have the previously mentioned task force develop “a statement paper that outlines the goals and objectives of the program” (Wright & Smith, 2000, p. 210). This, of course, is needed to help us clarify what we are attempting to accomplish (Wright & Smith, 2000). The next step is to establish a pool of mentors/protégés and start the matching process (Schweitzer, 1993).
Hypothetically, the mentoring program could evolve at a NASSM conference. Mentors and protégés would fill out surveys to outline their expectations and interests. They would then be matched accordingly. Next, meetings between mentors and protégés would occur at the conference to establish expectations for each other. The process of mentoring would then begin and continue for an academic year. At the end of the year, an informal evaluation would occur between the mentor and protégé to determine the success of the mentoring (Schweitzer, 1993).
Although, many of our members currently serve as mentors for students at their own institutions, it may be of value for us to mentor students from other institutions. As mentors, we can provide a different view and philosophy of sport management for students outside of our universities. In addition, as mentors, we can learn from protégés and feel as though we are making a contribution to the profession. Our professional association may benefit as well. Schweitzer and Dolan (2001) indicated that there are some significant gains that an organization generates because of these types of mentoring programs, which include membership growth and retention, and professional growth. Thus, a formalized mentoring program would benefit all of us. I will mention that other professional associations do have formalized mentoring programs at their conferences. In May of 2002, the Health Physics Society established a mentoring program at their annual conference for their students (Walchuk, 2002).
If we are to establish a clearinghouse for information peer relationships and mentoring for our graduate students, we must remember that we will only be successful if we have a strong commitment from our members to volunteer for this program (Schweitzer & Dolan, 2001). Without volunteers our mentoring programs will not work. Also, these types of programs will not work if they are forced upon individuals. Thus, we should only pursue these types of endeavors if we are interested in them and have the time and effort to expand toward such a relationship.
I want to present a third recommendation regarding mentoring and NASSM. This is a very different way of viewing mentoring. I propose that we add a new section to the July issue of the Journal of Sport Management entitled, “Best Practices in Mentoring and Teaching.” I do not feel as though we need to limit ourselves to mentoring in this new section. This section could be expanded to teaching ideas, initiatives, and other areas. Further, the selection of the July issue is important because many of us are preparing for the upcoming academic year during the summer. An idea from this type of article could be implemented into an upcoming course or our professional lives. O’Dell and Grayson (1998) define best practices as “those practices that have produced outstanding results in another situation and that could be adapted for our situation” (p. 13). Just think how much we could benefit as sport management educators if we shared more of our best practices.
A question sure to be raised with this suggestion is “How many other academic associations include this type of section in their journal?” I cannot answer this question. However, I am proposing that our editorial board consider the idea. Why not be different if it advances our approach and knowledge base as sport management educators?
In conclusion, it is important to note that many NASSM members have established mentoring programs for their students. In addition, many of our members are information, collegial, or special peers for individuals at their own institutions. However, if we are to continue to grow as a field and as sport management educators, we need to move beyond the boundaries of our institutions. My hope is for our association to develop mechanisms to encourage and foster more peer and mentoring relationships between NASSM professionals and student members in the near future. After all, my mentor, Dr. Linda Thorton from the University of Florida, said “Never say you cannot do something.” The time has now come for us to try on a different lens and put a plan into action.
I thank Dennis Clum, Corinne Daprano, Marlene Dixon, Janet Fink, and Lisa Miller for their feedback and assistance with this paper.
---
|
Ackley, B., & Gall, M. (1992, April). Skills, strategies, and outcomes of successful mentor teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Cited in Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
Bloom, G.A., Durand-Bush, N., Schinke, R.J., & Salmela, J.H. (1998). The importance of mentoring in the development of coaches and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267-281.
Brzoska, T. (1987). Mentor teacher handbook. Vancouver, WA: Evergreen School District. Cited in Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
Ganser, T. (1992, April). Getting off to a good start: A collaborative mentoring program for beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual Diversity in Mentoring Conference, Chicago, IL. Cited in Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
Higgins, M.C., & Kram, K.E. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A development network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 264-288.
Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kram, K.E., & Isabella, L.A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
Noe, R.A. (1988). Women and mentoring: A review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 13, 65-78.
Odell, S. (1990). Mentor teacher programs: What research says to the teacher. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Cited in Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
Odell, S., & Ferraro, D. (1992). Teaching mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 200-204. Cited in Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
O’Dell, C., & Grayson, C.J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Olafson, G.A. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 338-345.
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1-9.
Ragins, B.R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482-521.
Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L., & Miller, J.S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177-1194.
Schweitzer, C.A. (1993). Mentoring future professionals. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 64, 50-52.
Schweitzer, C., & Dolan, T.C. (2001). Mentoring measures. Association Management, 53, 38-51.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
Tepper, B.J. (1995). Upward maintenance tactics in supervisory mentoring and nonmentoring relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1191-1205.
University of Minnesota Alumni Association. (2002). UMAA Mentor Connection. Retrieved January 9, 2002, from http://www.alumni.umn.edu/index.asp?Type=NONE&SEC= {C2DF8C8C-F61A-11D4-85D9-005004AD2AC8}
Walchuk, M. (2002, May). HPS introduces annual meeting mentoring program “a win/win situation.” The Health Physics Society’s Newsletter, 30, 1, 4-5.
Weaver, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). A mentoring model for management in sport and physical education. Quest, 51, 24-38.
Weaver, M.A., & Chelladurai, P. (2002). Mentoring in intercollegiate athletic administration. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 96-116.
Webster’s New School and Office Dictionary (1974). Greenwich, CT: Fawcett.
Weese, W.J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 1-17.
Wright, S.C., & Smith, D.E. (2000). A case for formalized mentoring. Quest, 52, 200-213.
Young, D. (1990). Mentoring and networking: Perceptions by athletic administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 71-79.
Zeigler, E.F. (1992). Using the rays from history’s shining lantern as we face an uncertain future. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 206-214.
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Managing Program Excellence During Our Transition from Potential to Merit
|
Jacquelyn Cuneen Bowling Green State University
|
2003
|
Sport management was acknowledged early in its formative years as an academic area with great potential for success in the academy. Due largely to the efforts of NASSM’s members, sport management quickly became entrenched in academe and is starting to be recognized as an academic area of merit. It is important to manage our overall program excellence as we move from “potential” to “merit” if sport management is to thrive as an academic discipline and profession. It is particularly important to mange our merit since our transition phase occurs amidst many changes and challenges (e.g., the student as consumer; under-representation of National Association for Sport and Physical Education/NASSM Approved Programs; under-recognition of sport management teaching excellence, and diminishing service roles and interests within industry and academe). The purpose of this essay is to posit approaches through which sport management’s educational programs might maintain their wellearned meritorious reputations amid shifting academic and social cultures. This essay is the text of the 2003 Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture presented on May 30 at the 18th Annual Meeting of NASSM in Ithaca, New York.
Sport, like so many expressive art and music forms, is a global commonality. Sport is an international language needing little interpretation to be understood by all cultures, geographies, and generations, both as participants and spectators. The amalgamation of sport and mainstream disciplines such as history, philosophy, and sociology increased our knowledge of the way different cultures view themselves, impose rules for living, arrive at decisions, and the ways we interact in our communities. Ultimately, Earle F. Zeigler (Zeigler & Paton, 1967), James G. Mason (Mason, Higgins, & Wilkinson, 1981; Mason & Paul, 1988), and others discerned that since sport occupies such an indispensable role as an entertainment and movement form, such a central position in the health, welfare, and economic lifelines of a community, and, in essence, is such a treasured feature in people’s lives, we should study the management of it in order to preserve its best characteristics and improve its state of affairs.
An examination of past literature addressing sport management reveals the single emerging theme to be that of potential. Sport management’s potential was heralded as a business enterprise, as an academic cross-discipline seeking to prepare those who would work in the enterprises, and as a line of systematic inquiry (Parkhouse, 1979; Sheffield & Davis, 1986; van der Smissen, 1984). Zeigler (1992), Garth Paton (1987; 1997), and others advised us to make certain that quality was the driving force behind our academic programs if sport management was to reach its full potential. Due to certain quality controls such as our well-designed program approval process, our rigorously reviewed journal, and our sound conference structure that provides us with continued professional development, sport management is evolving from an era of potential and entering a genuine era of merit, meaning that our field is commendable, praiseworthy, and deserving of our rising high regard.
My theme for the 2003 Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture will address many of the challenges for us as members of the professoriate as we teach sport’s future managers and scholars and, of course, as we maintain and improve our meritorious place in academe. I will focus on teaching and learning and somewhat on service and engagement. In doing so, I do not at all mean to underrate research and inquiry. I wholeheartedly believe that our scholars have shaped our meritorious place in the academy by holding sport to a high level of scientific scrutiny and expectation. However, others in our Society, particularly Packianathan Chelladurai (1992), Janet Parks (1992), Gordon Olafson (1995), and Trevor Slack (1996) have already addressed the significance of sport management scholarship in their Zeigler Lectures. I hope to convince you that, like any constituent in any meritocracy, we now have to show that we truly belong, that we were admitted to the academy because we earned our place in it through our notable achievements and are not merely appeased because of our considerable and stable enrollments, tolerated because of the unlimited opportunities for our students in the workplace, or simply accepted because of the visibility of our impressive and successful alumnae/i.
The caveat is that sport management reaches its era of merit at a point in time when merit and achievement are somewhat undermined by current social norms. Our transition takes place as many of our students consider themselves to be customers rather than learners, as most of our programs have not yet embraced our program approval credentialing process, as our finest teachers are unrecognized, and, finally, as the role of the practitioner and the academician as generous contributors to the community, institution, and profession is becoming unvalued. The way we deal with these influences in program design and delivery will have a fundamental impact on the students we teach—those persons who will work in the industry and join the professoriate in the future.
Louis V. Gerstener, Jr. (2002), the recently retired chief executive officer who went to a floundering IBM in 1993 and rebuilt it to its former “Big Blue” self, found that the most difficult task he faced was internal culture. Gerstner believes that all firms consider their cultures to support outstanding service, overall excellence, teamwork, integrity, and responsible behaviors. However, he found that none of the important rules for survival are written down, even though there may be drawers full of mission statements composed to drive an organization’s goals. Much like Gerstner had to orchestrate IBM toward competing in the brave new world of techno-business, North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) members now have to navigate sport management through our brave new era of merit while maintaining our program quality and preparing a new type of student for a changing work world.
The American Association of University Professors (1987) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (n.d.) note that special responsibilities come with membership in the professoriate because we touch the future through academic quality. Thus, as educators, our influence on sport as both a business and an institution is boundless if we provide sport organizations with what Gary Krahenbuhl (2003) identifies as “inspired students,” those who learn new things and, in doing so, develop an enduring interest and remain current for a lifetime, as opposed to “taught students” who learn new things about a topic and are current for a moment. Henry Brooks Adams (1918), grandson of the sixth American President and great-grandson of the second, is the often-unidentified person who articulated in his famous autobiography The Education of Henry Adams that teachers affect eternity because they never know where their influence stops. Another of Adams’ reflections, one less celebrated, is his expression of wonderment that the educational process itself does not ruin both teachers and students. Mindful of Adams’ two thoughts, we begin our era of merit knowing that what we do with curricula and students is lasting and our efforts must be considerable and significant rather than expedient and economical amid our challenges and obstacles.
Education and those who seek it have undergone a great transformation since sport management began its era of potential. The Right Honourable A. Kim Campbell (1993), Canada’s 19th Prime Minister, was among the first of world leaders to recognize that contemporary education had to be comprehensive because students, in their lifetimes, would be dealing not with the production of goods but with the dissemination of information and provision of services. Sport management enters its era of merit when many students wish to be taught rather than inspired and wish to buy information and those single skills that will make them excel in the workplace at a fast rate.
Several sources indicate that our students present more and more of a challenge, each year. Peter Sacks in Generation X Goes To College (1996) described our 1990s-era students as postmodern individuals who consider themselves consumers rather than students. They pay tuition that often increases 3 to 12 percent each year and for that, they expect us to find ways to teach them essential content but they do not necessarily recognize a link between effort and achievement. Charles
Sykes (1995) in Dumbing Down Our Kids claimed that school standards and quality were lowered so far in the 1990s that everyone passed without excelling, and promoting a student’s self-esteem was more important than expectation and achievement.
More recently, an American Public Broadcasting System Frontline (1999) series program, The Merchants of Cool, labeled those teens who likely will be our 2000-era higher education consumers as “mooks” (i.e., male teens who are caught permanently in adolescence as crude, loud, and obnoxious; Frontline, n.d.; The Merchants of Cool, 1999) and “midriffs” (i.e., female teens who are prematurely adult and use sexuality as empowerment; Frontline, n.d.; The Merchants of Cool, 1999). If you have yet to meet a mook or a midriff, never fear for they are coming soon to a classroom near you. There are over 33 million of them and they will bring an incongruity to our classrooms by feeling entitled to almost everything, including excellent grades for minimal effort, while we as teachers feel that they are entitled to the opportunity to acquire further knowledge, to develop academic, career, and life skills, and to become better educated and, thus, better people. Even more disconcerting, according to Marilee Jones (2003), Dean of Admissions at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the predisposition of their over-involved parents to threaten lawsuits if college conditions are not perfect for their children.
Mook and midriff have observed sport, socially and commercially, in ways that differ drastically from many of our earlier students as well as ways in which we, ourselves, may have observed it. Social and commercial influences are driven by several phenomena that must be offset if a university sport management education is to have an effect on the mook and the midriff. For example:
On Monday February 11, 2002, during the 2002 Winter Olympics, French skating judge Marie-Reine Le Gougne awarded highest points to Russian skaters Elena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze, despite their slight technical error in the pairs final program. Le Gougne’s score prompted a 5-4 decision that sealed the gold medal for Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze. The second place silver medal was awarded to Canadian skaters Jamie Sale and David Pelletier, despite their picture-perfect performance witnessed by 16,000 fans at the Salt Lake Ice Center and by multi-millions of TV viewers around the world.
On February 13, sports agent Steve Herz appeared on Fox News Channel’s On The Record With Greta van Susteran and proposed that Sale and Pelletier were actually better off with the silver medal and the subsequent controversy surrounding the competition. Had they won the gold, Herz speculated, Sale and Pelletier would have been the top sports story for a day. However, because of the scoring controversy, the skaters would get at least a week’s worth of publicity, everyone in the world was talking about them, thus, the endorsements and other opportunities were much better for them as a result.
It did not appear to cross Herz’s mind that Sale and Pelletier had worked to achieve excellence since they were children, arising in pre-dawn hours for thousands of days to skate for millions of hours on a cold sheet of ice just so they could stand on a platform for a few minutes and hear $O h$ Canada played in their honor. It is likely, if they had the choice, that Sale and Pelletier would have traded all the publicity and would have been willing to take fewer millions, if they just could have had the gold outright at the conclusion of the pairs event.
Should we not offer mooks and midriffs the type of education that would make them scoff at Herz’s remarks? Do we not owe our students, in an era of merit, the type of multicultural education described by Joy De Sensi (1994) whereby students are lead toward a greater understanding of sport as an institution as well as a business?
Curricular standards, such as those maintained by the National Association of Sport and Physical Education/North American Society for Sport Management (NASPE/NASSM) in the Sport Management Program Standards and Review Protocol (2000), are vital as we seek respect from our colleagues across our campuses. There are common standards of performance in all brick and mortar and many dot-com industries. When we order a car or buy a pair of tennis shoes, we do so with reasonable assurance because they have passed some type of inspection (Gerstner, 2002). Students should enter a sport management program with the same confidence knowing that their program of study has been examined and deemed to be of the highest merit.
The NASPE/NASSM program approval standards were designed to inculcate students with essential content (Brassie, 1989a; 1989b) and still give great flexibility to institutions in curricular implementation (Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998). Yet, there are only 31 undergraduate, 25 master’s and 3 doctoral programs approved by NASPE/NASSM from among the 200 (Alsop & Fuller, 2001; Stier, 2001) American sport management programs.
Why would so few programs be approved and why would so many programs not want to seek approval? It is clear that many programs do not need the NASPE/NASSM credential in order to attract students or even to be assured that their curricula are strong. The truth is, though, that NASPE/NASSM Program Approval needs the stronger programs in order to strengthen its own position. When strong, visible, stable programs receive NASPE/NASSM approval, two meritorious goals are accomplished: (1) it emphasizes the overall concept that sport management is an area of study held to strict peer assessment, and (2) it sets individually approved programs apart from the hundreds of major programs in North America that are either not held to strict peer review or have subjected themselves to peer review and failed to meet the minimum standards of program merit. Additionally, approved programs counteract those make-shift programs that piece together non-sport related courses from around an institution and identify themselves as sport management while their enrollments increase and they flood the industry with interns and entry-level employees.
Why is it important to assess programs, and why is it important that the strongest and most visible programs be approved? I think I can best explain it through an anecdote that should churn strong reactions in any NASSM member.
During the fall 2002 NCAA football season, a sportscaster working one of the television games of the week was commenting on a college player’s high grade point average and extolling the player’s achievements as a true scholar-athlete. When a graphic of the player’s vital statistics was shown, the sportscaster, upon noticing the player’s major as sport management, sheepishly added “Well, it couldn’t exactly be too hard to get good grades in that major.”
Perhaps the player enjoyed his major and actually studied it. Or, perhaps he found it easy because he liked the content. There may be hundreds of reasons why the player earned high grades. However, I wonder if the sportscaster would have thought poorly of sport management in the first place if it, like all educational and many management and business courses of study, was brought esteem through a well-known accreditation.
Since an entire field benefits when programs are accredited (Siedentop & Locke, 1997), it follows that faculty from any good program would want to earn accreditation to strengthen their own as well as their academic field’s position. Approved programs are essential in order for sport management to be held in high regard during our era of merit because, as Gerstner (2002) noticed upon arriving at IBM, people tend to do that which you inspect not what you expect. We may expect that all sport management programs have a critical mass of fulltime faculty and a significant course of study; but, frankly, unless those components are inspected systematically and consequences result for underdeveloped programs, our own institutions may not provide resources to the extent necessary for us to sustain overall program excellence and merit.
Our program approval will be more meaningful, and hold more merit, if NASPE and NASSM can promote our credential at the grassroots level. Since there is no basic incentive for sport management programs to seek approval, we have to be methodical in informing career counselors, students, and sport industry employers about our important process. NASPE/ NASSM Program Approval is a brand and if we treat it as such and apply Young & Rubicam, Inc.’s (n.d.) BrandAsset Valuator to it (viz., Differentiation, Relevance, Esteem, and Knowledge), we can see how strong the credential could be as a known brand when differentiation would make an approved program stand out as more valuable than a non-approved program; when relevance would show that an approved program would actually make a difference in students’ lives more than a non-approved program; and when esteem would make approved programs appealing to students and employers on an emotional level. Brand knowledge will result as career counselors, students, and employers know our brand and know why it is different, relevant, and esteemed.
Further, approved programs themselves must value and promote their own credential. Many of the 451 (Mangan, 2003) business programs that have gained accreditation from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB; n.d.) value their credential so highly that they showcase it by using the AACSB logo on stationary, Internet sites, fax cover pages, and many other types of external communications. More importantly, business schools believe so strongly in their accreditation that, often, honor students who attended unaccredited baccalaureate programs are not even considered for admission to accredited master of business administration programs regardless of their undergraduate class standing. When NASPE/NASSM approved programs, like AACSB accredited programs, recognize their own cachet and place of distinction within the academy, perhaps the NASPE/NASSM Program Approval brand will be perceived as essential.
Brenda Pitts (2002) suggested that the credibility of our field is measured by many standards, two of which are the quality of our faculty credentials and the awards we give. I take this opportunity to suggest reinvigorating a NASSM initiative first forwarded in 1999 regarding special recognition of those who inspire lifelong learners by asking our Society to acknowledge outstanding teachers. James Weese (2002) informed us that the quality of professors is the most important aspect of one’s educational experience. NASSM’s teachers deserve an opportunity to have their efforts and accomplishments recognized publicly just as we rightly recognize the scholars and contributors among us. If preparing students for the 21st century sport marketplace is important, should we not recognize those who prepare them using best practices?
Of course, there is no perfect way to identify NASSM’s best teachers. The criteria used to select our Fellows and Distinguished Service honorees are not perfect; yet, we settled on acceptable criteria and now have a cadre of Fellows who have taken their places next to other Fellows in our institutions and a panel of contributors recognized by their peers in our Society. Each year, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) recognizes “Teachers of the Year” for health education, dance, and for elementary, middle, and secondary physical education from among 50 state-level finalists in each one of those five teaching categories. If AAHPERD’s state associations can select their “Teachers of the Year” from among all of their states’ public and private school teachers, and AAHPERD can select 5 national “Teachers of the Year” from among those 250 total finalists, certainly NASSM can select one outstanding sport management educator each year from among the great teachers who are NASSM’s members.
Successful organizations reinforce those elements that make it great (Gerstner, 2002). We honor our members who produce excellent scholarship and those who provide unselfish service contributions to our organization. However, the single element that has made sport management itself thrive as an academic major is our ability to teach Generation X, mooks, midriffs, and any other typical students of their era who are sent to our classrooms.
If we ever wonder about the role of good teachers in successful students’ lives, perhaps the following story will convince us that our line of work is of great consequence: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd American President, invited Pulitzer and Nobel Prize winning novelist John Steinbeck to dine privately at the White House with himself and First Lady Eleanor. In his reply, Steinbeck stated that he was most honored by the President’s invitation but unable to accept because, on the night in question, he was to attend a testimonial for an English teacher from his high school. Mr. Steinbeck went on to state that while he had known five great presidents, he had known only one great English teacher (Wolper, 2003).
Great teachers espouse Canadian education pioneer Egerton Ryerson’s (cited in Colombo, 1991, p. 139) viewpoint that universities should prepare good citizens who will function well as members of the community in which they live. However, even this straightforward objective is a current challenge because of a phenomenon related to age and values. For the first time ever, there are four generations of North Americans working side-by-side in the marketplace. The four generations do not understand each other, cannot communicate sufficiently with each other, and managers are challenged to direct all these assorted employees toward productivity and collaboration (Bennis & Thomas, 2002; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Zemke, Raines, & Filiczak, 1999).
Ron Zemke, Claire Raines, and Bob Filiczak (1999) label the generations Veterans, Boomers, Xers and Nexters in their book Generations at Work. Lynn Lancaster and David Stillman (2002) identify them as Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millenials in their book When Generations Collide. Warren Bennis and Robert Thomas (2002), in their book, simply call them Geeks and Geezers. No matter what their monikers, it is a fact that today’s coworkers were raised in different eras under different mindsets, they appreciate different cultural norms, and they relate to different landmark events in their lives.
One of the most unanticipated and, thus, striking differences between the generations is their viewpoint toward service, that aspiration or obligation that compels individuals to perform tasks and duties merely because those tasks or duties need to be done or because they feel a responsibility to do something to improve their community or profession. It appears that “geezers” are well-focused on their jobs and embrace service contributions while “geeks” are more focused on personal satisfaction and embrace material rewards. We are, in fact, sending graduates into a world of experienced humanitarians who are astounded when their young colleagues do not want to share their skills without compensation or direct benefit.
Given this modern inclination to avoid unpaid work, it is imperative that our curricula, and extra-curricula such as program-sponsored pre-professional group activities, be designed to instill in students the viewpoint that they can change and improve their communities by sharing the best of what they have to offer. Our students need to realize, either through service learning or some other viable means, that sport management positions are visible ones within their communities and they will be called to serve on committees of all kinds and share their expertise with all sorts of good causes. There is no better place to illustrate the importance of service than in a comprehensive and meritorious sport management preparation program.
The changing workplace hits closer to home for all of us when we consider that the sport management professoriate is undergoing the same types of changes as the sport marketplace. I noticed a “clash in tenure tracks” last summer during a board meeting of the Ohio Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (OAHPERD). Volunteers were needed to write a curricular model for quality physical education that would be implemented in all Ohio public schools upon House and Senate approval. When OAHPERD’s president asked for a team of volunteers, a “geek “ from one of Ohio’s institutions stood to ask if the curriculum’s authors would be remunerated for their efforts and for imparting their unique knowledge. Several “geezers” in the audience were visibly stunned; one of them stood and explained that the opportunity to write the curriculum, influence state policy, and the honor of having one’s name on the curriculum was remuneration enough. Upon hearing that, most of the “geeks” snickered.
When did giving back to the profession become something to snicker at? Applying volunteerism to NASSM in order to make it meaningful to us on our level, where would we be if our founders, presidents, executive council members, editors, reviewers, committee chairs, and others had snickered when asked to contribute voluntarily? Would we even have a NASSM, or a journal that led us toward scholarly respectability among the kinesiologists, or any of the numerous other returns that our Society brings to us? Would we not still be in an era of potential instead of an era of merit?
Service has always been a sensitive and often misunderstood issue in the academy. There is not a lucrative reason for doing it, it is often as frustrating as it is rewarding, it can be unappreciated by colleagues, it can be a long lasting commitment often taking more time than teaching and research, and it is repeatedly undervalued by our institutions that reward us for what is important to the “firm” rather than for what takes our time. However, even considering the many drawbacks of service, it is essential and it makes a sustained impact on improving the quality of life for our contemporaries. The Sport Management Program Review Council helps us make sport management education stronger, the Journal of Sport Management editors and editorial board help us confirm that sport management scholarship stands up to the scrutiny of the academic community, and our executives and committees take care of NASSM’s business so we can have a vibrant and meaningful professional provider—because all of the magnanimous individuals who manage and participate in those groups have a sense of service. The irony is that service, perhaps the least respected prong in the traditional university triad, may actually be the most important vehicle in sport management education’s era of merit.
Robert Boucher (1998) reminded us that our purpose is to help current and future sport managers make better decisions about sport. Sport management as a career field, and those managers who work in it, are better off in the 21st century because sport management thrived as an academic major and quickly morphed to its meritorious place in the academy among the best and most popular of academic programs. Eras of potential are replaced — either by merit or failure. Our potential led to merit because of our people. Sport management’s eras of potential and merit share people as a common resource. To preserve and, particularly, to elevate our meritorious status is the most fundamental challenge to everyone associated with NASSM, because, remember, any year now, mook, midriff, and geek will be those part-time faculty that we hire from industry and may even become the future professoriate and NASSM membership.
It was not easy to arrive here in merit-land even though we had a great potential to flourish. As we now begin to manage our merit, we are obliged to honor the legacy of those who gave of themselves to make the academic world better for us. As we recognize and value our noteworthy curricula and outstanding teachers, our authors and research fellows, and our generous contributors, we will continue to thrive, improve, and sustain our merit. The best resources to help us manage program excellence in our era of merit are apparent: They are us.
|
Adams. H. B. (1918). The Education of Henry Adams; An Autobiography. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Alsop, W., & Fuller, G. F. (Eds.). (2001). Directory of Academic Programs in Sport Management. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (n.d.). AACSB International. Retrieved March 24, 2003 from: http://www.aacsb.edu/
American Association of University Professors. (1987). Statement on professional ethics. Washington, DC: Author.
Bennis, W. G. & Thomas, R. J. (2002). Geeks and Geezers. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Boucher, R. L. (1998). Toward achieving a focal point for sport management: A binocular perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 76-85.
Brassie, P. S. (1989a). A student buyer’s guide to sport management programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 60(11), 25-28.
Brassie, P. S. (1989b). Guidelines for programs preparing undergraduate and graduate students for careers in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 158-164.
Campbell, K. A. (1993). Address to the Confederation Club of Kitchener, Ont., August 16, 1993. Retrieved February 12, 2003 from http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/primeministers/h4- 4044-e.html
Canadian Association of University Teachers. (n.d.) Canada’s voice for academic staff. Retrieved February 12, 2003 from http://www.caut.ca/
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management. 6, 215-219.
Colombo, J. R. (1991). The Dictionary of Canadian Quotes. Toronto: Stoddart.
Cuneen, J. & Sidwell, M. J. (1998). Evaluating and selecting sport management undergraduate programs. Journal of College Admission, 158, 6-13.
DeSensi, J. T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 63-74.
Frontline. (n.d.) The Merchants of Cool. Retrieved March 17, 2003 from http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/pages/ frontline/shows/cool/
Gerstner, L. V., Jr., (2002). Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? New York: Harper Collins.
Jones, M. (2003, January 6). Parents get too aggressive on admissions. USA Today, p. 13A..
Lancaster, L. C., and Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide. New York: Harper Business.
Krahenbuhl, G. S. (2003). Are we preparing institutional “difference makers?” Quest, 55, 25-29.
Mangan, K. S. (2003, May 9). New accreditation rules give business schools more leeway on faculty hiring. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A15.
Mason, J, Higgins, C., & Wilkinson, O. (1981). Sports administration education 15 years later. Athletic Purchasing and Facilities, 5, 44-45.
Mason, J. G. & Paul J. (1988). Modern Sports Administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.
The Merchants of Cool (1999) [Videotape]. (Available from PBS Video, PO Box 751089, Charlotte, NC 28275)
Olafson, G. A. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport Management. 9, 338-345.
Parkhouse, B. L. (1979). Sport management as a potential cross-discipline: A paradigm for theoretical development, scientific inquiry, and professional application. Quest, 31, 264-276.
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.
Paton, G. (1997, May 31). The future ain’t what it used to be. The Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the North American Society for Sport Management, San Antonio, TX.
Pitts, B. G. (2002). Sport management at the Millennium. Journal of Sport Management. 15, 1-9.
Sacks, P. (1996). Generation X Goes to College: An Eye-Opening Account of Teaching in Postmodern America. Chicago: Open Court.
Sheffield, E. A., and Davis, K. A. (1986). The scientific status of sport management: An evolving disciplinary branch of study. Quest, 38, 125-134.
Siedentop, D. and Locke, L. (1997). Making a difference for physical education. What professors and practitioners must build together. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 68(4), 25-33.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management. 10, 97-105.
Sport Management Program Standards and Review Protocol (2000). Reston, Virginia: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Stier, W. F. (2001). Sport management: The development of sport management. Perspectives. In D. Kluka and G. Schilling (Eds.). The business of sport (pp. 39-56). Oxford, UK: Meyer & Meyer Sport.
Sykes, C. (1995). Dumbing Down Our Kids. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
van der Smissen, B. (1984). Sport management curricula—An idea whose time has come. In B. K. Zanger and J. B. Parks, (Eds.) Sport management curricula: The business and education nexus (pp. 1-18). Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Weese, W. J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management. 16, 1-17.
Wolper, D. L. (2003). Producer: A Memoir. New York: Scribner.
Young & Rubicam, Inc. (n.d.). Brand asset valuator. Retrieved February 6, 2003 from, http://www.yr.com/knowledge/what2.php
Zeigler, E. F. (1992). Using the rays from history’s shining lantern as we face an uncertain future. Journal of Sport Management. 6, 206-214.
Zeigler, E., & Paton G. (1967). Administrative theory as a basis for practice in intercollegiate athletics. In Proceedings of the 70th Annual Convention of the National College Physical Education Association for Men (pp. 131-139). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York: American Management Association.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Critical Sport Management Research
|
Wendy Frisby University of British Columbia
|
2004
|
Critical social science is an underused paradigm in sport management. It can, however, help reveal the bad and ugly sides of sport, so we can uncover new ways to promote the good sides of it. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the relevance of this paradigm for sport management teaching, practice, and research. A key assumption of the critical paradigm is that organizations are best viewed as operating in a wider cultural, economic, and political context characterized by asymmetrical power relations that are historically entrenched. Research is not neutral because the goal is to promote social change by challenging dominant ways of thinking and acting that benefit those in power. Conducting critical sport management research requires a specific skill set and adequate training is essential. Drawing on the work of Alvesson and Deetz (2000), the three tasks required to conduct critical social science are insight, critique, and transformative redefinition. These tasks are described and a number of sport-related examples are provided.
The increased size of organizations, rapid implementation of communication and information technologies, globalization, the changing nature of work, reduction of the working class, professionalization of the workforce, stagnant economies, widespread ecological problems and turbulent markets are all part of the contemporary context demanding a research response.
Alvesson & Deetz (2000, p. 10)
Critical social science can play an emancipatory role for managers in much the same way that it can any group of human beings, by increasing their awareness of capital accumulation pathologies, reifications, and latent sources of social control. Nord & Jermier (1992, p. 217)
It was an honor to be the 2004 Earle F. Zeigler Award recipient and I hope my words will do justice to the values Dr. Zeigler has promoted throughout his long and distinguished career. In reviewing Dr. Zeigler’s works, it quickly became apparent that the message I want to share picks up on some of the themes he was writing about over a decade ago. For example, Dr. Zeigler (1992, p. 211) warned us to avoid “naïve optimism or despairing pessimism” and encouraged us to “strive consciously to bring about a steady improvement in the quality of our lives.” He also encouraged us to pay attention to the impact of social forces, such as the “clash between capitalistic economic theory and the environmental crisis” and to “avoid imposing a narrow academic approach on our students”(p. 212). By calling for more critical sport management research, I hope our academy will be inspired to broaden our research and teaching agendas to more fully accomplish some of the lofty goals set out by Dr. Zeigler.
All previous Zeigler Award recipients have challenged us to think about how our field could be improved, whether it is by paying more attention to our historical development (Boucher, 1998; Chelladura, 1992; Olafson, 1995; Paton, 1997), the trends affecting our field (Cuneen, 2004; Howard, 1999; Weese, 2002), the theories we draw upon (Parks, 1992; Slack, 1996), the sites we study (Pitts, 2001; Slack, 1996), or the issues we address (DeSensi, 1994; Pastore, 2003; Stotlar, 2000). As previous Zeigler Award recipients have done, I hope to challenge our field by arguing that critical social science (CSS), with its relatively long history in social science and organizational research, has been underused in sport management at great cost. CSS arose because of disillusionment with traditional forms of managerial theory, research, and practice (Alvesson & Wilmott, 1992) and can best be understood as a way of empowering individuals by confronting injustices in order to promote social change (Kincheloe & McLaren, 1998). It embraces a “process of inquiry that goes beyond surface illusions to uncover the real structures of the material world in order to help people change conditions and build a better world for themselves” (Neuman, 2003, p. 81). As such, it is a very relevant lens for understanding and reflecting on organizational practices and how we teach, research, and theorize about sport management.
One of my key arguments is that if we are to fully understand all dimensions of sport management, we need research to be conducted from multiple paradigms. The paradigms we operate from as researchers, whether it is positivism, pragmatism, interpretivism, critical social science, post modernism, or a combination of these paradigms, shape the questions we ask, the methods we use, and the degree to which our findings will have an impact on society (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Creswell, 2003; Schultz & Hatch, 1996). Paradigms are much broader than theories and encompass the epistemological, ontological, and methodological claims we make as researchers. Epistemology refers to how we see the world: Do we see it as something that can be predicted and controlled? Do we see it as something that is socially constructed and constantly negotiated? Or do we see it as problematic and requiring change (Neuman, 2003)? These worldviews are very different and the type of knowledge we produce will be restricted if we rely too heavily on any one of them.
Ontology asks basic questions about the nature of reality. For positivists, reality is “out there” waiting to be discovered, whereas for interpretivists it is created through microsocial interactions. For criticalists, reality is rooted in the tensions surrounding historically entrenched power relations; whereas for post modernists, there are multiple and often conflicting realities (Neuman, 2003). The third element, methodology, determines how we gain knowledge about the world, whether it is through quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approaches (Creswell, 2003). My goal here is not to fuel the “paradigm wars” by arguing that any one of these paradigms is superior over another (Burrell & Morgan, 1979; Frisby, 1995). Rather, I am offering critical social science as a paradigm, not the paradigm, in sport management research, and I will briefly outline what this underused perspective has to offer.
If we think for a moment about the “sport” part of sport management and the good aspects of it, I suspect that it is probably something very positive about sport that drew those of us in sport management into this field in the first place. It might have been the thrill of achieving a personal best or watching others achieve theirs, or overcoming adversity to win a tightly battled contest, or that incredible teamwork bond that is created in sport like nowhere else. Perhaps it was the relationships with people behind the scenes who touched our lives: our parents driving us to activities, our coaches and teammates encouraging us, the volunteers and administrators who raised funds and organized events for us, or the fans cheering us on. Unfortunately, we are among the privileged few because most people in our world do not enjoy these same advantages. Moving beyond the personal level, there is no doubt that sport performs important functions in our society. It can fuel local economies, it can promote social cohesion, and participation can offset the growing number of biomedical and psychosocial pathologies associated with our modern consumptive lifestyles.
If we look at the bad and ugly sides of sport, however, it is clear that many of the societal ills that concern us more generally are present in our world as well: from corruption, bribery, greed, and abuse, among other scandals (Jennings, 1996; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998); to athletes and workers forming unions to protect their rights (Kidd & Donnelly, 2000); to the environmental destruction that occurs to make way for facilities, sporting events, and outdoor pursuits (Lenskyj, 2000; Slack and Amis, 2004). Other societal ills reflected in sport include the exclusion of women and minorities in positions of power (McKay, 1997; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003); the discrimination faced because of race, disability, sexuality, and other markers of difference (Brooks & Althouse, 2000; Lenskyj, 1999; Promis, Erevelles, & Matthews, 2001); and the escalating salaries of sport celebrities that contrasts sharply with the impoverished conditions of laborers (many of whom are children) producing sport products in Third World countries (Goldman & Papson, 1998). Other examples include the pressures on athletes to take performance enhancing drugs in order to “make weight” or play when injured (Houlihan, 1997; Young, White, & McTeer, 1994); tobacco and alcohol companies using sport to advertise harmful products (Dewhirst & Hunter, 2002); and athlete and fan violence that is often glorified in the media (Walton, 2001). Many of these societal ills are byproducts of capitalism with its’ individualistic achievement orientation and overemphasis on wealth creation at the expense of more humanistic values (Margolis & Walsh, 2003).
Parks (1992) and Slack (1996) alluded to these controversies in their Zeigler lectures, but how much of our research is addressing them? As the former Editor of the Journal of Sport Management, very few manuscripts crossed my desk that operated from a critical stance. Perhaps we have left these types of studies to our colleagues in the sociology of sport, but their focus is often on the societal rather than the organizational level of analysis, which is problematic because, as Deetz (1992, p.2) has argued:
The modern corporation has emerged as the central form of working relations and as the dominant institution in society. Corporate practices pervade modern life by providing personal identity, structuring time and experience, influencing education and knowledge production, and directing entertainment and news production.
Consequently, as argued by Alvesson and Willmott (1992, p. 5), corporations and consumer marketing bear some responsibility for fostering a materialistic lifestyle that ties self-esteem to the possession and consumption of goods while contributing to social problems such as exploitation, pollution, and the widening of the gap between the haves and the have nots. Whereas some contend that it is the state’s role to ameliorate such social problems, companies and nongovernmental organizations are increasingly being asked to provide innovative solutions (Kanter 1999; Prahalad & Hammond, 2002), and organizational scholarship can play an important role in guiding appropriate responses (Margolis & Walsh, 2003, p. 268).
With our focus on organizations and managerial activities, sport management scholars are well positioned to question how structures and practices related to policy development, marketing, the media and technology, accounting, human resource management, and so on perpetuate and contribute to the bad and ugly sides of sport. There is a growing body of literature that could be drawn upon to further this agenda, including Morgan’s (2003) work in marketing, Slack and Amis’ (2004) critical perspective on sponsorship, and Steffy and Grimes’ (1992) and Deetz’ (2003) writings on human resources. Additional sources include Forester (1993) and Chalip’s (1996) critique of policy development; Power, Laughlin, and Cooper’s (2003) work on critical theory in accounting; and Jermier and Forbes (2003) analysis of organizations and the natural environment.
Perhaps the reason for the paucity of studies using a critical lens lies in the training we have received as researchers. Most management and sport management studies reflect a positivist orientation that addresses some important aspects of our field. But we need to ask whether we have been trained to ask research questions from a critical perspective, to use the types of qualitative and mixedmethods approaches that might best address these questions, and to negotiate access to data when people will be wary of our intentions. Additionally, we need to ask whether we know how to communicate our findings beyond traditional academic outlets so our research will have the intended impact, given that social change is the ultimate goal of CSS. Conducting critical sport management research requires a different skill set compared with traditional approaches to research, and adequate training is essential.
Given our training, we also need to ask how we teach our students about sport management. Criticalists view management as an activity that is messy, ambiguous, political, and fragmented, and they believe that conceptualizing it as a technical function involving planning, organizing, coordinating, and controlling fails to capture the essence of what mangers actually do (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, pp. 5-6). Are we relying on mainstream approaches where sport organizations are depicted as rational goal seeking entities, rather than fostering multiple and alternative viewpoints? Huczynski (1994) warns that through their teaching and publications, faculty become gatekeepers of dominant managerial ideas and perpetuate their entrenchment and continued circulation. This is dangerous because discursive closure can stifle a continual rethinking and renewal of managerial, research, and teaching practices, making it difficult for alternative views like CSS to become accepted and taken seriously in management and sport management programs (Zald, 2002).
The above questions are important because we claim we want our students to be strong critical thinkers who will make positive contributions to society, but how do we go about encouraging this if we are not well versed in critical social science theories ourselves (Frost, 1997)? As Caproni and Arias (1997, p. 301) have argued, we want our students to
ask difficult questions that sometimes have no clear answers, to look at both the moral and economic imperatives of managerial practices, and to live with ambiguity and anxiety.
If the information we convey or encourage students to seek out fails to capture these realities, are we doing them a disservice, and if so, what are the implications for sport and society? Will our students perpetuate the problems when they conduct research or enter the work force because they are not trained to look for the bad and ugly sides of sport and will not know how to address them when they do? I submit that these are some very important questions that we should be grappling with. Articles in journal like the Journal of Management Education (e.g. Caprioni & Arias, 1997; Frost, 1997; Prasad & Caproni, 1997; Prasad & Cavanaugh, 1997) and Organization (e.g. Walsh & Weber, 2002; Zald, 2002) can help us in this regard because they contain some very interesting ideas on teaching critical management studies.
Perhaps we are not drawing on CSS because we do not see its relevance for practice. I would argue the opposite by suggesting that knowledge of CSS will help sport managers uncover and begin to deal more adequately with the bad and ugly sides of sport so that more people, including managers themselves, will be able to enjoy the good sides of it. Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop, appeared to advocate a critical approach when she raised the following question in her book:
How can we change from a system which values endless increasing profit and materialism to one in which the core values are community, caring for the environment, creating, growing things and personal development? (Roddick, 2000. p. 70)
We also need to ask whether it is necessary to pit instrumental and humanitarian goals against one another? Isn’t it possible that correcting injustices and empowering people can also improve organizational performance and the bottom line? Meyerson and Kolb (2000) attempted to convince managers of this in their series of action research studies on gender equity in industry. Whereas I am not rejecting growth or profit as possible outcomes of practice and research, I see the broadening or balancing of the agenda as a much needed and healthy development in our field.
So, what will it take to broaden our research and teaching agendas in order to pay greater attention to CSS? We need to become well versed in the writings of contemporary critical theorists like Alvesson and Deetz (2000) and Alvesson and Willmott (2003); feminist scholars like Martin (2003) and Calas and Smircich (1992); social theorists like Foucault (1980) and Habermas (1984, 1987); and those who advocate participatory forms of inquiry like Freire (1986). In addition, the early criticalists associated with the Frankfurt School,1 who were inspired by the works of Marx and Weber, laid the foundations of CSS by illuminating how the ideological distortions associated with instrumental conceptions of management can become sources of oppression. A key assumption of the critical paradigm is that organizations are best viewed as operating in a wider cultural, economic, and political context characterized by asymmetrical power relations that are historically and deeply entrenched. Research is not neutral because the goal is to promote social change by challenging dominant ways of thinking and acting that benefit those in power. Thus, it is vitally important that we ask who benefits from our research.
Alvesson and Deetz (2000) persuasively argued that most management studies ultimately serve the interests of managers who occupy positions of power by demonstrating how wealth creation can be enhanced through improved organizational performance. In contrast, researchers adopting a critical lens are concerned about goals other than profit and with representing the interests of those affected by managerial actions, such as workers, athletes, volunteers, customers, marginalized populations, and the public at large. For example, my own research has been devoted to looking at those outside rather than inside the local sport system and how policies, practices, and structures can be made more inclusive for those living in poverty (Frisby, Crawford, & Dorer, 1997; Frisby & Hoeber, 2002; Frisby & Millar, 2002). In our work the problem surfaced that, in order to qualify for financial subsidies to participate in community sport and recreation, women had to “prove poverty” by bringing their financial assistance records in and having them photocopied and put on file by staff. The women talked about how demeaning this practice was and how it created a major barrier to their participation. By sharing these results with senior managers and politicians, we were able to get this policy and other practices changed (Frisby & Millar). Even though local governments are under pressure to be accountable and raise revenues, we appealed to their stated mandate that programs are to be available to all citizens. We were honest and indicated our research would likely be critical of existing policies and practices, but that we would provide alternatives based on citizen input that would help them achieve their mandate. By carefully negotiating our stance as critical researchers, we were able to gain the trust of those in positions of power who could either resist or affect change in their own organizations based on the research recommendations (Frisby, Reid, Millar, & Hoeber, in press).
In order to integrate critical social science into our research, teaching, and practice, Alvesson and Deetz (2000) called for three overlapping tasks: insight, critique, and transformative redefinition. I will use the Olympic Games to illustrate each of these three tasks. First, insight involves questioning taken-for-granted knowledge and examining the complex relationships between local forms of domination and the broader contexts in which they are situated. This requires an understanding of how material and economic arrangements are enforced by contracts and reward systems, how cultural arrangements are enforced by specific values and visions, and how command arrangements are enforced by rules and policies that have become instilled as the natural way of doing business (Alvesson & Deetz, p. 87). To illustrate, it is often assumed, especially by host communities, that the Olympic Games will have a number of positive spin-offs such as, (a) economic development; (b) athlete, volunteer, and facility development; and (c) international media exposure that will boost tourism. It was members of the media like Andrew Jennings (1996) and researchers like Helen Lenskyj (2000) who applied the principle of insight by questioning how Olympic bids were won and by exposing numerous examples of bribes and other corrupt behavior. Insight also encourages us to think about and question (a) why aboriginals are exploited to add a cultural element to such events; (b) how male business elites are often assumed to be the most capable candidates for senior positions; (c) how judging might be rigged to favor athletes from certain countries; and (d) how government funds might be secured through the reduction of social welfare programs, a practice that adversely affects the most needy in the host community.
The second task, known as critique, involves determining how forms of domination, asymmetrical power relations, and distorted communications favor certain interest groups. The goal is to reveal how knowledge claims are politically loaded but are often obscured by claims of truth and experience that, at its very worst, can cause subordinates to see their situations as natural or inevitable (Alvesson & Deetz,
2000, p. 47). Our research questions become quite different here because the focus is on how work activities are constrained, how asymmetrical power relations are reinforced, how control is exerted, how certain values become more important than others, and how managerial actions might intentionally or unintentionally result in negative consequences. Once again, the Olympics provide a good example of this because, despite claims of rational planning processes, we continue to see cost overruns, environmental destruction, facilities that become “white elephants,” security lapses, unfulfilled economic benefits, and negative social impacts (Lenskyj, 2000).
The third task, transformative redefinition, has implications for practice because it can lead to “managerially relevant knowledge and practical understandings that enable change and provide skills for new ways of operating” (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 21). Rather than ending at critique that can result in the “despairing pessimism” that Dr. Zeigler alluded to (1992, p. 211), the goal is to open up discussions that lead to nonrepressive forms of organizing. Research from this perspective explores alternative structures and arrangements in order to disrupt dominant discourses and established orders, and it has an action component designed to foster personal, organizational, and social transformation (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Kincheloe & McLaren 1998). We have seen examples of this with the Olympics because some organizers have taken steps to build legacies that will contribute to sport development over the long term, to run more environmentally friendly games, to reduce athlete abuse, to make bidding and judging processes more fair, and to involve aboriginals, athletes, and citizens in decision making in more authentic ways.
The rise in action-oriented research demonstrates the growing commitment that some management (Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Perry & Gummesson, 2004) and sport management scholars2 are making to the notions of meaningful knowledge transfer in order to promote social justice. To this end, it is heartening to see that the Journal of Sport Management has two forthcoming Special Issues planned, one on critical and innovative approaches and another on diversity that will, hopefully, encourage more critical and action research.
In conclusion, Forester (1983, p. 244) argued that CSS provides a provocative, politically, and morally illuminating way of examining the nature and consequences of various modes of human organizing. By concentrating on the bad and ugly sides of sports, CSS offers a lens for contemplating how we can reduce the negative consequences of managerial action or inaction through transformative redefinition. It is not, however, sufficient to turn a critical gaze only on sport managers and organizations. As researchers, teachers, and students, we must also critically reflect on our own knowledge claims.
By doing so, I hope we will find ways to integrate the critical paradigm into our research, teaching, and practice more often in order to foster healthy debate, critique, and social justice. How can we go wrong if we envision a world of sport where profits are reinvested in the community; where concerns over the environment and equality take precedence over development and profit making; where athletes, citizens and employees are empowered; and where marginalized groups have the opportunity to achieve the many benefits of sport and recreation participation? As I have briefly argued, embracing CSS and exposing students, future researchers, and managers to it opens up a new world that, up to this point, has been inadequately explored.
The author would like to thank Ted Alexander, Lisa Kikulis, Janet Parks, Trevor Slack, Lucie Thibault and Richard Wolfe for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper.
This paper is dedicated in loving memory of my mother, Peggy Price.
|
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Willmot, H. (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Willmot, H. (2003). Studying management critically. London: Sage.
Boucher, R.L. (1998). Toward achieving a focal point for sport management: A binocular perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12(1), 76-85.
Brooks, D., & Althouse, R. (2000). Racism in college athletics. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Calas, M., & Smircich, L. (1992). Re-writing gender in organizational theorizing: Directions from feminist perspectives. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.), $R e$ -thinking organization: New directions in organizational theory and analysis. London: Sage.
Caproni, P.J., & Arias, M.E. (1997). Managerial skills training from a critical perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 292-308.
Chalip, L. (1996). Critical policy analysis: The illustrative case of New Zealand sport policy development. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 310-324.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 215-219.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: Sage.
Cuneen, J. (2004). Managing program excellence during our transition form potential to merit. Journal of Sport Management, 18(1), 1-12.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Deetz, S. (2003). Disciplinary power, conflict suppression and human resources management. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmot (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 23- 45). London: Sage.
DeSensi, J.T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 8(1), 63-74.
Dewhirst, R., & Hunter, A. (2002). Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One and CART auto racing: Tobacco brand exposure and enhanced symbolic imagery through co-sponsors’ third party advertising. Tobacco Control, 11(2), 146-150.
Forester, J. (1983). Critical theory and organizational analysis. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies for social research (pp. 234-245). London: Sage.
Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
Freire, P. (1986). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Frisby, W. (1995). Broadening perspectives on leisure service management and research: What does organization theory offer? Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(1), 58-72.
Frisby, W., Crawford, S., & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participatory action research: The case of low-income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 8-28.
Frisby, W., & Hoeber, L. (2002, March-April). Factors affecting the uptake of community recreation as health promotion for women on low incomes. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 129-133.
Frisby, W., & Millar, S. (2002). The actualities of doing community development to promote the inclusion of low-income populations in local sport and recreation. European Sport Management Quarterly, 3, 209-233.
Frisby, W., Reid, C., Millar, S., & Hoeber, L. (in press). Putting ‘participatory’ into participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management.
Frost, P.J. (1997). Building bridges between critical theory and management education. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 361-367.
Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (1998). Nike culture. London: Sage.
Greenwood, D.J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, policy and politics: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge.
Huczynski, A.A. (1994). Business school faculty as gatekeepers of management ideas. The Journal of Management Development, 13(4), 23-40.
Howard, D. (1999). The changing fanscape for big-league sports: Implications for sport managers. Journal of Sport Management, 13(1), 78-91.
Jennings, A. (1996). The new lord of the rings. London: Simon & Shuster.
Jermier, J.M., & Forbers, L.C. (2003). Greening organizations: Critical issues. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmot (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 157-176). London: Sage.
Kanter, R.M. (1999). From spare change to real change: The social sector as beta site for business innovation. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 123-132.
Kidd, B., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Human rights in sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(2), 131-148.
Kincheloe, J.L., & McLaren, P.L. (1998). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 260-299). London: Sage.
Lenskyj, H.J. (1999). Women, sport and sexualities: Breaking the silences. In P. While & K. Young (Eds.), Sport and gender in Canada. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Lenskyj, H.J. (2000). Inside the Olympic industry: Power, politics, and activism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McKay, J. (1997). Managing gender: Affirmative action and organizational power in Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand sport. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Margolis, J.D., & Walsh, J.P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
Martin, J. (2003). Feminist theory and critical theory: Unexplored synergies. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmot (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 66-91). London: Sage.
Meyerson, D.E., & Kolb, D.M. (2000). Moving out of the “armchair”: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7(4), 553-571.
Morgan, G. (2003). Marketing and critique: Prospects and problems. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 111-131). London: Sage.
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Nord, W.R., & Jermier, J.M. (1992). Critical social science for managers? Promising and perverse possibilities. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Critical Management Studies (pp. 202-222). London: Sage.
Olafson, G.A. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport Management, 9(3), 338-345.
Parks, J.B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottom line” in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 220-229.
Pastore, D.L. (2003). A different lens to view mentoring in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 17(1), 1-12.
Paton, G. (1997, May). The future ain’t what it used to be. The Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, San Antonio, TX.
Perry, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Action research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3-4), 310-320.
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 1-9.
Power, M., Laughlin, R., & Cooper, D.J. (2003). Critical theory and accounting. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 132-156). London: Sage.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hammond, A. (2002, September). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 4-11.
Prasad, P., & Caproni, P.J. (1997). Critical theory in the management classroom: Engaging power, ideology and praxis. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 284-291.
Prasad, A., & Cavanaugh, J.M. (1997). Ideology and demystification: Tom Peters and the managerial (sub-)test—and experiential exploration of critique and empowerment in the management classroom. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 309-324.
Promis, D., Erevelles, N., & Matthews, J. (2001). Reconceptualizing inclusion: The politics of university sports and recreation programs for students with motor impairments. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(1), 37-50.
Roddick, A. (2000). Business as unusual. London: Thorsons.
Sack, A., & Staurowsky, E. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M.J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529-557.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347-375.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 97-105.
Slack, T., & Amis, J. (2004). “Money for nothing and your cheques for free?” A critical perspective on sport sponsorship. In T. Slack (Ed.), The Commercialisation of Sport (pp. 269-286). London: Frank Cass.
Steffy, B., & Grimes, A. (1992). Personnel/organizational psychology: A critique of the discipline. In M. Alvesson & H. Willlmott (Eds.), Critical management studies (pp. 181-201). London: Sage.
Stotlar, D. (2000). Vertical integration in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 14(1), 1-7.
Walsh, J.P., & Weber, K. (2002). The prospects for critical management studies in the American Academy of Management. Organization, 9(3), 402-410.
Walton, T. (2001). The Sprewell/Carlesimo episode: Unacceptable violence or unacceptable victim? Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(3), 345-357.
Weese, W.J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspective on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 1-17.
Young. K., White, P., & McTeer, W. (1994). Body talk: Male athletes reflect on sport, injury, and pain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 175-194.
Zald, M.N. (2002). Spinning disciplines: Critical management studies in the context of the transformation of management education. Organization, 9(3), 365-385.
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.
|
n/a
|
1The Frankfurt school refers to theorists associated with the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt such as Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse. Habermas is considered to be a second wave member of the Frankfurt school.
2See the 1997 special issue of the Journal of Sport Management (volume 11, number 1) for examples of action research.
---
|
Toward a Distinctive Sport Management Discipline
|
Laurence Chalip University of Texas at Austin
|
2005
|
The current malaise over sport management s place and future as an academic discipline provides a useful basis for envisioning the needs and directions for the field's growth and development. The field's development requires two complementary streams of research: one that tests the relevance and application of theories derived from other disciplines, and one that is grounded in sport phenomena. The legitimations that sport advocates advance for sport s place on public agendas are useful starting points for research that is sport focused. The five most common current legitimations for sport are health, salubrious socialization, economic development, community development, and national pride. The value of sport in each case depends on the ways that sport is managed. Factors that facilitate and that inhibit optimization of sport's contribution to each must be identified and probed. Identifying and probing those factors will be aided by research that confronts popular beliefs about sport, and by research that explores sport s links to other economic sectors. The resulting research agenda will foster development of a distinctive sport management discipline.
Sport management is relatively young as an academic discipline. There are advantages and disadvantages to being young. The most potent advantage is that those of us who study sport management have an opportunity to build the discipline s foundation and shape its future. The most potent disadvantage is the growing pains (and sometimes the self-doubt) that accompanies that effort.
There has been substantial malaise among sport management scholars about the field's status, direction, and future. One of the most salient concerns has been the debate over the relevance of academic research for sport management practice (cf. Cuneen & Parks, 1997; Weese, 1995). At issue has been the degree to which the emphasis on theory building in academic research is useful to practicing sport managers, and whether our field is a relevant one if its research and theories are not immediately applicable by sport managers. Researchers who are actively engaged in consulting to industry have argued that an active engagement with sport management practice enables real-world testing of our theories (Irwin, 2001) and can foster development of new theory (Chalip, 1990).
This assumes, however, that we have applicable theories, and that the context of our work (sport) is one from which significant theory can be derived. The fundamental concern has therefore been whether sport management is a unique discipline or is one that merely derives applications from theories originating in the so-called “home disciplines” (Zanger & Groves, 1994). This concern is exacerbated by the relatively lower status academic institutions accord to the study of popular culture (Traube, 1996), particularly sport (Banks, 1983).
This concern is manifested two significant ways. The first is the higher credibility that is often accorded to the so-called home disciplines among ourselves and our colleagues. At some of our institutions, it is deemed insufficient for sport management scholars to have published only in sport management journals. Rather, merit and promotion sometimes require that the researcher publish work in a home discipline journal (e.g., a management, marketing, or sociology journal). This is tantamount to treating sport management as merely a derivative discipline—one whose work is best validated via peer review from nonsport management outlets. It is a self-deprecating practice that we should endeavor to eradicate.
The second manifestation of our field's status insecurity is the perennial discussion over whether the appropriate home for sport management should be a business school or a department specializing in sport studies (e.g., kinesiology). As a hybrid discipline, we are about sport and about management. So, in disciplinary terms, it matters very little whether we are housed with colleagues who study sport or with colleagues who study management. Either home could be appropriate, and in neither setting would our colleagues who do not study sport management be concerned with both sport and management. (Throughout this discussion, the term “management” is used in the generic sense, so it references all aspects of business studies, including management, marketing, and finance.) The subtext in the debate over our best home is really about academic status, not ontological necessity. What is too often overlooked in that debate is that our status ultimately derives not from our institutional location, but rather from the research that we do and the students we attract.
In fact, the kinds of malaise we have experienced regarding our status, our work, and our place in academic institutions is typical of young disciplines. A century ago, medicine (Ludmerer, 1985), business (Winn, 1964), and public administration (Ostrom, 1989) were each concerned about their poor academic status, their seemingly derivative paradigms, and their appropriate place in tertiary education. The malaise in our field is neither a faw nor a drawback; it is a necessary process for our maturation.
Costa (2005) demonstrates that the debates about sport management and its future remain salient even to those who are considered by others to be the field's intellectual leaders. Although they agree that the field needs to strengthen its research base, they remain uncertain about the requisite directions for future sport management research and the consequent future for sport management as an academic discipline. Costa argues that ongoing discussion about the status, directions, and future of sport management research is healthy for the field because it nurtures the field's growth and development. The Zeigler lecturers who have preceded me have each endeavored to address the field's status and to envision its future. In the analysis that follows, I seek to build on the foundation they have laid by taking up Costa s challenge to consider the pathways by which sport management can mature as a distinctive discipline—pathways that will enable our field to assert unabashedly its significance as an academic endeavor and its relevance to the practitioner s world.
If the study of sport management is to position itself as a distinctive discipline, then it must take seriously the possibility that there are distinctive aspects to the management of sport. In other words, if sport management is to be anything more than the mere application of general management principles to the sport context, then there must be something about sport that renders distinctive concerns, foci, or procedures when sport is managed. If that is not the case, then there is little reason for sport management to exist as a separately identified field of study. We could more efficiently and effectively piggyback on the research, theories, and teaching tools that are developed in mainstream business schools.
Of course, the degree to which our object of study (i.e., sport) makes a difference in the processes we study (i.e., management) is a matter for empirical scrutiny. One obviously necessary task is to determine the degree to which theories borrowed from mainstream social science are apt descriptors of sport phenomena, and whether insights derived from mainstream business research are adequately applicable in sport management contexts. Thus, we need to identify the utility and limitations for sport management of models that are obtained from other disciplines. This task is diagrammed in the column labeled “Derivative Model” in Figure 1.
Figure 1 — Complementary models of sport management research.
There is, of course, a second necessary task. If we are to take seriously the possibility that sport management has distinctive elements, then we need to identify what those elements are and what difference they make. Merely testing the utility and limits of borrowed theories would constrain us from fully probing sport management contexts for their distinctiveness. In order to do that, we need to begin with sport phenomena and construct theory that is grounded in the management of sport. That task is diagrammed in the column labeled “Sport-focused Model” in Figure 1.
These two approaches to research and theory are well understood in the philosophy of science (Root, 1993). By following the first path, we might affirm that a general theory is valid in sport, or we might determine that it is not. We thereby learn whether a theory can or cannot be applied to sport management. The second path, on the other hand, enables us to create new theory, perhaps in combination with existing theory, with the result that our knowledge is demonstrably pertinent to sport and its management.
Although both research paths are necessary for a fully functioning sport management discipline, the second path is comparatively more difficult to navigate; the researcher cannot rely on paradigms and theories that have been developed by scholars in other disciplines. Rather, sport-specific research foci need to be identified, and sport-specific research questions must be formulated. One manifestly useful place to begin is with the claims that sport organizations commonly make about sport's significance—claims that are also used to legitimize sport's demand on the public purse. After all, the claims we make about the significance and value of our industry represent our loftiest aspirations for sport. Anything we do to further those aspirations will also enhance sport's significance and value.
Research into sport policy continues to grapple with critical differences in the sociohistorical contexts of sport across national settings. The same word in a different national setting can reference an entirely different sport system or structure. Nevertheless, despite such differences, five legitimations for sport are popularly espoused internationally: health, salubrious socialization, economic development, community development, and national identity (cf. Chalip, Johnson, & Stachura, 1996). Although the relative emphasis on any one or combination of these legitimations varies among nations, these legitimations are important not merely because they are commonly espoused, but also because they assert that sport bestows good public outcomes. They suggest that sport is not merely about play and entertainment but is also a means to some of our most revered policy objectives. Yet, the credibility of these legitimations remains suspect when so much of what we do in the design and implementation of sport programs, sport events, and sport systems is inconsistent with (indeed, often antithetical to) realization of the outcomes upon which our legitimations are based (Budd, 2001; Heitzman, 1999; Parrish, 2003). This inconsistency renders a useful question for research: What would the design, management, and marketing of sport look like if it were intended to optimize the outcomes we claim as legitimations for sport? Subsequent sections of this article explore the research directions in which that question leads.
Health. The benefits of physical activity for circulatory health, mental clarity, managing blood sugar, and slowing the ravages of aging are so well demonstrated (Pollock & Wilmore, 1990; Seefeldt & Vogel, 1986) that there is little purpose in rehearsing the many benefits here. What is significant from the standpoint of health as a legitimation for sport is that sport is but one form of physical activity. Exercise (e.g., calisthenics, walking), physical recreation (e.g., gardening, dance), and purposive physical activity (e.g., climbing stairs, biking to work) can provide health benefits, as well as sport, and can do so without engaging sport bureaucracies. Sport systems throughout the world are increasingly endeavoring to foster elite sport performances (Green & Oakley, 2001) and are not well suited to promoting mass sport participation pursuant to health promotion (Murphy & Waddington, 1998).
Consequently, public health campaigns designed to promote physical activity have used sport only tangentially. In the United States, for example, sport is absent from the health agenda. Rather, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have chosen to focus on public education campaigns designed to encourage exercise and physical recreation and have encouraged policies that would improve the number and quality of environmental supports for exercise and physical recreation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001). In Canada the situation is only marginally better. Although lip service has been paid to the value of sport organizations for promoting physical activity, the Physical Activity Unit of the Public Health Agency of Canada describes its policy focus in terms of public education and policy supports for physical activity (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2005). As in the United States, even the word sport is conspicuously absent.
There are valid reasons to wonder about sport s conspicuous absence from health policy design and implementation. One advantage that sport provides for incentivizing and maintaining physical activity is that it can offer hedonic rewards that are conspicuously absent from exercise (cf. Privette & Bundrick, 1997; Wankel, 1993). Because some participants find that competition diminishes their enjoyment (Chalip, Csikszentmihalyi, Kleiber, & Larson, 1984; Salguero, Gonzalez, Tuero, & Marquez, 2003), this is particularly (but by no means uniquely) true if we include sports that might not entail competition, such as surfing, rock climbing, and mountain biking. A second advantage is that physical and social infrastructures associated with sport clubs and sport programs represent resources that can be leveraged to encourage and enable ongoing physical activity. The Australian (Crisp & Swerissen, 2003) and Finnish (Vuori, Paronen, & Oja, 1998) experiences demonstrate that the desired leverage can be enabled if sport organizations are provided appropriate incentives and sport personnel are trained in the requisite skills.
This is not to suggest that sport should replace exercise, physical recreation, or purposive physical activity as targets for physical activity promotion. Rather, the point is that sport should be among the preferred channels for promoting physical activity. The fact that sport is little used by public health agencies as a channel for promoting physical activity represents an indictment of our sport delivery systems. The indictment is amplified by the routine frequency with which sport advocates cite health as a legitimating benefit of sport despite sport's negligible contribution to public health initiatives. Although sport can promote health, we are not designing, managing, or marketing our sport organizations in ways that enable them to contribute to the promotion of public health. We know very little about the factors that currently inhibit or that could ultimately foster a stronger contribution to health by sport . Identifying those factors could help us build added value into the sport that our organizations design and deliver.
Salubrious Socialization. One of the most popular and persistent claims for sport is that it builds self-esteem, promotes moral development, and teaches relevant life skills (Gonçalves, 1998; Watson, 1977). Research does demonstrate that sport can build personal values and train life skills (e.g., Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Petitpas, Van Raalte, Cornelius, & Presbrey, 2004). But other research demonstrates that sport can sometimes impede moral development and can sometimes foster antisocial behavior (e.g., Begg, Langley, Moffitt, & Marshall, 1996; Kleiber & Roberts, 1981). The degree to which sport plays a salubrious or detrimental role in socialization depends on the ways that sport programs are designed and implemented (Coakley, 1996; McCormack & Chalip, 1988). It is not the sport that matters; it is the experiences that particular implementations of sport enable, as well as the learning those experiences foster.
There are obvious implications for the design and management of sport programs, particularly programs targeted at children and adolescents. If we care about the socialization outcomes sport programs enable, then we need to rethink the ways we design, implement, and evaluate them (Chalip & Scott, 2005). There have been a number of studies demonstrating that modifications to the ways that sport is commonly organized and coached can make a significant positive difference in the socialization outcomes that are obtained (e.g., Martinek, Schilling, & Johnson, 2001; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993). There has been resistance, however, from some parents, coaches, and administrators to implementation of program and coaching modifications (Buchanan, 2001; Chalip & Green, 1998). We need to learn more about the design and marketing of sport programs that can enhance the quality of socialization outcomes that are enabled. In fact, work on that topic might help to grow the market for sport, because child-centered modifications can attract families that might otherwise choose not to enroll their children in organized sport (Green, 1997).
There is an associated research challenge here. The belief that sport provides salubrious socialization has produced a number of sport-based interventions intended to prevent or reverse antisocial behavior. The logic is simple: If sport provides a setting in which positive socialization can occur, then sport can be used to avert or alter undesirable behaviors. Thus, sport programs have been introduced to prevent students from dropping out of school (Gray & Seddon, 2005) and to reduce delinquency (Crabbe, 2000; Nichols, 2004). If the effect of a sport program depends on its design and implementation, then the efficacy of sport as a social intervention must also depend on its design and implementation (Hartmann, 2003; Smith & Waddington, 2004). It is not sufficient merely to determine whether a particular sport-based intervention has made a difference; we need to discover the characteristics of interventions that are effective or ineffective under particular conditions and pursuant to particular objectives, and we need to learn why particular intervention characteristics enable or hinder the outcomes we seek.
Economic Development. No legitimation for sport s demand for government funding has triggered more acrimonious debate than the claim that sport is good for economic development. The primary focus of that debate has been on the degree to which professional sport teams (and their facilities) serve as a stimulus to the local economy (e.g., Austrian & Rosentraub, 2002; Coates & Humphries, 1999, 2003; Meder & Leckrone, 2002). That focus has been a consequence of the demand by professional sport teams for public subsidies, particularly in the form of public services and publicly funded stadia. The claim that sport is good for the economy (and therefore warrants public investment), however, has not been limited to professional sport teams. It has also been argued that special sport events can provide a positive economic impact (Mules & Faulkner, 1996), that recreational sport facilities can increase property values (Crompton, 2000, 2001), that sport development can stimulate other urban development (Chapin, 2004; Jones, 2001; Monclús, 2003), and that sport tourism and national sport successes can be leveraged to promote export sales (Gnoth, 2002; Price Waterhouse Urwick & Maxwell and Druce International, 1996).
The ensuing debate has been made all-the-more acrimonious by technical disputes over the ways that economic impact analyses should be conducted (Crompton, 2004; Dwyer, Forsyth, & Spurr, 2004; Hudson, 2001) and interpreted (Crompton, 1995; Eckstein & Delaney, 2002; Putsis, 1998). Although the technical concerns are important, they keep our attention on the outcomes of sport investments rather than on the specifics of sport implementations that have generated those outcomes. Economic impact analyses treat sport as a given and look for economic changes that can be attributed to the facility, team, or event that is under study. Economic impact analyses do not (and cannot) ask what was done with the facility, team, or event to have engendered a particular impact. Nor do those analyses ask what could have been done to improve economic impact.
Economic impact analysis is a useful measure of economic outcome, but because it is a measure of outcome, it is not a measure of process or potential. Asking what effect a sport team or sport amenity has had on the economy is like asking what effect a hammer has had on home construction. From the standpoint of the housing contractor, what matters is not the impact of hammers on housing, but rather what was done with the hammers (and other necessary tools) to produce homes. Similarly, what should matter to sport managers (and to policymakers) is not the impact that sport can be shown to have or to lack, but rather how sport can be used in conjunction with other elements of the community s product and service mix to bring about particular economic outcomes (Chalip, 2004).
This calls for a paradigm shift from the study of sport s impacts to examinations of sport leverage. It represents a substantial opportunity for the study of sport management because it raises fundamental questions, such as:
· Can professional sports be profitably built into place marketing? If so, how can their effect be optimized?
• What new business opportunities do special sport events provide? How are those opportunities best recognized and exploited?
• Under what circumstances do sport facilities or events become effective or ineffective catalysts for urban development? How then should sport be integrated into urban planning and design?
• Can success in international sport be used to strengthen national exports? If so, how are sport successes most effectively used to build an export brand?
Answering these questions will enable sport management scholars to cultivate significant new directions for the growth and development of sport
Community Development. Because economic impact analyses consistently failed to find an economic benefit sufficient to justify public subsidies for professional sport, legitimations for government investment in sport turned instead to the social and psychological benefits that could be claimed for sport. Thus, even if a community s economic gains from professional sport were negligible, it could still be argued that a psychic income resulted from sport in the form of a community collective conscience and community self-esteem (Crompton, 2004; Eckstein & Delaney, 2002). As those arguments were mobilized, psychological research emerged to demonstrate that being the fan of a team can enhance mental health and prosocial behavior by promoting a sense of attachment to the team s community and/or the community of other fans (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Platow et al., 1999; Wann, Dimmock, & Grove, 2003). It would seem that sharing a common iconic identity with a sport team could assist the formation of social capital.
Other scholars disagree. One of the most influential analyses has been Robert Putnam s (2000) critique of spectatorship, particularly spectatorship through media, which, he argues, is responsible for diminishing the communitarian activities that are necessary to build community. Accordingly, sport could help to build social capital but only if people participate in it and perhaps even organize it for themselves. Sport, Putnam says, can build community under communitarian conditions of participation but not as an anomic spectator activity.
This appreciative view of sport participation has venerable roots, particularly in the American setting. In 19th century America, sport organizations were a means to establish subcommunities within the larger American society (Rader, 1977), and competitions between teams sponsored by those organizations often provided a basis for weaving disparate immigrant groups into the broader social fabric (Gems, 1997). This effect is not unique to the United States. Sport organizations and sport competitions have been shown to confer similar benefits in Australian (Bergin, 2002), Thai (Jonsson, 2001), and South African (Pelak, 2005) communities.
Sport, however, has also been shown to have the opposite effect, both as a spectator activity and as a participative activity. It can divide communities (Dimeo, 2001; Hay, 2001), accentuate inequalities in ethnic relations (Manning, 1981), symbolize class differences (Lever, 1983), and serve as a pretext for violence (Buford, 1991). How, then, could it possibly assist the creation of social capital?
The answer, of course, is that none of the purported benefits of sport for community are a consequence of sport per se. Rather, whether sport fosters or thwarts community depends on how it is designed and implemented. If the implementation of sport programs or the symbolisms of sport competitions reinforce community differences, then sport cannot help to overcome those differences. If sport fans watch sport under anomic conditions, then sport will not reduce anomie. The challenge, then, is to determine how to design and market sport programs and events in ways that foster community and minimize anomie. The incidental commercial benefit is that, in so doing, we will find new ways to strengthen the demand for sport (Green, 2001; Holt, 1995).
National Identity. The pride that is generated by sports teams has been so well demonstrated that sport marketers now formulate means to capitalize on it in order to build sport fanship (Dalakas, Madrigal, & Anderson, 2004). Similarly, governments have sought to capitalize on the pride that sport can generate in order to forge a sense of national identity (Horak & Spitaler, 2003; Houlihan, 1997; Uwechue, 1978). The objective is straightforward. If a shared sense of national identity can be forged, then a requisite foundation for nation building will have been established, and a shared sense of national purpose can be formed.
Unfortunately, it is not that simple. Sport symbolisms are so fexible that sport can exacerbate contentions over identity despite any pride that sport might engender. For example, although Australians venerate their sporting achievements, Australian narratives about national identity in sport vary significantly, highlighting ethnicity and multiculturalism in ways that serve the political and economic interests of the narrator (Danforth, 2001; Mewett, 1999). Similarly, Scottish discourse about what it means to be Scottish in the context of sport invokes commentaries about social, religious, and political differences (Bradley, 2003). Irish discourse around rugby adds salience to the reality that there are two Irelands (Tuck, 2003).
Further, it is rarely possible to manage the varied foci of identification that pride engenders. Thus, international soccer competition can cause British (King, 2000) and Norwegian (Armstrong & Hognestad, 2003) fans to downplay their national identity and to identify more strongly with the city in which they reside. Similarly, college football in the United States has spawned a resurgence of regional Southern identity among some Southern fans. The resurgence in regional Southern identity has been accompanied by controversies over symbols of Confederate nationalism and expressions of racial pride (Borucki, 2003).
Although pride can be a useful tool for nation building, it can also have negative consequences, which sport can inflame. Sport events are competitive; the team a fan favors and other fans of that team represent an in-group, whereas the opposing team and its fans represent an out-group. Consequently, the popular discourse that accompanies sport competitions can reinforce disparaging national stereotypes (Bishop & Jaworski, 2003) and can thereby exacerbate ethnic or cross-national tensions (Durham, 1979; Sack & Suster, 2000).
Once again, we find that is inappropriate to treat sport per se as a suitable instrument of policy. Variations in the narratives and symbols that sport evokes and variations in their context create variations in the effects that sport has. The challenge, then, is to learn how variations in context, symbols, and narratives evoke variations in the ways that sport is interpreted and in the ways that national identity is therefore sensed. Further, as the examples above demonstrate, any sense of national identity encompasses a great deal more than sport. Although sport might sometimes be a useful tool for building national identity, its utility clearly depends on how sport is linked to other initiatives. Therefore, the further challenge is to explore ways to incorporate sport into broader strategies for building national identity, and to do so without invoking the negative characteristics sometimes associated with nationalism.
The five legitimations reviewed above provide significant opportunities for sport-focused research in sport management. Although these five are currently the most commonly encountered, they do not exhaust the repertoire of possible legitimations. As social, cultural, political, and economic concerns evolve, the topics and foci of legitimations will also change.
Consider, for example, the emerging discourse surrounding sport s relationship to the environment. As environmental agendas became more salient, it was inevitable that sport organizations would be called upon to become more environmentally conscious. So we now have reference works on environmental management in sport settings (e.g., Chernushenko, 2001), evaluations of environmental management in sport (e.g., Greenpeace, 2000), and critical commentaries about the failure of sport organizations to manage their environmental impacts (e.g., Clifford, 2002). These are signals that the environmental management of sport will be an increasingly significant issue for sport managers and, by extension, sport management research.
Although environmental protection has been deemed a responsibility of sport organizations, there are not yet strong claims that sport could be a vehicle by which to foster environmental awareness or environmental protection. But there are moves in that direction. In particular, the recent adoption by the International Olympic Committee of the environment as the third pillar of the Olympic Movement—to accompany sport and the arts—has established the institutional and ideological foundation for such a claim (Cantelon & Letters, 2000).
The direction and eventual impact of concerns about relations between sport and the environment remain to be seen. What this example illustrates, nonetheless, is that new and relevant topics for sport management research will emerge as public agendas evolve. Thus, one challenge for sport management researchers will be to monitor popular and policy discourse about sport and to contemplate its relevance for sport management research.
It has become cliché to note that popular wisdom (and, by extension, popular discourse) is not always wise. The cliché is particularly apt in the case of sport. Sport's potency derives, in part, from the fexibility of its symbolisms and its pride-of-place in popular culture. Opinions about sport are therefore welcomed into discourse about sport regardless of the proponent s expertise (or lack of it). As a result, what is popularly believed about sport often departs markedly from the reality of sport (Koppett, 1981).
Sport sociologists and sport psychologists have become adept at exposing fallacies in popular wisdom about sport, but they rarely consider the implications of those fallacies for sport management. It is an unfortunate oversight because fallacious beliefs about sport can have a detrimental impact on sport management research and sport management practice. Because the detrimental impacts of popular but fallacious beliefs play a pertinent role in the challenges of doing sport-focused research in sport management, the potentially constraining effects of two common fallacies—the natural talent fallacy and the Amazon athlete fallacy—are next described to illustrate the value of probing the management and research implications of popular fallacies about sport.
Each of the five legitimations reviewed above relies to a degree on the pursuit of excellence in sport. The forging of national identity through sport presupposes that there are outstanding performers with whom the public can identify. The use of entertainment-based sport for community and economic development requires athletes who can perform at a high enough level to attract spectators. If sport is to teach pursuit of excellence, then excellence must be possible. If we expect some people to choose sport as their physical activity, then we should also expect that some will want to excel (Duda, 1989).
Excellence in sport, like excellence in other endeavors, is popularly ascribed to talent. The popular wisdom is clear but tautological: Outstanding performance requires talent, so outstanding performers are talented. If that is true, then the most efficient means to create a cadre of outstanding performers is to identify those who are talented and then train them in the sport for which they have the requisite talent. Entire sport systems have been built on that premise (Green & Oakley, 2001), and the absence of a fully functioning talent-identification system has been deemed by some to be an indication of sport system inadequacy (e.g., Lyle, 1997). But what if talent is neither identifiable nor sufficient to assure competitive success? Then the design and management of sport systems seeking to produce excellence should not be based on talent identification, but instead requires processes and practices intended to optimize athlete recruitment, retention, and advancement (Green, 2005).
In fact, we do not have the requisite techniques to identify sports talent. The empirical evidence shows that physical precocity and the skills developed through practice are commonly mistaken for talent (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Helsen, Hodges, van Winckel, & Starkes, 2000; Hodges et al., 2004). We can identify good performance, and we can observe that an anatomical or physiological requisite for competitive excellence in a particular sport is present or absent, but neither performance nor biology is synonymous with talent, and neither is sufficient to predict future excellence. There are two reasons: First, our tests for sports talent have simplex structures; they cannot predict performances years in advance because the quality of prediction declines toward zero as the time between testing and performance lengthens (Humphreys, 1960; Ragossa & Willett, 1985). Second, the underlying psychomotor organization of physical skills changes as a consequence of practice, so it is not possible to predict the quality of psychomotor organization late in skill development on the basis of measures taken early in skill development (Fleishman & Hempel, 1954; Fleishman & Rich, 1963).
There are demonstrably adverse outcomes when precocity and current performance levels are mistaken for talent. In age-graded competitions, athletes whose birthdays are late in the age cohort are less likely to be selected for teams and are more likely to quit if they are. In other words, differences in physical maturity are confused with talent, and many young athletes are eliminated before they have a chance to excel (Musch & Grondin, 2001). Similarly, when performances on physical tests are used to identify athletes as “talented,” athletes who could otherwise be trained to compete at a high level are erroneously deselected (Abbott & Collins, 2002). The lesson for sport management is clear: If one objective of our systems is to create a cadre of outstanding performers, then it is inherently wrong-headed to base athlete recruitment or development on talent identification.
The design and implementation of alternative arrangements for producing outstanding athletes is a worthy challenge for sport management research. In an articulate critique of the popular wisdom about sporting excellence, Chambliss (1989) describes the differences he observed when comparing programs that produce champions and those that do not. Chambliss notes that the coaching and training in leading programs are indistinguishable from the coaching and training in also-ran programs. Nor can the programs be differentiated by the biological differences in their respective athletes. What distinguishes the excellent from the mediocre is the culture that each manifests. Chambliss finds that in excellent programs athletes are more intensely focused on the quality with which they train and the meticulousness with which they execute even small skills. In other words, excellent sport programs are distinguished from mediocre programs not by what is done, but rather by how it is done.
In sport management, we have, so far, relegated the production of performance excellence to sport scientists. But if the culture of organizations in which athletes train plays a vital role in the performance that athletes are able to attain, as Chambliss argues, then sport management can contribute in pivotal ways to the design and implementation of systems for producing outstanding athletes. We continue to learn a great deal about the ways to enhance or change organizational cultures (Schein, 2004), but we have yet to test or apply what we are learning to the environments in which athletes train. Those environments are clearly opportune venues for using the Derivative Model (illustrated in Figure 1) as a complement to the sport-focused research that this article advocates.
None of the five sport legitimations is worth much if the value it asserts accrues to men but not to women. Health, socialization, economic development, community development, and national pride are as relevant to women as to men. Yet, women continue to struggle to obtain even a fraction of the sport opportunities that men enjoy. One reason is that they have had to overcome the notion that women who do sport are more masculine than feminine, meaning that they become Amazons (Mrozek, 1987). Although the opportunities for women to participate in sports have grown in recent years, attitudes have been slower to change. Studies continue to find that sports are popularly deemed to be less appropriate for girls than for boys, particularly sports that require speed, strength, or physical contact (Harrison & Lynch, 2005; Klomsten, Marsh, & Skaalvik, 2005). Indeed, even among girls who participate in sport, this attitude contributes to their decision to quit (Brown, 1985).
The popular notion that sport somehow masculinizes women is grounded in a folk belief that masculinity and femininity are polar opposites. Thus, if a woman participates in an activity (e.g., sport) that requires her to express or develop masculine qualities, such as competitiveness or aggression, she will have to trade away the feminine qualities that are their opposite, such as nurturance and gentleness. But if stereotypically masculine psychological traits and stereotypically feminine psychological traits are independent—that is, if they are not polar opposites—then expression or development of so-called masculine qualities would not require the sacrifice of so-called feminine ones.
Research shows that this is indeed the case (Bem, 1974; Block, 1973). Women (and men) can be androgynous; they can possess high levels of stereotypically male traits and high levels of stereotypically female traits simultaneously. In other words, the popular wisdom is wrong, and contemporary attitudes toward women in sport derive from a fallacious premise.
Consider, however, that female androgyny might be misperceived as masculinity if the popular assumption that masculinity and femininity are polar opposites is preserved. A woman s expression of seemingly male traits would be prima facie evidence that she has been masculinized. Therefore, if women who play sport are psychologically androgynous, then it is a short leap in the popular imagination to the conclusion that female athletes have been masculinized because androgyny includes expression of stereotypically male behaviors. Relative to the general population, female athletes are disproportionately androgynous (Chalip, Villiger, & Duignan, 1980; Colley, Roberts, & Chipps, 1985; Jackson & Marsh, 1986), so it is little wonder that popular suspicion persists that sport masculinizes. From a mental health standpoint, this is particularly unfortunate because androgyny has been shown to support higher levels of emotional maturity and resilience (O Heron & Orlofsky, 1990; Roos & Cohen, 1987), and sport participation has been· found to foster androgyny in women, as well as the psychological benefits with which androgyny is associated (Blinde, Taub, & Han, 1993; Bowker, Gadbois, & Cornock, 2003).
There has been substantial activism among sport scholars in support of women s opportunities to participate in sport (e.g., Cohen, 1993; McKay, 1997). That work has highlighted inequities in opportunity and the persistent effects of gender stereotyping. Those findings have been politically useful because they support advocacy for women in sport on the grounds of equity and fairness. But we have yet to tackle the underlying problem: the false but popular wisdom that constrains women s opportunities and that preserves gender stereotyping. If we aim for change at that deeper cultural level, we will encounter significant new research challenges in the realms of social marketing, organizational change, and educational reform. If we believe that sport can be as beneficial as our legitimations claim, then we have an obligation to embrace those challenges.
The two examples elaborated above aptly illustrate the need to scrutinize popular wisdom about sport. Although the research streams compelled by both examples would complement research motivated by the five sport legitimations, scrutiny of popular wisdom about sport has a more general value for sport management research. The value is nicely represented by Kellett s (1999) work on leadership. She explored the popular belief that effective coaches are models of good leadership. Her research opens new doors for sport-focused research because she found that one of two things must be true: Either good coaches are not models of good leadership, or our theories about leadership need to be revised. From the standpoint of developing sport management as a distinctive discipline, Kellett s work demonstrates how empirical scrutiny of a popular belief can render substantial new theoretical insight.
There is an obvious danger in what has been said so far. Advocacy of a sportfocused research agenda could be interpreted as advocacy of a sport-exclusive research agenda. That would be a natural conclusion to draw because those of us who study sport are used to a degree of isolation. In our academic institutions the study of sport is, for the most part, separated into its own department. Sport has its own section of the newspaper and its own slot on television news. There are sportsonly magazines, sports-only radio stations, and sports-only television channels.
It is tempting to take this high level of attention to sport as an indication of sport s obvious value. But for those of us who study sport, it is the separateness, rather than the attention, that should be most salient. The relegation of sport to its own academic department, its own place in the news, and its own media is tantamount to isolation. The implicit message is that sport is separate from the rest of life. And if it is separate, then it might be trivial. After all, sport comes under the rubrics of play and game.
This is a disturbing realization when we consider the lofty ambitions for sport that our legitimations proclaim. Are we fooling ourselves? Clearly not, as sport can deliver each of the benefits we claim if we manage it appropriately. But to manage it appropriately, we cannot sustain sport s isolation. If sport is to serve health, then it must be linked to medical and public health services. Salubrious socialization requires that sport experiences are synergized with those provided by schools, social services, and law enforcement. Economic development requires that sport s ties to other industries are well articulated and fully functional. Community development implicates government, social services, and local business. National pride affects media, tourism, and foreign affairs. Sport s relations to the environment involve technology, energy, and waste management.
This listing, though incomplete, is summarized in Table 1. As examination of Table 1 shows, a sport-focused research agenda requires that we identify and explore the ways that sport links to other sectors of the economy, and we need to discover and probe factors that facilitate or inhibit effective linkages between sport and other sectors. Sport organizations clearly share interests and legitimating objectives with many nonsport organizations. If our research is going to foster efficient pursuit of those interests and objectives, then we need to learn how to produce and exploit the returns-to-scale that alliances enable. Existing alliances are not the only ones that matter. If we are going to advance our knowledge beyond what exists by exploring what is possible, then we must envisage linkages that are potentially advantageous but currently missing.
Table 1 Sport’s Links to Other Sectors as a Function of Legitimation
<html><body><table><tr><td>Legitimation</td><td>Sector</td></tr><tr><td>Health</td><td>Medical system, public health, cooperative extension, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Salubrioussocialization</td><td>Education,socialservices,lawenforcement,etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Economicdevelopment</td><td>Tourism, gambling, technology, etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Communitydevelopment</td><td>Government,businessassociations,socialservices,etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Nationalpride</td><td>Media,tourism,foreign affairs,etc.</td></tr><tr><td>Environment</td><td>Waste management, energy, biotechnology,etc.</td></tr></table></body></html>
There is a corollary benefit. In order to study existing and potential linkages, we will have to identify the added value that sport brings to an alliance, as well as the factors that facilitate and inhibit an alliance s pursuit of shared goals. Because alliances require effective systems for managerial cooperation (Draulans, deMan, & Volberda, 2003; Spekman, Forbes, Isabella, & MacAvoy, 1998), we will have to ascertain the ways that sport organizations are both similar to and different from the nonsport organizations with which they are allied and with which they compete. In so doing, we will discover what the boundary conditions are on the theories that we build. We will consequently chart what makes sport management distinctive.
The malaise in our field is a healthy one. It signals our effort to build a discipline that can stand on its own by contributing to both theory and practice. In order to build sport management as an academic discipline in its own right, we need to strengthen our sport-focused research agenda. The structure for such an agenda is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 — A sport-focused research agenda.
Our field has come a long way in a short time. We are ready to find our distinctive relevance. If we pursue the questions shown in Figure 2, we will find that relevance, and we will establish sport management as a distinctive academic discipline.
|
Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of a “state of the art” talent identification model. High Ability Studies, 13, 157-178.
Armstrong, G., & Hognestad, H. (2003). “We re not from Norway”: Football and civic pride in Bergen, Norway. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10, 451-475.
Austrian, Z., & Rosentraub, M.S. (2002). Cities, sports, and economic change: A retrospective assessment. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 549-563.
Banks, S.A. (1983). Sport: Academic stepchild. Journal of Popular Culture, 16(4), 90- 100.
Begg, D.J., Langley, J.D., Moffit, T., & Marshall, S.W. (1996). Sport and delinquency: An examination of the deterrence hypothesis in a longitudinal study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 30, 335-341.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.
Bergin, P. (2002). Maori sport and cultural identity in Australia. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 13, 257-269.
Blinde, E.M., Taub, D.E., & Han, L. (1993). Sport participation and women s personal empowerment: Experiences of the college athlete. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 17, 47-60.
Block, J. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, 28, 512-526.
Branscombe, N.R., & Wann, D.L. (1991). The positive social and self-concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115-127.
Bishop, H., & Jaworski, A. (2003). “We beat ‘em”: Nationalism and the hegemony of homogeneity in the British press reportage of Germany versus England during Euro 2000. Discourse and Society, 14, 243-271.
Borucki, W. (2003). “You re Dixie s football pride”: American college football and the resurgence of Southern identity. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10, 477-494.
Bowker, A., Gadbois, S., & Cornock, B. (2003). Sports participation and self-esteem: Variations as a function of gender and gender role orientation. Sex Roles, 49, 47-58.
Bradley, J.M. (2003). Images of Scottishness and otherness in international football. Social Identities, 9, 7-23.
Brown, B.A. (1985). Factors influencing the process of withdrawal by female adolescents from the role of competitive age group swimmer. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 111- 129.
Buchanan, A.M. (2001). Contextual challenges to teaching responsibility in a sports camp. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 155-171.
Budd, A. (2001). Capitalism, sport and resistance: Refections. Culture, Sport, Society, 4, 1-18.
Buford, B. (1991). Among the thugs. London: Secker & Warburg.
Cantelon, H., & Letters, M. (2000). The making of the IOC environmental policy as the third dimension of the Olympic Movement. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35, 294-308.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Increasing physical activity: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Atlanta: Author.
Chalip, L. (1990). Rethinking the applied social sciences of sport: Observations on the emerging debate. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 172-178.
Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In B.W. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226-252). Clevedon, UK: Channel View.
Chalip, L., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Kleiber, D., & Larson, R. (1984). Variations of experience in formal and informal sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 55, 109-116.
Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. (1998). Establishing and maintaining a modified youth sport program: Lessons from Hotelling s location game. Sociology of Sport Journal, 15, 326-342.
Chalip, L., Johnson, A., & Stachura, L. (Eds.). (1996). National sports policies: An international handbook. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Chalip, L., & Scott, E.P. (2005). Centrifugal social forces in a youth sport league. Sport Management Review, 8, 43-67.
Chalip, L., Villiger, J., & Duignan, P. (1980). Sex-role identity in a select sample of women field hockyayers.Ienational Journal of SportPychology,11, 2408.
Chambliss, D.F. (i989). The mundanity of excellence: An ethnographic report on stratification and Olympic swimmers. Sociological Theory, 7, 70-86.
Chapin, T.S. (2004). Sports facilities as urban redevelopment catalysts. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 193-209.
Chernushenko, D. (2001). Sustainable sport management: Running an environmentally, socially and economically responsible organization. New York: United Nations Publications.
Clifford, H. (2002). Downhill slide: Why the corporate ski industry is bad for skiing, ski towns, and the environment. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Coakley, J. (1996). Socialization through sports. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 353-363). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Coates, D., & Humphries, B.R. (1999). The growth effects of sport franchises, stadia, and arenas. Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management, 18, 601-624.
Coates, D., & Humphries, B.R. (2003). The effect of professional sports on earnings and employment in the services and retail sectors in US cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33, 175-198.
Cohen, G.L. (Ed.) (1993). Women in sport: Issues and controversies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Colley, A., Roberts, N., & Chipps, A. (1985). Sex-role identity, personality and participation in team and individual sports by males and females. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, 103-112.
Costa, C.A. (2005). The status and future of sport management: A Delphi study. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 117-142.
Crabbe, T. (2000). A sporting chance? Using sport to tackle drug use and crime. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 7, 381-391.
Crisp, B.R., & Swerissen, H. (2003). Critical processes for creating health-promoting environments in Australia. Health Promotion International, 18, 145-152.
Crompton, J.L. (1995). Economic impact analysis of sports facilities and events. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 14-35.
Crompton, J.L. (2000). Designing golf courses to optimize proximate property values. Managing Leisure, 5, 192-199.
Crompton, J.L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33, 1-31.
Crompton, J.L. (2004). Beyond economic impact: An alternative rationale for the public subsidy of major league sports facilities. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 40-58.
Cuneen, J., & Parks, J.B. (1997). Should we serve sport management practice or sport management education? A response to Weese s perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 125-132.
Dalakas, V., Madrigal, R., & Anderson, K.L. (2004). “We are number one!” The phenomenon of basking-in-reflected-glory and its implications for sports marketing. In L. Kahle (Ed.), Sports marketing and the psychology of marketing communications (pp. 67-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Danforth, L.M. (2001). Is the “world game” an “ethnic game” or an “Aussie game”? Narrating the nation in Australian soccer. American Ethnologist, 28, 363-387.
Dimeo, P. (2001). ‘Team loyalty splits the city into two : Football, ethnicity, and rivalry in Calcutta. In G. Armstrong & R. Giulianotti (Eds.), ·Fear and loathing in world football (pp. 105-118). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Draulans, J., deMan, A-P., & Volberda, H.W. (2003). Building alliance capability: Management techniques for superior alliance performance. Long Range Planning, 36, 151-166.
Duda, J.L. (1989). Goal perspectives, participation and persistence in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 42-56.
Durham, W.H. (1979). Scarcity and survival in Central America: Ecological origins of the soccer war. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dwyer, L., Forsyth, P., & Spurr, R. (2004). Evaluating tourism s economic effects: New and old approaches. Tourism Management, 25, 307-317.
Eccles, J.S., Barber, B.L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-889.
Eckstein, R., & Delaney, K. (2002). New sports stadiums, community self-esteem, and community collective conscience. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26, 235-247.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Fleishman, E.A., & Hempel, W.E. (1954). Changes in factor structure of a complex psychomotor test as a function of practice. Psychometrika, 18, 239-252.
Fleishman, E.A., & Rich, S. (1963). Role of kinesthetic and spatial-visual abilities in perceptual-motor learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 6-11.
Gems, G. (1997). Windy City wars: Labor, leisure, and sport in the making of Chicago. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
Gonçalves, C. (1998). Values in youth sport: Coaches views. In R. Naul (Ed.), Physical activity and active lifestyle of children and youth (p·p. 181-189). Schorndorf, Germany: Verlag Karl Hofmann.
Gnoth, J. (2002). Leveraging export brands through a tourism destination brand. Brand Management, 9, 262-280.
Gray, P., & Seddon, T. (2005). Prevention work with children disaffected from school: Findings from the evaluation from two innovative community-based projects. Health Education, 105, 62-72.
Green, B.C. (1997). Action research in youth soccer: Assessing the acceptability of an alternative program. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 29-44.
Green, B.C. (2001). Leveraging subculture and identity to promote sport events. Sport Management Review, 4, 1-19.
Green, B.C. (2005). Building sport programs to optimize athlete recruitment, retention, and transition: Toward a normative theory of sport development. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 233-253.
Green, M, & Oakley, B. (2001). Elite sport development systems and playing to win: Uniformity and diversity in international approaches. Leisure Studies, 20, 247-267.
Greenpeace (2000). How green the Games? Sydney, Australia: Author.
Harrison, L.A., & Lynch, A.B. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52, 227-236.
Hartmann, D. (2003). Theorizing sport as social intervention: A view from the grassroots. Quest, 55, 118-140.
Hay, R. (2001). ‘Those bloody Croatians : Croatian soccer teams, ethnicity, and violence in Australia, 1950–99. In G. Armstro·ng & R. Giulianotti (Eds.), Fear and loathing in world football (pp. 77-90). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Heitzman, J. (1999). Sports and conflict in urban planning: The Indian National Games in Bangalore. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 5-23.
Helsen, W.F., Hodges, N.J., van Winckel, J., & Starkes, J.L. (2000). The roles of talent, physical precocity and practice in the development of soccer expertise. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 727-736.
Hodges, N.J., Kerr, T., Starkes, J.L., Weir, P.L., & Nananidou, A. (2004). Predicting performance times from deliberate practice hours for triathletes and swimmers: What, when, and where is practice important? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 219-237.
Holt, D. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 1-16.
Horak, R., & Spitaler, G. (2003). Sport space and national identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1506-1518.
Houlihan, B. (1997). Sport, national identity and public policy. Nations and Nationalism, 3, 113-137.
Hudson, I. (2001). The use and misuse of economic analysis: The case of professional sports. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 25, 20-39.
Humphreys, L.G. (1960). Investigations of the simplex. Psychometrika, 25, 313-323.
Irwin, R.L. (2001). Engineering the theory-to-practice bridge using the consultancy approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 121-123.
Jackson, S.A., & Marsh, H.W. (1986). Athletic or antisocial? The female sport experience. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 198-211.
Jonsson, H. (2001). Serious fun: Minority cultural dynamics and national integration in Thailand. American Ethnologist, 28, 151-178.
Jones, C. (2001). Alevel playing field? Sports stadium infrastructure and urban development in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning A, 33, 845-861.
Kellett, P. (1999). Organisational leadership: Lessons from professional coaches. Sport Management Review, 2, 150-171.
King, A. (2000). Football fandom and post-national identity in the new Europe. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 419-442.
Kleiber, D.A., & Roberts, G.A. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 114-122.
Klomsten, A.T., Marsh, H.W., & Skaalvik, E.M. (2005). Adolescents perceptions of masculine and feminine values in sport and physical education: A study of gender differences. Sex Roles, 52, 625-636.
Koppett, L. (1981). Sports illusion, sports reality: A reporter s view of sports, journalism, and society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lever, J. (1983). Soccer madness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ludmerer, K.M. (1985). Learning to heal: The development of American medical education. New York: Basic.
Lyle, J.W.B. (1997). Managing excellence in sports performance. Career Development International, 2, 314-323.
Manning, F.E. (1981). Celebrating cricket: The symbolic construction of Caribbean politics. American Ethnologist, 8, 616-632.
Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and social responsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. The Urban Review, 33, 29-45.
McCormack, J.B., & Chalip, L. (1988). Sport as socialization: A critique of methodological premises. Social Science Journal, 25, 83-92.
McKay, J. (1997).Managing gender:Afrmative actionand organizational power inAustralian, Canadian, and New Zealand sport. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Meder, J.H., & Leckrone, J.W. (2002). Hardball: Local government s foray into sports franchise ownership. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 353-368.
Mewett, P.G. (1999). Fragments of a composite identity: Aspects of Australian nationalism in a sports setting. Australian Journal of Anthropology, 10, 357-375.
Monclús, F-J. (2003). The Barcelona model: An original formula? From ‘reconstruction to strategic urban projects (1979-2004). Planning Perspectives, 18, 399-421.
Mrozek, D.J. (1987). The ‘Amazon and the American ‘lady : Sexual fears of women as athletes. In J.A. Mangan & R.J·. Park (Eds.), From ‘fair· sex to feminism: Sport and the socialization of women in the industrial and post-indust·rial eras (pp. 282-298). London: Frank Cass.
Mules, T., & Faulkner, B. (1996). An economic perspective on special events. Tourism Economics, 2, 314-329
Murphy, P., & Waddington, I. (1998). Sport for all: Some public health policy issues and problems. Critical Public Health, 8, 193-205.
Musch, J., & Grondin, S. (2001). Unequal competition as an impediment to personal development: A review of the relative age effect in sport. Developmental Review, 21, 147-167.
Nichols, G. (2004). Crime and punishment and sports development. Leisure Studies, 23, 177-194.
O Heron, C.A., & Orlofsky, J.L. (1990). Stereotypic and nonstereotypic sex role trait and behavior orientations, gender identity, and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 134-143.
Ostrom, B. (1989). The intellectual crisis in American public administration (2nd ed.). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Parrish, R. (2003). The politics of sports regulation in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 246-262.
Pelak, C.F. (2005). Athletes as agents of change: An examination of shifting race relations within women s netball in post-apartheid South Africa. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 59-77.
Petitpas, A.J., Van Raalte, J.L., Cornelius, A.E., & Presbrey, J. (2004). A life-skills development program for high school student-athletes. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 325-334.
Platow, M.J., Durante, M., Williams, N., Garrett, M., Walshe, J., Cincotta, S., et al. (1999). The contribution of sport fan social identity to the production of prosocial behavior. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 161-169.
Pollock, M.L., & Wilmore, J.H. (1990). Exercise in health and disease: Evaluation and prescription for prevention and rehabilitation (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
Price Waterhouse Ulrick & Maxwell and Druce International (1996). The commercial benefits of expanding Australia s sporting and recreation links with Asia. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories.
Privette, G., & Bundrick, C.M. (1997). Psychological processes of peak, average, and failing performance in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 323-334.
Public Health Agency of Canada (2005). Physical activity unit. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pau-uap/fitness/federal.html
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Putsis, W.P. (1998). Winners and losers: Redistribution and the use of economic impact analysis in marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 18, 24-33.
Rader, B.G. (1977). The quest for subcommunities and the rise of American sport. American Quarterly, 29, 335-369.
Roos, P.E., & Cohen, L.H. (1987). Sex roles and social support as moderators of life stress adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 576-585.
Root, M. (1993). Philosophy of social science: The methods, ideals, and politics of social inquiry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Sack, A.L., & Suster, Z. (2000). Soccer and Croatian nationalism: A prelude to war. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 24, 305-320.
Salguero, A., Gonzalez, B.R., Tuero, C., & Marquez, S. (2003). Identification of dropout reasons in young competitive swimmers. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 530-534.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Seefeldt, V., & Vogel, P. (1986). The value of physical activity. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.
Smith, A., & Waddington, I. (2004). Using ‘sport in the community schemes to tackle crime and drug use among young people: Some policy issues and problems.· European Physical Education Review, 10, 279-298.
Smoll, F.L., Smith, R.E., Barnett, N.P., & Everett, J.J. (1993). Enhancement of children s self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applie·d Psychology, 78, 602-610.
Spekman, R.E., Forbes, T.M., Isabella, L.A., & MacAvoy, T.C. (1998). Alliance management: A view from the past and a look to the future. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 747-772.
Traube, E.G. (1996). “The popular” in American culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 127-151.
Tuck, J. (2003). Making sense of emerald commotion: Rugby union, national identity and Ireland. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 10, 495-515.
Uwechue, R.C. (1978). Nation building and sport in Africa. In B. Lowe, D.B. Kanin, & A. Strenk (Eds.), Sport and international relations (pp. 538-550). Champaign, IL: Stipes.
Vuori, I., Paronen, O., & Oja, P. (1998). How to develop local physical activity programmes with national support: The Finnish experience. Patient Education and Counseling, 33, S111-S120.
Wankel, L.M. (1993). The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits from physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 151-169.
Wann, D.L., Dimmock, J.A., & Grove, J.R. (2003). Generalizing the team identificationpsychological health model to a different sport and culture: The case of Australian Rules football. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 289-296.
Watson, G. (1977). Games, socialization and parental values: Social class differences in parental evaluation of Little League baseball. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 12(1), 17-48.
Weese, W.J. (1995). If we re not serving practitioners, then we re not serving sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 237-243.
Winn, W.J. (1964). Business education in the United States: A historical perspective. New York: Newcomen.
Zanger, B.R.K., & Groves, D.L. (1994). A framework for the analysis of theories of sport and leisure management. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 57-68.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Creative Tensions and Conversations in the Academy
|
Sue Inglis McMaster University
|
2006
|
Academic life invokes creative tensions within and among teaching, research, and service. Work–life balance plays a prominent role in those tensions and in the conversations that they engender. As NASSM’s strategic plan demonstrates, sport management has grown to the point that it will benefit from closer attention to the content and potential of those conversations. Systems thinking in the scrutiny of tensions provides insight that can further inform our conversations. The resulting discourses will engage our thinking about our discipline’s values, content, and environmental influences. As a result, they will move us forward.
It is fitting to begin with a tribute to Dr. Earle F. Zeigler—the man, the meaning of his work, and his living legacy. I believe it is important for us as NASSM members to reflect on the contributions of those who had the vision, dedication, and skill in the mid-1980s to prepare a solid foundation for NASSM. Dr. Zeigler was one of those leaders, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had a few connections with him.
I have firsthand experiences of driving with Earle from NASSM conferences and hearing his views on the larger context of North American education in which NASSM was emerging. Dr. Zeigler considered management theory and practice to be one of eight scholarly and professional dimensions of developmental physical activity in exercise, sport, and related expressive movement (Zeigler, 1994). In his historical tracking of management study in sport, the area was composed of subdisciplinary aspects of management science and business administration and subprofessional aspects with application to theory and practice (Zeigler, 1994). This is the basis of our sport management theory and professional practice today. And he was not shy in his letter writing: I have interesting memories of receiving his thoughtful letters—letters written by him in longhand to clarify some question posed by the executive or letters he felt compelled to write to me in which he demonstrated his wisdom in understanding the role of women in the academy and in NASSM and his understanding of women’s friendships, partnerships, and issues in the academy.
I know I am not the only one with these memories, as we share Dr. Zeigler with many other scholarly societies. He is the recipient of three honorary doctorate degrees, a doctor of science (DSc) from the University of Windsor, a doctor of laws (LLD) from The University of Lethbridge, and a doctor of laws (LLD) from one of his beloved “homes,” the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Zeigler is cited in Who’s Who in Canada, the United States, and the World, but he is still “our Earle.”
His experiences; his intellect in philosophy and history, sport pedagogy, management, comparative and international study; and the proliferation of his writings on wide-ranging topics have been like the planks in NASSM’s one-room beginnings. We have built many rooms since. We have added on, built up from the foundation, including our constitution, ethical concerns and creeds, and place in institutions of higher learning in North America. This address is very much connected to Earle’s legacy in that it focuses on sport management and higher education’s integrated mandate of scholarship, teaching, and service.
Over the past few years I have been intrigued with the tensions in our academic work. These tensions can be felt or observed at all levels of organizational building blocks—that is, within the individual, within and between the group or team, and between various organizational levels. The tensions can feel intensely personal and political, and they can be defining moments for change—again, at many levels. This lecture has provided me the opportunity to play with a few of the ideas of how prevalent and relevant tensions are to critical assessments of our work and the growth of sport management in the academy. And I believe that conversation provides the vehicle to help us engage, clarify meanings, and be part of future directions. There is a strong leadership challenge for all of us, whether we are in official positions, support positions, or follower positions. We are challenged to see the big picture with all its forces and complexities, find a voice, and embrace what Manz and Sims (1995) call superleadership. Leaders instilling in others the leadership skills necessary to be effective within the workplace, leaders working with traditional views of transactional and transformational leadership, and leaders and scholars working with emerging integrative conceptualizations of leadership (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004) help others unleash their own leadership potential.
Figure 1 captures the key concepts informing this address. Included are the university mandates of research, teaching, and service; the idea of conversations connected to the mandates; environmental influences and their far-reaching impact on most of what we do; the mandates connected to the values emanating from NASSM official documents—most recently NASSM’s strategic plan (Chalip et al., 2003) and others that I identify as critical to examine; and the concept of work–life balance that is prominent in many of our tensions and conversations.
The contributions of organizational scholars Peter Senge (1990) and Henry Mintzberg (1991), along with the work of Bennett, Cook, and Pelletier (2003), provide significant insights into creative tensions. Senge’s often-cited text The Fifth Discipline identifies systems thinking as critical to an organization’s being able to see the many parts of the organization as a whole and to understand the interrelationships of the parts, as well as the importance of leveraging effectively for organizational change. One of Senge’s many metaphors, adapted from Robert Fritz (1989), involves two elastic bands. Imagine one elastic band around your waist (representing creative tension) pulling you toward your vision while the second elastic band around your waist (representing deeply held beliefs of powerlessness and unworthiness) pulls you away from your vision. The more you strive for a vision, the greater the opposing forces. We can place ourselves in the middle of these two bands with forces pulling for and against our intended goals and visions. Fritz uses the term structural conflict to describe the systemic forces that work to keep us from our vision. These systemic forces may be operating at a subconscious level coming from deeply held beliefs reinforced through childhood, adolescence, and adulthood about our inabilities to create what we want and, sadly, that we may not deserve what we want. I would add that, in today’s context, part of the pulling away from our vision is the tension and pull by others who, either knowingly or unknowingly, individually or collectively, believe their vision takes precedence.
Figure 1 — Creative tensions and conversations in the academy.
How much of this structural conflict that impedes reaching visions explains our individual, group, and organizational behavior in the workplace? To Senge (1990), a key factor in recognizing these forces is to develop an awareness of the current reality and mastery of the structural conflicts and the resulting behaviors: “Once we can see them and name them, they no longer have the same hold on us” (p. 160). I find this to be incredibly powerful. Senge goes on to write about creative tension and leadership:
The relentless commitment to the truth and to inquiry into the forces underlying current reality continually highlights the gaps between reality and the vision. Leaders generate and manage this creative tension—not just in them but also in an entire organization. This is how they energize an organization. . . . Mastering creative tension throughout an organization leads to a more profoundly different view of reality. People literally start to see more and more aspects of reality as something they, collectively, can influence. This is no hollow “belief,” which people say in an effort to convince them that they are powerful. It is a quiet realization rooted in understanding all aspects of current reality—the events, the patterns of change, and even the systemic structures themselves—are subject to being influenced through creative tensions. (p. 357)
Henry Mintzberg (1991), one of the leading experts in organizational strategy and design, addresses organizational tensions in what he refers to as “contradictory internal forces” (p. 54). An effective organization will be able to manage these tensions with “a consistency of form as well as the contradiction of forces” (p. 66). Two key forces to be balanced are a cooperative force of ideology and a healthy competitive force of politics. This thinking moves beyond the “one best way” approach to organizational design, or the contingency approach of “it depends,” to a consideration of the system of forces at play—the need for efficiency, proficiency, concentration, and innovation—and the balancing of cooperation (when ideologies are aligned within the organization) and competition (misaligned culture of norms, beliefs, and values). Mintzberg insists there is no one best way to design our organizations, but we can be aware of some of the dangers in order to avoid ineffective politics and suppression of innovation.
In the literature on workplace health, the theme of core tensions is one of Bennett, Cook, and Pelletier’s (2003) seven postulates for the health of an organization. In this theme, “a healthy organization is aware of and addresses the various tensions involved in maintaining levels of optimal health (e.g., serving internal and external customers)” (p. 73). Similar to Mintzberg, who conceptualizes the need for some tension within organizations, Bennett and colleagues draw on the concepts of chaos and complexity theory to help us understand that rarely are any organisms in a state of congruence. Ideally we strive for a balance between organizational stability and chaos. Three pairings they deem as key to the balance of chaos and stability are (a) diversity and coherence (i.e., allowing for differences in people and their knowledge, multicultural values, skills, abilities, environmental demands, and uniformity that is achieved through rules and norms), (b) softness and degree of structure (i.e., levels of innovation and flexibility and the degree of bureaucracy and hierarchy), and (c) slack and fit (the availability of resources, including human, physical, and time, and the responsiveness to the degree of need of those resources). Chaos occurs with too much diversity, softness, and slack; excessive stability arises with too much structure, tight fit, and coherence.
Given the naturally occurring state of forces and tensions and the ongoing need for adjustment of forces, it makes sense to acknowledge the tensions and the positive role they play as people and organizations adapt to internal and external pressures. When we can work with the natural rhythms of organizations (people and structure) and utilize the tension as part of ongoing change, the result can be creative tensions.
This focus on understanding and working with creative tension provides a powerful concept that can be used in examining the three tenets of our academic life. I argue that the idea of creative tension allows us to look within each area, as well as between the areas, to more fully understand, to sharpen our awareness of, and to take action on the fundamentals we choose to hold dear. The choices we make as individuals (as members of society, within our academic institutions, and with our research agendas, teaching, and community) and as part of groups (home departments, research collectives, committees of NASSM) and organizations (universities, NASSM) are pivotal to the goals we attain. Working with creative tension is more about the recognition and handling of the tensions than any competitive struggle with winners and losers.
I bring this idea of tensions back to a systems perspective. Packianathan Chelladurai’s (2005) textbook Managing Organizations for Sport and Physical Activity: A Systems Perspective is a significant contribution to how we understand the role of the environmental influences in an open-systems perspective and the processes involved in the input, throughput, and output stages. Systems theory provides us with frameworks and concepts for understanding complexities within and between our research, teaching, and service activities. For example, for North American institutions adopting explicit research-focused missions (and this seems to be a growth phase), the need for securing grants, postdoctoral opportunities, and reputation of publishing outlets will be common performance indicators of excellence. In university environments, what impact will this drive for excellence in research have on other parts of our university mandate of providing professional field-experience opportunities for students? And external to the university, but very much a part of the government, political, and cultural sectors, what changes (positive or otherwise) might we anticipate if the state introduces policy and initiatives to enhance sport opportunities for all citizens? These environmental influences suggest new areas for field experiences and research.
It is useful to consider some of the tensions in our teaching, research, and service areas. Each is examined here in turn.
In our sport management curriculum we excel in our persistent dedication to designing and delivering, and there is ample anecdotal evidence to suggest that we tend to take a student-centered approach to our teaching. Our pedagogical focus is evident in the NASPE–NASSM program guidelines and ongoing review of and intent on accreditation. The number of abstracts accepted and papers, roundtables, and workshops presented at sport management conferences attests to the interest and professional development in our teaching. The expressed need for a teaching journal in sport management further supports our intentions in this area (Chalip et al., 2003). The following are creative tensions related to teaching that demand our attention.
The balance of theory and practice is a creative tension. There is a need for students to understand theoretical underpinnings and knowledge bases (e.g., economic theory, principles of organizational design) and skill development (e.g., event management, marketing plan development, and human resource skills, including interviewing and performance appraisal; MacLean, 2001).
The balance of description and analytical thinking is also a source of tension. Here the challenge is to provide students with adequate descriptions but also the ability to think critically about the world around them with related learning frameworks (Keeley & Parks, 2003) and the role of sport in society (Zeigler, 1989), including the good, the bad, and the ugly (Frisby, 2005).
Balancing the purposes of fieldwork experiences in terms of benefits to the student, client, and the community is an area of tension. Currently, many of our field placements focus on students’ learning skills (Cuneen & Sidwell, 1994) while assisting a sport organization in carrying out its operations. But there is a new design of student learning emerging on campuses. Referred to as community service learning, it focuses on students’ working with the community to understand community issues and learn critical-reflection skills, and it also focuses on working with the community to make identifiable differences (see, for example, Arney & Jones, 2006; Butin, 2005; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Vickers, Harris, & McCarthy, 2004). While many of our sport management programs could offer suitable placement sites (in many of our communities we have the contacts in place, we are experienced in curriculum design, and we are interested in deep learning for our students), some adaptations to what we currently offer and expect from the students may be necessary. The possible shift from field placements to community-service learning will hold some tensions, but I believe we can engage in these new university community models of learning.
There is a challenge in bringing our research and teaching a little closer. Universities with mandates to create and disseminate new knowledge are constantly challenged to more closely link teaching and research activities. This presents a tension when teachers are not active researchers or when significant value in the research is not evident (as when applicability to workplace problems is not made clear) and when students desire more hands-on application experiences. Explaining our research to students, applying the strongest of academic judgment and rigor to the teaching and learning of the research process, and engaging students wherever possible will serve us well in producing well-educated, critical-thinking students who are ready to enter the workplace in full stride.
My best guess is that creative tensions around research are the most prominent in many of our experiences. The following are some examples.
How do we balance the individual and collaborative aspects of research and publishing? We need to establish our individual expertise and evidence-based dossier while acknowledging that collaborative work can have tremendous benefits to the research and individuals involved, as well as indicate one’s ability to work with others.
Whose research agenda do the graduate students, new faculty, and tenured faculty members follow? Again, there are competing forces in support of following personal passions, joining already-established research programs of faculty, or shifting research areas to qualify for funding.
The push and reward for research funding have become a trademark of academe. While there may be some protection from these tensions in non-research-intensive institutions and in stand-alone sport management programs, for sport management faculty housed within departments of life and health sciences, kinesiology, human movement, and exercise science, we have examples of the significance of securing grants and conducting research. And now it’s not just grants—in some spheres it has to be the right kind of granting agency. Another change in academe is the focus on interdisciplinary teaching and research, grants based on interdisciplinary research questions, and new structures inside and outside the university walls to better pool resources to address complex issues. To what extent are our sport management programs part of the interdisciplinary focus, and what might the horizon look like for us?
Where we publish our work is a research-related tension. For some of us, there is a strong allegiance to sport management and the unwavering desire to have the best of our work published in sport management journals. For others of us, much of our work is very appropriately placed in other sport and recreation journals, in nonprofit management journals (Nonprofit Management & Leadership and Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly are good examples), in so-called mainstream management journals (e.g., Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Relations, and Journal of Consumer Research), and in other journals focusing on educational, economic, and gender issues. Is it that our context of sport transcends the conceptual knowledge areas from which we work (i.e., economics, marketing, law) to such an extent that we publish only in sport management journals to preserve our sport domain? Is it an issue of perceived quality, whereby our sport management research may not be conducted or written in ways that will be accepted for publication in other journals? Is it an issue of intimidation, in which we undervalue our work? Do we not have contributions to make to the parent knowledge disciplines? These questions require dialogue because they are issues of tenure and promotion, as well as issues that address the larger question of where sport management literature fits within the academy.
Clarion calls have been made for adopting different and meaningful research designs. The 2005 special issue of the Journal of Sport Management, titled “Expanding Horizons: Promoting Critical and Innovative Approaches to the Study of Sport Management,” edited by John Amis and Michael Silk, provides evidence that our growing pains and tensions around the lack of qualitative design and overall lack of rigor and diversity of research designs in our sport management research are diminishing. The special issue is an insightful contribution to research designs and methods. Serious efforts in curriculum development and standards ensure that students and faculty make wise choices in research design that maximize their ability to most fully address the research questions and employ sound analysis as new understandings, theory, and evidence are provided. We can find support in the management literature for expanding our research designs. For example, Reason (2006), writing about research in management theory, provides compelling discourse on how action research allows for the integration of theory and practice, encompasses many ways of knowing, and is an emergent process that is “a participative and democratic process that seeks to do research with, for, and by people: to redress the balance of power in knowledge creation; and to do this in an educative manner that increases participants’ capacity to engage in inquiring lives” (p. 189). This qualitative design of research on action further supports Frisby, Reid, Millar, and Hoeber’s (2005) research on participatory action and is just one other example of a design that would fit well with research that works closely with participants to achieve desired change. Ensuring that faculty and students are well versed in multiple research designs and methodologies will be critical to sport management’s reputation within the academy. Given the diversity of our subdisciplines and research questions, it seems natural that our ways of seeking new knowledge would be equally diverse.
As I think about the backgrounds of many of the founders of NASSM, and indeed many of the first generation of sport management professors, I observe the strong focus on service that many of these individuals had and continue to have. University service has been prominent in athletic, intramural, and campus recreation, as well as in academic department and program, administrative positions. While many of these positions are full-time in their own right, they often come with the added areas of teaching and research, but not to the extent that new hires are expected to engage and excel in research. The tension is that service means time away from research and teaching with little monetary or promotional reward. Service, viewed in this traditional way, has been part of what many of us do or have done, but it is not necessarily the path of the second and subsequent generation of scholars, thus signaling significant change in the service component. With this changing culture, individuals must consider how much service to give in light of tenure and promotion decisions and the relatively light weight given to service in outside professional bodies.
Service involves more than sitting on committees. I bring to your attention two views of service. The first is related to a scholar friend of mine, Mary Parker Follett. About 5 years ago I came across Graham’s book (1995) on Mary Parker Follett. She was a pioneer and prophet of management at the turn of the 20th century. Why her work was not acknowledged is in itself a question of debate (Tonn, 2003). Many management concepts we understand today can be traced to her ideas on organizational behavior (including employee involvement, team-based approaches, union relations and collective bargaining, and conflict resolution) and organizational theory (including systems thinking, coordination, cross-functional collaboration, and the importance of horizontal authority), which are laid out in her public talks, as well as in her writings of the 1920s.
To Follett, service involved the give and take of life with self-sacrifice, with the integration of individuals to build community and to then serve the community. She envisioned service as entwined with work; it wasn’t something you did after hours or after retirement. She also wrote about the importance of professional standards (like NASSM’s creed and ethics) to help groups establish standards and educate and protect the public.
My second source on service is Dr. Earle Zeigler. In 1987, as part of his NASSM address, Zeigler wrote of the importance of developing a management profession to include “service without undue concern of pecuniary reward, ongoing commitment, mastery of a body of knowledge, adherence to a code of ethics” (p. 21). In his 1989 article he identified a professional as, in part, “the trained person who can provide a basic, important service” (p. 3). He and the ad hoc committee including Joy Desensi (University of Tennessee) and Pat Galasso (University of Windsor) appointed by the then-president of NASSM, David O. Mathews, developed a creed that they planned to expand to a code of ethics for professionals. To Dr. Zeigler, and the foundation he helped to provide for NASSM, professional service is about how sport managers as practicing professionals conduct themselves. Zeigler and Follett offer depths of understanding of service worth considering. A question emerges: Are there tensions around the meanings of service in our individual commitments toward citizenship responsibility as part of university mandates and in NASSM’s role within our academic and professional-practice mandates?
A creative tension in sport management transcends the mandates of the university. To what degree have we as committed scholars, teachers, and administrators worked through what we do, and how best do we describe what we do? Sometimes the title sport management seems sufficient; at times it feels deficient. Addressing this issue should help us more clearly know what we want to communicate to others within the academy and in the sport community and beyond. Here are a few ideas to throw into the hopper that reflect different forces affecting our visions of sport management. Our study of sport management is a study, and as a study we engage in observing, thinking, reading, and understanding some aspect of the many subdisciplines of management. We are interested in the implications and applications of the results of our study; we put it into management practice. Management practice, I argue, has a focus on the operational: doing things right, doing things better. Leadership, on the other hand, which is a significant focus of our research, is the overseer of management and involves understanding the right things to do, seeing the big picture, and engaging others to work toward goals and missions. Why not consider expanding what we call our area to sport management and leadership studies? It keeps the context of sport intact, it remains the focus of our efforts, and it adds an important element of study to convey the research and learning components of what we do while embracing the importance of leadership. I hope these ideas lead to uncovering some creative tension and conversation.
Conversation engages people. Conversation allows us to think about and plan for individual and collective growth in our research, teaching, and service. Where would sport management be in North America if NASSM hadn’t been formed? How would we be developing our research programs, disseminating our findings, designing our curriculum and standards, and presenting a scholarly and professional service society?
In my teaching I have been influenced by Susan Hubbuch’s (1996) book Writing Research Papers Across the Curriculum. In this book, Hubbuch encourages students to “join the conversations in progress” (p. 4) in their research writing. Hubbuch sees it as an invitation to experience what the professionals in the field of study are doing and to sharpen critical-thinking skills. We need to be mindful for the students of the tensions that are associated with entering situations with power differentials based on knowledge, experience, and position. Engage in the conversation—what an empowering invitation we can give our students as we help them develop their knowledge bases in sport management, as we work with them through the rigors of learning the research process, and as we encourage them as lifelong learners.
There is more to understand about conversation—and here I return to Peter Senge’s (1990) writings in distinguishing between discussion and dialogue in team learning. Senge develops his argument for the synergistic strengths of collaborative learning by noting David Bohem, a leading contemporary quantum theorist, who draws on the roots of the terms to get at the distinction between discussion and dialogue. This is informative for the purpose of understanding on a deeper level the kind of conversations that I suggest are important to the academy. Discussion has roots in percussion and concussion (now there’s a loud and cloudy image forming) like the tennis ball that is hit back and forth. The discussion can advance our understanding and collective learning but tends to take on competitive characteristics with winners and losers—point, counterpoint. Fundamentally, you want to hit the best down-the-line shot to make your prowess prevail. In discussion, we tend to make our argument and ideas persuasive enough to prevail, often at the cost of truth and coherence (Senge).
Dialogue, on the other hand (coming from the Greek dia, meaning through, and logue, meaning words), is another form of conversation that, when understood and well played out (or well facilitated), can lead to productive common meaning, taking unanticipated directions with capabilities for change, collective thought, team learning, and a newfound richness in the workplace. As Bohem captures it, this happens “when a group becomes open to the flow of a larger intelligence” (in Senge, 1990, p. 239) and has access to a “larger pool of common meaning” (p. 240).
Bohem argues that when we feel safe to acknowledge the incoherence in our thought, we begin to understand that tensions and conflict are associated with the thoughts, not with the individuals, thus allowing for greater creativity and less reactiveness. He identifies three conditions necessary for dialogue (Senge, 1990): (a) Participants communicate assumptions but suspend them before the group to enhance common meanings, (b) all participants regard each other as colleagues, and (c) a facilitator is able to hold or keep the context of the dialogue. This presents a challenge for us to enter the conversation to become more aware of the value of dialogue—of encouraging our various academic spheres to consider purposefully moving toward dialogue. Dialogue enhances trust and a more gentle way of engaging that helps one understand each point of view while allowing larger understandings to emerge (Senge, p. 248).
In keeping with systems thinking and for sport management as a profession, it is important to have a continuous relationship between the academy and the environment. It is well beyond the scope and intentions of this talk to explore in depth the various sectors of the environment and their levels of influence. What I think is important to raise is the idea that so much of what happens in our research and teaching is inexplicably linked to what we perceive is happening or important out there. Here I bring in the value of relevance. In sharing my preaddress ideas with a friend, she quickly jumped on the idea of how intriguing sport was. “Talk about tensions,” she said. “We can’t even get a Canadian national women’s hockey cup named because of the tensions between the east and west.” She was right. She continued, “And what about the problems and issues with who is teaching sport in the schools?” Her voice got higher: “And why can’t I find a skating rink that fits my schedule and desire to stay active?” She was right again—all very good and relevant tensions that need some level of educated, informed thought. Is that us?
The Globe & Mail, a national newspaper in Canada, on April 29, 2006 (pp. D12-D13), featured two book reviews each with huge implications for our sport management curricula and research agendas. The first review (Robinson, 2006), of Inside Out: Straight Talk From a Gay Jock, was written by Olympic swimmer Mark Tewksbury about his life (or should I say lives), one as a gay man in a world in which he had to be dishonest and be in denial of who he was and the other as a top Olympian with strong interests and abilities to tackle Olympic governance issues. Do we as sport management scholars subscribe to the notion that if you want to be part of the success ladder in the leadership of sport you must stay in the 1950s closet? That is what the Olympic leaders of the day advised him. What is our role in untangling the issues in which values are interwoven with cultural and political systems that threaten the very basis of human dignity and rights? We are in privileged positions, folks. Our institutions expect us to critically examine these issues, to uphold the “free world” principle, to educate, to bring new insights to sport and management, and to lead. We need to address some of the tensions in today’s sport world.
The second book review (Oatley, 2006), of Child’s Play: Rediscovering the Joy of Play in Our Families and Communities, is equally compelling. Silken Lauman, an Olympic rower, has devoted her postcompetition life to issues of children and physical activity: more play, physical activity, and sport and less sedentary existence in order to avoid childhood obesity, early onset of diabetes, and lousy health that could be prevented. Lauman’s work is laudable and is relevant to many sport and community initiatives that government and numerous other partners should be embracing.
NASSM’s core values identified in the 2003 strategic plan (Chalip et al.) are excellence, integrity, integration, synergy, diversity, and inclusion. As shown in Figure 1, these values, as well as relevance and engagement, inform and emanate from university (and NASSM’s) mandates of teaching, research, and service. I have included relevance as a value to underscore that what we do is important. As we design curriculum or research, we can ask ourselves, “Is this relevant? Is it relevant to me as an individual? Does it have meaning for others—to students, to other researchers, to a body of knowledge, to the professional practitioner? Should it have meaning for others? Or is something else more relevant to today’s issues?”
I suggest engagement as a value for NASSM because of its link to working with others and building relations, its association with leadership literature and practice, and its reference to serving others. For example, Ward (2003) wrote of the scholarship of engagement as intellectual activities in which faculty draw on their expertise as they work in service activities internal or external to the university. Ward argues that such intellectual engagement, when treated in a scholarly way, could be considered scholarship and thus heighten the profile and reward for service. As NASSM continues to pursue its place in academe, it is very much enacting the value of engagement.
Experts on conflict resolution remind us that conflict over values and beliefs is one of the main sources of conflict in organizations. I am proud that NASSM has values that can be used in addressing tensions requiring attention, because behaviors based on our values will always be the hallmark of working to get it right.
It is beyond the scope of this article to go in depth with the early and contemporary meanings of work–life balance and affect and work–family conflict and facilitation. My reading of the literature and how it fits with tensions and conversations is this: Work–life balance is an ongoing negotiation between roles of work and nonwork and multiple actors within these roles to achieve a state determined to be acceptable to all actors in an identifiable period of time.
Frone’s (2003) work reviews the completed research and identifies the issues surrounding the complexities of the relationships between and among social roles related to work and nonwork. Frone identifies nonwork aspects of our lives as family, religious, community, leisure, and student roles. His review is focused on work and family roles, given the conceptual interest in and significant volume of research on family roles and lack of specificity of research on other nonwork roles.
Duxbury’s (2006) studies of multiple generations in the workplace, each with different watershed events and conditions as they were growing up, define and shape values and motivations about work life. She writes of the veterans (born before or during World War II) and the Great Depression and World War II as key influences in their lives. For the Nexus generation (echo boom, born between 1974 and 1990), the watershed influences were information technology and violence and terrorism accompanied by “gangsta’ rap.” To the Nexus generation, it may be that work–life balance is central to their life and work values. While pay and benefits will be attractive, for these sophisticated employees the main values will be engagement in the workplace as seen through flexible employment relationships and work–life balance. The challenge is to understand and work with these generational differences in the workplace.
Work–life balance is a key construct requiring as much attention to tensions and dialogue as the other concepts presented in this talk. If this assumption is correct and if we are concerned with the health of individuals, others, community, and our places of work, then work–life balance deserves our utmost attention.
I conclude with the ideas expressed in the writings of Mary Parker Follett as noted by Paul R. Lawrence (1995): “She took great pains to examine the importance of respecting and cultivating the differences among specialized contributors to organizational performance” and “saw that the tension generated by these work-based differences could be the source of the creative ideas that add value” (pp. 293-294). Further conversation will move us forward.
|
Amis, J., & Silk, M. (Eds.). (2005). Expanding horizons: Promoting critical and innovative approaches to the study of sport management [Special issue]. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4).
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T., & Sternberg, R.J. (2004). The nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arney, J.B., & Jones, I. (2006). Uniting community and university through service learning. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 195-198.
Bennett, J.B., Cook, R.F., & Pelletier, K.R. (2003). Toward an integrated framework for comprehensive organizational wellness: Concepts, practices, and research in workplace health promotion. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 69-95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Butin, D.W. (Ed.). (2005). Service learning in higher education: Critical issues and directions. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Chalip, L., Costa, C., Gibson, H., Inglis, S., Rascher, D., & Wolfe, R. (2003). Report of the NASSM Strategic Planning Team. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from www.nassm. com/files/StrategicPlan2003.pdf
Chelladurai, P. (2005). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Cuneen, J., & Sidwell, M.J. (1994). Sport management field experiences. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Duxbury, L. (2006). You, me, and them: Dealing with generational differences in the workplace. Unpublished manuscript, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University. Ottawa, Canada.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D.E., Jr. (1999). Where’s the service in service- learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frisby, W., Reid, C.J., Millar, S., & Hoeber, L. (2005). Putting “participatory” into participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 367-386.
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1-12.
Fritz, R. (1989). The path of least resistance. New York: Fawcett-Columbine.
Frone, M.R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143-162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Graham, P. (Ed.). (1995). Mary Parker Follett—Prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hubbuch, S.M. (1996). Writing research papers across the curriculum (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Keeley, S.M., & Parks, J.B. (2003). Thinking critically about sport management. In J.B. Parks & J. Quarterman (Eds.), Contemporary sport management (pp. 79-92). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lawrence, P.R. (1995). Epilogue. In P. Graham (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett—Prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s (pp. 291-296). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
MacLean, J. (2001). Performance appraisal for sport and recreation managers. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (1995). Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 212-221). New York: Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1991). The effective organization: Forces and forms. Sloan Management Review, 32(2), 54-67.
Oatley, K. (2006, April 29). Get your kids off the couch. Globe and Mail, p. D13.
Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 187-203.
Robinson, L. (2006, April 29). Different backstrokes for different folks. Globe and Mail, p. D12.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Tonn, J.C. (2003). Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Vickers, M., Harris, C., & McCarthy, F. (2004). University–community engagement: Exploring service-learning options within the practicum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 129-141.
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(5), 1-161.
Zeigler, E.F. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management, 1, 4-24.
Zeigler, E.F. (1989). Proposed creed and code of professional ethics for the North American Society for Sport Management. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 2-4.
Zeigler, E.F. (Ed.). (1994). Physical education and kinesiology in North America: Professional and scholarly foundations. Champaign, IL: Stipes.
---
|
A September 2, 2006, Hockey News—Ontario Edition article by Kristi Patton (Vol. 5, No.8, Issue 43, p. 9) reported that the merger between the National Women’s Hockey League (NWHL) and the Western Women’s Hockey League (WWHL) will mean the best female hockey teams will play for the Clarkson Cup. The Cup is named for the former Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson.
Sincere thanks to Karen Danylchuk and Joanne MacLean for their constructive comments.
|
n/a
|
No One Can Whistle a Symphony: Working Together for Sport Management’s Future
|
Daniel F. Mahony University of Louisville
|
2007
|
Although sport management is now well established in higher education and is an increasingly popular major for students, there are a number of critical issues that face the discipline. The purpose of this lecture is to identify some of these critical issues and what can be done to address each of them. The primary issue for sport management is a lack of qualified faculty to (a) teach the increasing number of students enrolling in sport management programs and (b) conduct the research necessary to build a distinct body of knowledge. In addition, sport management faculty also need to work together to make a better case for the contributions of their programs to their respective universities to avoid being a very low priority in their home units. The lecture focuses on the need for sport management faculty to work together to address each of these issues.
I attended my first Zeigler lecture in 1995. I had met Earle Zeigler when I was a doctoral student at Ohio State and had been taught by one of his protégés, Dr. Chelladurai, so no one needed to explain to me that an award named after him was special. Now, I have to be honest. I do not care very much about winning awards. When I was young, I quickly realized I placed too much emphasis on awards and often lost sight of what was really important: all of the great experiences I had that led to being considered for these awards. However, I was curious about what it would take to be one of the top professors in the field. The award winner that year was Trevor Slack and he was introduced by Gordon Olafson. During the introduction, Gordon emphasized how hard Trevor worked. So I said to myself, “To be the best in the field it will require lots of long hours and hard work. Yes, never mind, I think I will have to settle for being good.” Then, Trevor got up and gave his talk. During the beginning of his talk, he said that he did not work nearly as hard as Gordon said and that the real secret to his success was surrounding himself with smart people. “Ah-hah,” I said to myself, “a loophole—find smart people and exploit their talents (and I mean exploit in the best possible way); this is something I could do.”
Before I continue, I would like to recognize the following people (this is in no particular order): Chris Greenwell, Damon Andrew, Brian Turner, Keith Christy, Donna Pastore, Chad Seifried, Ian Patrick, Joe Petrosko, Robert Thrasher, Steve Dittmore, Sean Phelps, Amy Baker, Mike Judd, Mike Mondello, Mary Hums, Dan
Funk, Makoto Nakazawa, Harold Riemer, James Breeding, Jay Gladden, Artemis Apostolopoulou, Angela Grube, Jeremy Jordan, Alan Geist, Marlene Dixon, Mark Havitz, Lynn Ridinger, Jeff James, Anita Moorman, Sumiko Hirakawa, Dennis Howard, Bob Madrigal, Janet Fink, Brenda Pitts, Jim Hall, Ming Li, and Tim DeSchriver. In addition to being very bright, this group of sport management scholars all have one thing in common: I have had the pleasure to publish a refereed journal article, book, or book chapter with each of them. In most cases, we have worked together multiple times. I owe a lot to this group and want to thank them for their help.
So, clearly I have followed the directions of Trevor Slack very well and whatever success I have had, I owe to all of the people with whom I worked. This goes beyond my research, because I have also had the pleasure of working with many people in various service activities for NASSM (in particular the NASSM presidents before and after me, Rob Ammon and Alison Doherty). I truly value my experiences working with them. Now, I would argue that someone more talented and hard working than me could be successful as a faculty member without working with others. He or she could develop and report on excellent research studies and teach great classes with little interaction with others. It would be much more difficult, but certainly not impossible.
If we have any hope as a discipline, however, then working together on the issues that face us is critical to our future. The quote in the title of my presentation comes from H.E. Luccock, who said, “No one can whistle a symphony. It takes an orchestra to play it.” If we hope to have a great symphony in our future, then we must find a way to all play well together. This is true in any discipline, but is particularly true in sport management. I agree with Cuneen (2004), who suggested in her Zeigler lecture that we are at a point at which sport management is “entrenched in the academe,” but must now manage the transition of “potential” to “merit” (p. 1). There are some significant challenges that are facing us and the best ways to address those challenges are not always clear. In this lecture, I will attempt to discuss some of these major challenges and what we can do as a discipline to address them.
As Weese (2002) noted in his 2001 Zeigler lecture and my colleagues and I have documented in a series of articles (Mahony, Mondello, Hums, & Judd, 2004, 2006; Mondello, Mahony, Hums, & Moorman, 2002), we have a significant issue relative to the availability of faculty to teach in our programs. The number of positions available continues to grow (over 120 this year), and, despite the growth in doctoral programs, is still far greater than the number of doctoral graduates (Mahony et al., 2004). As the number of sport management programs continues to grow and the size of the faculty at many programs increases, we can expect this to continue. I was recently told that sport management was among the top-10 requested majors by incoming freshman, a number that suggests a great disparity between demand for programs and number of faculty available to teach in them.
I personally believe there is no greater issue facing our discipline. As an administrator, I have long argued that faculty are the most critical aspect of any program.
If you hire great faculty, you are highly likely to have a great program. You almost have to go out of your way not to. The converse is also true, however. If you do not have great faculty or have an insufficient number, you are likely to have a weak program. The numbers would suggest that we probably have more weak programs than we care to admit. Unfortunately, this is a problem some can easily ignore. For example, at the University of Louisville we have consistently had successful searches, so it would be easy for us to see this as someone else’s problem.
That is a truly shortsighted perspective, however. The fact is that the activities in each program reflect on all of this. It is very similar to my fraternity days when the stupid actions of one individual reflected on all of us. Although this was unfair, it was a reality. In our case, people’s perceptions of sport management are not affected by the best programs, but instead by the programs with which they have direct contact or ones that get the most attention. Just this spring, a Final Four course at one university received widespread national attention and its identification as a “sport management” class did little for the general impression of our discipline. For a field that struggles for respect from the start because of our focus on sport, we really cannot afford too many negative impressions.
So, what can we do about this? Weese (2002) did a great job of outlining many of the options available, and I will not take time to repeat them all. Instead, I will focus on how we can work together to address this problem. The lack of faculty is a problem we all face, and we all need to help solve this problem.
First, more sport management programs can begin to offer new doctoral degrees or perhaps joint doctoral degree programs. Although this possibility is limited only to those programs at universities that offer doctoral programs, from my count there are approximately 80 Carnegie doctoral universities with sport management programs and only about $25\%$ of these currently have sport management doctoral programs, so there is room for growth. We cannot, however, look at producing faculty as an issue only for the doctoral institutions to address alone.
Second, we can all work to recruit more qualified students into doctoral programs. Frankly, as a profession, we have done a poor job of encouraging our best and brightest undergraduate and graduate students to pursue doctoral degrees. This is particularly true for students native to North America. If it were not for our great fortune to have a large influx of faculty from outside of our continent, the faculty “problem” would be an absolute crisis. Given the popularity of sport and growing popularity of sport management, as well as the very favorable faculty job market, there is no good explanation for the few North American students who enter doctoral programs. We simply must do a better job of selling this opportunity to our best students. We also need to recruit students from related disciplines. Our discipline would benefit in a number of ways if we could successfully recruit students into doctoral programs from fields such as psychology and economics, which have a strong tradition of research preparation in their master programs.
Third, we also can all help to recruit people with terminal degrees in closely related fields into sport management. Some of the great contributors to sport management have been those who did not have a doctoral degree in sport management; Dennis Howard, Dan Rascher, Cathy Claussen, Laurence Chalip, and Richard Wolfe are just a few examples. Years ago this was a necessity because sport management doctoral programs were so new. As the field has developed, however, I think we forgot to keep looking outside to find great talent. Whenever we attend conferences outside of sport management or interact with colleagues on our own campus, we should all be looking for possible converts. Again, such an infusion of talent has benefits beyond simply filling faculty positions. Faculty members in many of basic disciplines have a strong training in research and will help to push the envelope in that area as well.
Although these are just a few strategies, I believe the key point is that we all need to make recruitment and training of people for the sport management professoriate a high priority. Even if the people we identify never work at our own institutions, we all will benefit if there are more highly qualified faculty teaching in sport management programs.
A second issue we continue to face is how to best build a distinct body of knowledge in sport management. This has been a focus of many of the prior Zeigler lectures (Chalip, 2006; DeSensi, 1994; Frisby, 2005; Olafson, 1995; Parks, 1992; Pitts, 2001; Slack, 1996) and I would like to touch on it again tonight. I think I have a slightly different perspective, however, than many of the prior speakers. Although I do not disagree with many of the points they made, I think the biggest problem here is related to the first problem I addressed: There simply are not enough of us. If one looks at the typical sport management program, it covers many of the same areas as a typical business program with some sociology and psychology also included. At my university, there are about 15 to 20 times more faculty members in those disciplines combined than there are in sport management. In addition, those programs are present at more universities than is sport management. So, if our goal is to develop a unique body of knowledge that goes across these content areas, it is easy to see why this is such a daunting task. I am clearly not the first to identify this problem. In his Zeigler lecture, Chelladurai (1992) noted that “we do not have the workforce to specialize in the subareas of our field” and “we spread ourselves too thin” (p. 216). Fifteen years later, I believe this is still an accurate assessment of the discipline.
The fact is that we are still probably doing very little in many areas. Research on dissertation topics (Dittmore, Mahony, Andrew, & Phelps, 2007; Soucie & Doherty, 1996) indicates that most of the work being done is in marketing, organizational theory, and organizational behavior, with very little in some of the other areas. Although it does not come out in the dissertation studies, one could certainly argue that research in sport law is also far more advanced than some of the other areas. This means, however, that sport management faculty members are likely doing very little research on some other content areas within the larger field of sport management. Moreover, even in areas being researched, it is not clear how quickly or effectively a body of knowledge is being developed. The question is, again, what can we do about this? I see at least three approaches that could be helpful.
First, we need more conversations about where research is going in certain areas and a plan for how we can get there. Many individuals have developed research agendas for themselves, but research agendas for the field are rarely discussed. We need to have conversations among scholars in different areas to develop such agendas. Although some of these have happened on their own, we need to do more as a field to ensure the development of a well-respected body of knowledge. Conferences, like NASSM, should put aside time to discuss such agendas and provide a framework for future research. We should also consider using financial incentives to help to push research forward in targeted areas.
Second, we need to involve more people in the development of new knowledge. Whereas some sport management faculty members have less need for publishing because of their institution’s goals or the point they are at in their careers, we are too small as a field to not utilize the talents of everyone. It is also important to point out that we each have different talents. By working together, sometimes across institution types, we can produce more and better research. In fact, a recent comprehensive analysis of over 20 million papers from a 50-year period found that collaborative research was more successful than solo authored work, and this difference was increasing over time (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2006).
As a journal reviewer, I have had two very common experiences. In one case, I read an article that could have been useful to practitioners, but it suffers from poor methodology and limited generalizability in part because it was not well developed. In the other case, I read articles in which methodology is well developed, but I am left wondering, “Who cares?” Even if the authors were successful in supporting their hypotheses or models, there does not appear to be sufficient thought of what meaningful impact that would have on the practice of sport management or even future sport management research. I am always left with the feeling that I should find a way to connect the author of one article with the author of the other. Together, they could produce a much better article than either has done separately. This would sometimes, or even often, require that faculty work with others from different institution types, something that happens far too little in our field.
Third, we must again look to involve those from outside of sport management. As Olafson (1995) said in his Zeigler lecture, this was an approach advocated for by Earle Zeigler and his colleagues who suggested we “involve scholars and researchers from many disciplines with a variety of backgrounds” (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975, p. 19). In fact, some areas of sport management research have already benefited from the work of faculty in other fields. For example, psychology professor Dan Wann’s work on sport fans is one good example and one that was of great value to me early in my career. Given the popularity and natural interest in sport, encouraging more faculty to be engaged in examinations of sport might be easier than one might suspect. Collaborations with faculty in business, sociology, psychology, and other disciplines can expand the amount of quality research being done and help to develop the body of knowledge more quickly.
Again, these are just a few suggestions. It is clear to me, however, that we will only be successful if we work together. There have already been many examples of good collaboration across universities. The work of Sue Inglis, Donna Pastore, and Karen Danylchuk on coaches, and Galen Trail, Jeff James, Dan Funk, Dan Wann, and James Zhang’s recent work on sport fans are a couple of good examples. We simply need more.
Another issue that has been discussed in previous Zeigler lectures (e.g., Chalip, 2006) and that continues to be an issue is where sport management is housed within the university. Based on my informal review of program Web sites, it appears the most common places for sport management are schools of education, business, and health, with a few occasionally in units that I refer to as the “schools of misfit toys” (i.e., units that combine a number of unrelated programs that all have no other good home in the university). There has been much discussion about which home is most appropriate, and the apparent assumption in these discussions is that if we find the right home, things will be better for the program. This debate, however, often misses two important points. First, the respect and quality of treatment that sport management receives is more often based on people than structures. I have had the privilege to work for administrators in the college of education who treated sport management well and we received the resources we needed, but I have also worked for those who did not. It has had less to do with being in a college of education than it has with the individuals who made the decisions. Based on talks with others across universities, my experiences do not appear to be unique.
Second, the main problem facing sport management is that almost all of the options lead to sport management programs being a low priority (Chalip, 2006). This is clear to me as I have pursued a position as a dean. In every case I must address the question of whether I am “education enough,” “business enough,” or “health enough” to be the dean of the given school or college. Although I have been told that I was able to successfully answer that question in some interviews, the main point is that it is always a question and it is a question that is asked repeatedly. In contrast, I am guessing that it is very rare for someone to ask during dean searches at our respective universities whether a candidate is “sport management enough.” In fact, we have probably all worked for deans who did not have any understanding of sport management, and no one else sees this as even a slight problem. With a few exceptions, the pecking order is clear and we are often at or near the bottom.
This problem is compounded by two issues. One, there is little grant money available for sport management research. This is especially true when compared with money available to programs in education and health. As institutions become more focused on grant dollars, this will only become more of an issue. Two, there are no external rankings in sport management. Although there are certainly problems with all ranking systems, colleges still rely on them to enhance their prestige. The fact that none exist in our field means that sport management becomes less useful to administrators who are seeking to increase the prestige of their college. What is the use of having a top-10 program if you have no external source saying you have a top-10 program? The question is, what can we do to counteract the lower priority of sport management programs? Again, I will argue this is a group effort.
First, if I am correct and people often matter more than structures, then we all need to be actively involved with selecting academic leaders on our campuses and we need to talk with our colleagues at other institutions. Now, we are not likely to find many leaders who will make sport management program among the highest priorities in the academic unit. Frankly, even I would be highly unlikely to make sport management the highest priority if I were a dean. It is not unrealistic, however, to find leaders who will treat sport management fairly and with respect and give the faculty the support they need to provide a quality program. We all need to be actively engaged in searches in order to increase the chances that this will happen.
Second, we need to make a good case for what sport management does contribute to a school, college, or university. We have all been in a position in which we had to justify retaining or getting a new faculty position, increasing the salary in position, etc. We generally do this on our own, however, with little support from others in the field. In other words, we are often reinventing the wheel. I suggest that we should contribute to a common sport management database that could be used by anyone. This has been done by other disciplines (e.g., business) and can be of great value. For example, if we could present academic leaders with a good data-based analysis of the growth in the field, we could do a much better job of convincing them of the need for a new faculty position. Likewise, I believe that in many cases the financial benefits of sport management programs exceed the costs and better data would help us to make such a case.
Third, we need to bring sport management experts to our campuses to help academic leaders to understand the current norms in our discipline. Although we can do a good job of making the case on our own campuses, academic leaders tend to listen more to experts. Who is an expert? An expert, of course, is someone who lives at least 60 miles from our campus. The fact is the expert can present exactly the same information, but it will be given more weight simply because the expert is an outsider. Now, how do we get experts to our campuses? There are generally two ways. Some universities bring in external reviewers for university program reviews. The other option is accreditation. In my current position, I have seen a number of cases in which the findings of an external accreditor led the university to address an issue in a program that might have otherwise been ignored. For accreditation or program reviews to be successful, however, it requires widespread participation by the top people in our field. When a reviewer comes to campus, they are representing the entire discipline. The image of the field within the minds of academic leaders on campus will be largely impacted by their impression of the reviewers. We simply cannot afford to send out anyone except our very best.
Fourth, we need to consider the possibility of program rankings. I say this with a great deal of hesitation because every ranking system I have seen is flawed in some way. They also often have unintended consequences as programs try to move up in the rankings. The impact of the U.S. News and World Report rankings provides many such examples (Farrell & van der Werf, 2007). That being said, I believe it is likely this will happen eventually whether we want it or not. We live in a world obsessed with rankings and to think we will avoid this forever is unrealistic. Personally, I would have more faith in a ranking system that we develop through a collaborative process than one that we leave entirely to those outside of academia. Again, the U.S. News and World Report rankings provide a good example of this danger. In addition, despite all of the downsides of rankings, there are positive impacts. Administrators are more likely to invest in the program if they see the potential to achieve a higher ranking and this increases the chance a sport management program will be seen as a priority.
Although we might not always be a priority, we do have large numbers of students. All indications from my campus and others is that even as more institutions add sport management programs, the number of students enrolled in our programs continues to increase. At the University of Louisville, our undergraduate enrollment has nearly doubled in just the last few years. The plus side of this is that the data related to enrollment growth can be useful to making the case for additional resources. There are also problems, however, with the growing enrollments. When the student-tofaculty ratio becomes too large, it is hard to provide a quality program. In addition, the popular areas in the sport industry are not large enough to support the number of graduates being produced. There are a few ways to address this problem.
First, we could try to limit enrollments in our individual programs. For example, increasing the GPA needed for admission would be a quick and easy way to reduce enrollment. This is unfortunately not a practical solution for every program. As I suggested, high enrollment is sometimes the major selling point for sport management programs to administrators, so reducing or simply capping the enrollment might not be an available option for all.
Second, we can use accreditation reviews to help limit enrollment in programs and to limit the number of programs. Although this will not happen overnight, if sport management accreditation becomes the “seal of approval,” it will be harder for programs to operate without accreditation. Accreditation can also be useful in establishing norms for student-to-faculty ratios and could place programs in a position of deciding between hiring more faculty or limiting enrollment.
Third, we need to become more focused on skill development than on knowledge development, particularly at the undergraduate level. Whereas it is certainly important to teach undergraduate students about sport marketing, sport finance, and sport law, if we accept that many might not find the jobs they expect in the sport industry, then we need to be sure their preparation provides them with skills that will be useful in many fields. On this point I agree with Boucher (1998), who discussed in his Zeigler lecture the need to focus on developing our students’ abilities “to think intelligently and make decisions” (p. 81). Students who have strong critical thinking skills, high levels of quantitative literacy, decision-making skills, and good written and oral communication skills will be able to succeed in almost any job that they choose. Again, a move toward accreditation can help support this move from the primary focus on knowledge development that existed in the program approval standards to an expanded focus, which includes an emphasis on skill development.
I would like to end this lecture by reemphasizing the need to work together and the challenges that face us in that effort. It is important to note that it is not a natural tendency in the academy to work across units on a campus or across universities. We tend to feel most comfortable operating in our own separate silos and sometimes have policies and procedures that work against collaboration. It is critical for our success, however, that we find ways to overcome this silo mentality, and conferences such as this provide a great opportunity for the academics in the field to have the conversations necessary to move the field forward. This often happens informally in the hallways of the host hotel or sometimes in the local restaurants and bars. We could do more to increase these conversations, however. In addition to setting aside time for refereed presentations, we should set aside time to share ideas and to develop plans for moving the field forward. This includes everything from developing a research plan for an area within the larger discipline to sharing ideas for getting grants and arguing for resources. As we do this, it is important to remember Inglis’s (2007) advice from last year’s Zeigler lecture. We need less discussion that is a competitive conversation focused on points and counterpoints, and more dialogue focused on developing a common meaning. Good dialogues are critical to our future.
The problem with this is that the number of conferences we have the choice of attending is increasing, whereas travel money is generally remaining steady. The net effect is that we, future and current sport management faculty, are never in one place at one time. In fact, there are several people in this field I have never met because they attend only SRLA or AAHPERD, and several others I have not seen in many years because they now attend only SMA. Although several major conferences might not be an issue in some fields, it is in a field that is as small as sport management and one that is likely to have less access to travel funds than the norm. Although I will not advocate for the importance of any one conference over the others, the reality is that working together is much harder if we are never actually together. In addition, history has taught us that less communication between groups with different perspectives generally leads to widening of differences, but increased communication leads to greater understanding (e.g., Sherif & Sherif, 1964).
So, how do we deal with this issue? There are two alternatives. First, we could coordinate conferences so that they are all held at the same place and at the same time. Each conference could maintain its autonomy, but this would serve to bring us all together at once. Although in many ways this would appear to be a logical and efficient solution, there are many issues that would need to be worked out and I doubt that we could ever get everyone to agree.
This leaves us with a less than perfect alternative. We need leaders from each of the organizations to coordinate dialogues and collaborations that would involve sessions at each conference around common topics. These would need to be followed by electronic dialogues and proposals for actions. Smaller Listservs could be set up around various issues to allow for further dialogue. There would also need to be joint monitoring of progress relative to the proposals for action. Several years ago, we developed a strategic plan for NASSM. At this point, we really need a strategic plan for the field and that plan must reach out beyond NASSM. Strategic plans only work, however, if people continue to monitor whether progress is being made and take corrective action when it is not. If multiple groups are involved, then a diverse group must also be involved in monitoring our progress.
Although this might be a little messy and might not be the easiest way to develop a field, failing to include all groups of sport management faculty would be like trying to play a symphony while missing a key section or sections of the orchestra. To play the best symphony, we all need to work together to move the field of sport management forward.
|
perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 76-85.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1-21.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 215-219.
Cuneen, J. (2004). Managing program excellence during our transition from potential to merit. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 1-12.
DeSensi, J.T. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 63-74.
Dittmore, S.W., Mahony, D.F., Andrew, D.P.S., & Phelps, S. (2007). Is sport management research diverse? A five-year analysis of dissertations. International Journal of Sport Management, 8(1), 21-31.
Farrell, E.F., & van der Werf, M. (2007, May 25). Playing the rankings game. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A11-A19.
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1-12.
Inglis, S. (2007). Creative tensions and conversations in the academy. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 1-14.
Mahony, D.F., Mondello, M., Hums, M.A., & Judd, M.R. (2004). Are sport management doctoral programs meeting the needs of the faculty job market? Observations for today and the future. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 91-110.
Mahony, D.F., Mondello, M., Hums, M.A., & Judd, M. (2006). Recruiting sport management faculty: Factors impacting job attractiveness and advice for search committees. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 414-430.
Mondello, M., Mahony, D.F., Hums, M.A., & Moorman, A.M. (2002). A survey of search committee chairpersons: Candidate qualifications preferred for entry-level sport management faculty positions. International Journal of Sport Management, 3, 262-281.
Olafson, G.A. (1995). Sport management research: Ordered change. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 338-345.
Parks, J.B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottom line” in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 220-229.
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1-9.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1964). Reference groups: Exploration into conformity and deviation of adolescents. New York: Harper & Row.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97-105.
Soucie, D., & Doherty, A. (1996). Past endeavors and future perspectives for sport management research. Quest, 48, 486-500.
Weese, W.J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academy. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 1-17.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B.J., & Uzzi, B. (2006, April 12). Science Magazine. The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1136099/DC1/1.
Zeigler, E.F., & Spaeth, M. (1975). Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Globalization of Sport: An Inconvenient Truth1
|
Lucie Thibault Brock University
|
2008
|
The purpose of the 2008 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture was to highlight some of the issues involved in the globalization of sport that affect the field of sport management. In particular, four issues were presented: a division of labor undertaken on an international scale where transnational corporations are drawing on developing countries’ work forces to manufacture sportswear and sport equipment; the increasing flow of athletes where country of birth and origin are no longer a limitation on where an athlete plays and competes; the increased involvement of global media conglomerates in sport; and the impact of sport on the environment. The impact and inconvenient truths of these issues on sport management were addressed.
“When academics write about sports, they are capable of accomplishing the impossible: sucking all the pleasure and fun from the spectacle” (Foer, 2006, p. 86). I begin with this quotation because I believe that, that is, in part, what I am about to do in this paper. I chose to discuss the globalization of sport for the Earle F. Zeigler Lecture for a number of reasons. First, although the topic has been addressed by our colleagues in sport sociology (cf. Andrew & Grainger, 2007; Bairner, 2005; Hargreaves, 2002; Harvey, Rail, & Thibault, 1996; Maguire, 1999, 2005), it has not been extensively studied by sport management and sport policy scholars. Some exceptions include the work of Allison (2005), Henry and [the] Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy (2007), Houlihan (1994, 1999), Mason (2002), Mason and Duquette (2005), Means and Nauright (2007), and Wheeler and Nauright (2006). As well, a number of textbooks and chapters aimed at sport management students on the importance of globalization in sport management have been published (cf. Fay & Snyder, 2007; Gratton & Leberman, 2006; Thoma & Chalip, 1996; Westerbeek & Smith, 2003). These works have all addressed issues of global governance and the marketplace in an era of global prominence. Second, it is clear that a number of controversial issues affecting professional and ‘amateur’ sports are global – for example, the use of performance enhancing drugs, the migration of athletes and coaches, the environmental impact, the use of developing countries’ workforce for the production of sportswear and sport equipment, and the general commodification and commercialization of sports in society. Third, there are a number of sport organizations that yield a great deal of power in the world. Organizations such as the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and the National Basketball Association (NBA) play an important role in the ‘new sport world order.’ Finally, it is increasingly imperative for sport management students to understand globalization and its impact on sport as they embark on careers in the field.
Although globalization has led to positive outcomes in sport management, it also presents important drawbacks that must be understood and respected. At the very least, sport management students should be sensitized to issues of multilingualism, multiculturalism, and multidisciplinarity in the delivery of sport in a global context. Before addressing these issues, it is important to define globalization. For the purposes of this paper, I have relied on Robertson’s (1992) interpretation of globalization, that is, the consolidation of the world into a whole space – in other words, a “global community” (p. 9). Robertson (1992) further explains that globalization is “the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole” (p. 8).
In the numerous works on globalization, several factors have been identified as playing a key role in the increasing movement toward globalization (cf. Marchak, 1991; Robertson & White, 2007; Teeple, 2000; Thomas, 2007; Wolf, 2004). These factors include: pressures from transnational corporations, international capital, neoliberal economies, and right-wing governments where markets have become deregulated and trade relations among countries have increased (Marchak, 1991; Teeple, 2000; Thomas, 2007; Wolf, 2004). In addition, progress in communication technologies has enhanced the ability of exchange among individuals, organizations, and governments. All this, in turn, has contributed to globalization in the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres (Neverdeen Pieterse, 1994; Robertson & White, 2007). The focus of these spheres has been addressed in various contexts: politics and international governance, economics, business, media and technology, health, education, development, environment, and culture, to name a few (cf. Ritzer, 2007). Sport has not been excluded from these discussions of the application of the political, economic, social, and cultural spheres (cf. Andrews & Grainger, 2007; Giulianotti & Robertson, 2007a, 2007b; Harvey & Houle, 1994; Harvey et al., 1996; Taylor, 1988; Wright, 1999).
In the context of sport, Tomlinson and Young (2006) and others (cf. Wertheim, 2004; Westerbeek & Smith, 2003) remind us that the FIFA is more ‘global’ than the United Nations (UN) since the FIFA has a membership of 208 countries while the UN’s membership is 192 countries (cf. FIFA, 2008; UN, 2008).2 Along similar lines, the IOC is also larger in scope than the United Nations. Giulianotti and Robertson (2007a, 2007b) note that “Olympism has a global political reach, with 203 National Olympic Committees affiliated to the IOC, giving 11 more national members than the United Nations” (p. 108).3
Tomlinson and Young (2006) write “in participatory terms, the World Cup and the Olympics offer a platform to all nations, and most of all to small nations of the world, that is unrivaled by any other cultural or political body, even the United Nations” (p. 2). Sport is so prominent in the world that the Vatican set up a sports department in August 2004 under the leadership of the late Pope John Paul II. In the announcement of this sports initiative, a spokesperson from the Vatican notes that “the church . . . is called upon without doubt to pay attention to sports, which certainly can be considered one of the nerve centers of contemporary culture and one of the frontiers for new evangelization” (The Associated Press, 2004, paragraph 7).
In many ways, globalization has been beneficial for sport. Among the evidence, I note the spread of sports throughout the world: the diversity in athletes’ origins participating in many of the professional leagues around the world (e.g., the Ladies Professional Golf Association, the Association of Tennis Professionals, the Women’s Tennis Association, the NBA, and the English Premier League). Also noteworthy is the increasing number of countries participating in international sport events. For example, Azerbaijan, Kenya, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uruguay, and Venezuela participated in their first Olympic Winter Games in 1998 in Nagano, Japan (cf. International Olympic Committee, 2008a). In addition, an increasing number of athletes are participating in a diverse range of sports often crossing some gender and religious lines and climate barriers. For example, Muslim women participating in sport such as rugby and football; the gold medal victory of Nawal El Moutawakel4 from Morocco in 400-meter hurdles at the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles; the participation of Jamaican athletes in bobsleigh at the 1988 Olympic Winter Games in Calgary; the Australian gold medal victory (i.e., Steven Bradbury) in short track speed skating at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City; and an increased access to winter sports in tropical climates (e.g., in the countries of Dubai, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Taiwan) via snow domes where sports such as downhill skiing, snowboarding, and ice skating take place indoors. The evidence also includes the increasing opportunities athletes, coaches, and leaders have been able to access because of the global nature of sport.
In praising the virtues of globalization and sport, Wilsey (2006, p. 47) argues that football (i.e., soccer) is “unique in its ability to bridge differences and overturn national prejudices.” As evidence, the author uses one example of the collaboration that took place among the two host nations for the 2002 FIFA World Cup. It is no secret that the occupation of South Korea by Japan between 1910 and 1945 led to strong tensions between the two countries. As Wilsey (2006) explains,
In less than half a century South Korea had gone from not allowing the Japanese national team to cross its borders for a World Cup qualifier, to cohosting the tournament … Give the world another 50 years and we might see the Cup co-hosted by Israel and Palestine. (p. 47)
On the topic of relations between Israel and Palestine, grassroot sport programs such as Building Bridges Basketball Camp and Playing for Peace have been developed as strategies towards peace, collaboration, and unity among youth of these nations (Ford, 2006a, 2006b; International Platform on Sport and Development, 2005; Quinn, 2006). There is no shortage of examples of the ‘power’ of sport to bring people together. Several authors have discussed the global appeal of sport and the power of sport to transcend borders, culture, language, gender, race, religion, and socio-economic status (cf. Andrews & Grainger, 2007; Miller, Lawrence, McKay, & Rowe, 2001; Thoma & Chalip, 1996; Wertheim, 2004). As Miller et al. (2001) explain, “sport is probably the most universal aspect of popular culture” (p. 1). Along similar lines, Riordan and Krüger (1999) argue that defenders or promoters of sport, at the turn of the 20th century, could not have predicted the power sport leaders and sport organizations would have in influencing “social and cultural life, in politics and economics” (p. ix). In a concrete example of the power of international sport, several sport researchers would identify the 1995 Rugby World Cup held in South Africa where Nelson Mandela shared in the victory of the South African Springbok team against the New Zealand All Blacks (cf. Crawford, 1999; Moodley & Adam, 2000; Steenveld & Strelitz, 1998). As Crawford (1999, p. 134) explains, “Mandela’s presence and persona at the 1995 World Cup were a spellbinding moment, a fragment of transcendent time in which a country with a bitter history of racism, bigotry, and oppression displayed bright hopes and youthful optimism.” South Africa Springbok’s World Cup victory not only led to a successful nation-building achievement, it put the country of South Africa and the new anti-apartheid regime on the global map.
Sport has always included an international dimension but this dimension appears to have intensified. The evidence that sport is globalized is uncontestable. For example, Wright (1999) notes the increased involvement of global media conglomerates (e.g., Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner) in acquiring sport properties (i.e., franchises, leagues, sport stadia); the growth of international sport management firms (e.g., IMG) and their involvement in all facets of sport events from the management of athletes, the creation of events, and the media production of these events; transnational corporations in the sport industry drawing on developing countries’ work force to produce sportswear and sport equipment; international sport federations that are increasingly finding new sources of capital from the sale of broadcasting rights (e.g., IOC, FIFA, IAAF); and the increasing flow of athletes and coaches where country of birth and origin are no longer a limitation on where an athlete plays or where a coach coaches.
In the academic context, there has been an increase in sport management programs in universities and colleges worldwide and in the number of organizations at the continental and regional levels and within countries (e.g., North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, Asia). There has also been a proliferation in the number of journals related to the management and business of sport originating from various countries (e.g., Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Egypt and Arab, Asia, France, Japan, Korea) (cf. Thibault, 2007). Evidence of the globalization of sport, it seems, is all around us.
As you have noticed, the inconvenient truth is part of the title of this article. What is this inconvenient truth? The inconvenient truth is that although there are many virtues associated with the global movement in sport, globalization has not been favorable for all. In fact, some argue that the globalization of sport has been achieved at the expense of individuals, organizations, and countries with limited resources (cf. Foer, 2006; Play Fair at the Olympics, 2004; Sage, 2005; Wertheim, 2004). The globalization of sport may, in large part, have been achieved on the backs of the poor.
For all its virtues, globalization [is] not without its drawbacks: widening chasms between rich and poor societies, plummeting environmental standards and increasing dependence on outsourcing. Peril [is] riding tandem with so much promise. Which is to say, globalization is like sports: For all the winners there are necessarily, losers as well. (Wertheim, 2005, p. 79)
For the purposes of this article, I will address the inconvenient truths for the following four elements: a division of labor undertaken on an international scale where transnational corporations (TNCs) are drawing on developing countries’ work force to manufacture sportswear and sport equipment; the increasing flow of athletes where country of birth and origin are no longer a limitation on where an athlete plays and competes; the increased involvement of global media conglomerates such as Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Vivendi Universal, and Bertelsmann AG in sport; and the impact of sport on the environment. There are many more issues related to the globalization of sport but I believe these issues capture fundamental problems and inconvenient truths associated with the globalization of sport. Labor issues are addressed in the first two elements of this article. The first part of labor issues is focused on developing nations’ manufacturing of sportswear and sport equipment for consumers of developed nations.
In the sport industry, the production of goods is largely achieved in developing countries through the use of subcontractors hired by major corporations such as Nike, adidas, Puma, and Fila. The workforce responsible for the production of these sporting goods endures, to this day, pitiful working conditions. Even with public pressure originating from special interest groups such as the International Labor Organization, the Worker Rights Consortium, and Fair Labor Association based in developed countries (cf. Hussain-Khaliq, 2004; Sage, 1999, 2005), TNCs are still complicit in perpetuating the poor working conditions in the factories. Even though TNCs have developed codes of conduct and ethical guidelines, these codes and guidelines have not, for the most part, translated into real positive changes in the operations of subcontractors and the treatment of workers in developing countries (cf. Adams, 2002; Lim & Phillips, 2008; Maquila Solidarity Network, 2008; Play Fair at the Olympics, 2004). TNCs have to assume part of the responsibility for the low wages, long hours, lack of job security, and dismal and dangerous working conditions. As noted in the Play Fair at the Olympics (2004) report,
If (labour) exploitation were an Olympic sport, the sportswear giants would be well represented among the medal winners. While the industry can boast its commitment to some impressive principles, enshrined in codes of conduct, its business practices generate the market pressures that are in reality leading to exploitative labour conditions. The consequence is that millions of workers are being locked into poverty and denied a fair share of the wealth that they generate. (p. 4)
In addition, the employees of these factories do not have the time to participate in sports nor do they have the resources to buy the products they create. As Sage (2005, p. 363) notes, “it is their labor that allows all of us to play, watch, coach, and administer sports. Their labor, in effect, is the very foundation of our sporting experience.” This fact is often forgotten as we individually and collectively benefit from our involvement in sport.
Transnational corporations in the sport industry have experienced important increases in their profits in recent years (cf. Laurent, 2008; Ram, 2007; Rusli, 2007). These TNCs have also been involved in multi million dollar deals to sponsor sport teams, leagues, and/or events and pay athletes millions of dollars to endorse their brands and products. While these TNCs are investing in the marketing of their brands, they have been slow to invest in the enhancement of working conditions and wages of employees in the factories. In fact, some argue (cf. Lim & Phillips, 2008; Maquila Solidarity Network, 2008; Play Fair at the Olympics, 2004) that the [traditional] business model is encouraging the status quo. As outlined in the report Play Fair at the Olympics (2004), the business model is
based upon ruthless pressure on prices, a demand for fast and flexible delivery, and a constant shift in manufacturing locations in pursuance of ever-cheaper production costs. Global sportswear companies link millions of workers to consumer markets via long supply-chains and complex networks of factories and contractors. Market power enables global companies to demand that their suppliers cut prices, shorten delivery times, and adjust rapidly to fluctuating orders. Inevitably, the resulting pressures are transmitted down the supply-chain to workers, leading to lower wages, bad conditions, and the violation of workers’ rights. (p. 5)
In their study on Nike and its corporate social responsibility initiatives, Lim and Phillips (2008, p. 152) also conclude that the implementation of the code of conduct “was hampered because Nike utilized the market-oriented production system.” They further explain the importance of partnerships between suppliers and contractors in order to encourage compliance with Nike’s code of conduct. The production of sport-related goods is a complex process involving a number of stakeholders. In their position at the top of the production chain, TNCs operating in the sport industry have the power to make a difference in improving the work conditions of employees who produce the sportswear and sport equipment. Unfortunately, evidence of achieving this is very limited. This issue will be further discussed at the end of the article. In the following section, the migration of athletes is examined as another labor issue in the globalization of sport that is worthy of consideration.
In the context of a global economy, the free movement of workers between countries is not unusual. In fact, in many cases, it is encouraged. In sport, the migration of athletes refers to the movement of athletes from one country to another, generally to access more resources whether it is financial compensation or better coaching, equipment, and support services for their sport involvement (Bale, 1990; Bale & Maguire, 1994; Lafranchi & Taylor, 2001; Weston, 2006). Migration may also occur to facilitate the athlete’s achievement of his/her ultimate goal of being selected to a country’s Olympic team or signing on to a professional league. In the recruitment of international athletes in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Weston (2006) writes:
Player movement in international athletics is, essentially, sports’ version of free trade. The global connection through sport and the increasing presence of international athletes are generally welcome and beneficial. The expanded market of talent increases the quality of competition for the consumer fan and the strength of athletic programs at colleges and universities. (p. 831)
Although athlete migration has been favorable for the coaches, teams, leagues, organizations, and nations benefiting from the access to better talent, it has also been identified as problematic (Bale & Maguire, 1994; Bale & Sang, 1996; Lafranchi & Taylor, 2001; Milanovic, 2005; Nafziger, 1988; Weston, 2006). For example, concerns over the massive exodus of Kenyan athletes to other countries and the drain on their talent pool have been raised by Kenyan officials when eight Kenyans migrated “to the affluent Persian Gulf nations of Qatar and Bahrain . . . Qatar and Bahrain lured the athletes with promises of generous benefits and lifetime pensions” (Carlson, 2004, p. D1). When a developing country’s investment in its sport system are reaped by other countries (often affluent developed nations), it is disconcerting. Although Kenyan athletes who migrated have personally benefitted from the opportunities offered by Qatar and Bahrain, Kenya’s sport system was ‘deskilled’ with the loss of these athletes (Maguire & Bale, 1994).
Increasingly, countries’ sport leaders appear to be involved in the recruitment of athletes from other countries in order to be competitive in international sport events.5 For example, prior to the 2006 Torino Olympic Winter Games, leaders from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia were recruiting Canadian talent (with Macedonian heritage) to field their Olympic team (Kingston, 2005). Citizenship and affiliation are, it appears, easily exchanged for the right sport skills and abilities. As noted by Weston (2006), the IOC has a rule that addresses nationality where athletes are required to “be citizens of the country which they represent in the [Olympic] Games. Despite this, application of nationality rules becomes dubious when countries grant citizenship to star foreign athletes on the eve of the Games” (p. 837). Along the same lines, Nafziger (1988) also identifies as problematic, “the growing practice of states to grant “quickie” citizenship to star foreign athletes” (p. 79). Athlete migration has led, in some instances, to what Maguire and Bale (1994, p. 282) term the “deskilling of ‘donor’ countries.” They argue that “Latin and Central American countries . . . regularly experience the loss of baseball and soccer player to the USA and Europe” (p. 282). They further explain:
Less developed countries have invested in nurturing athletic talent. Once this talent reaches maturity, more economically developed leagues, such as Major League Baseball, cream off the best. Native audiences are thus denied direct access to native talent nurtured and developed in their countries. (Maguire & Bale, 1994, p. 282)
As further evidence of the impact of athlete migration, the Greek softball and baseball 2004 Olympic teams are examples where most of the athletes on both teams were born in the United States. Even though the United States did not qualify for baseball for the 2004 Olympic Games, American baseball players were well represented. Twenty were Americans (with Greek heritage), one was Canadian (with Greek heritage), and two were Greeks (Carlson, 2004; The San Diego Union-Tribune, 2004). For softball, the situation was similar. Fourteen athletes were Americans while two were Greeks (Softball West Magazine, 2004). These athletes all became Greek citizens in time for the Olympic Games and they were excused from Greece’s 2-year required military service (Carlson, 2004). Although this provided the chosen athletes with opportunities to participate in the Olympic Games, Greek-born athletes (i.e., domestic athletes developed in Greece) were essentially overlooked when team members were selected.
In the case of professional baseball, and Major League Baseball in particular, questions about siphoning talent out of the country or what has often been called ‘poaching’ along with exploitative practices in recruiting players from Central and South America have been raised (Bretón, 2000; Maguire & Bale, 1994). The unequal access to resources in Central America and South America relative to the United States has, in some cases, facilitated the migration of athletes and has, as well, perpetuated these inequities. For example, Miguel Tejada, initially shortstop for the Oakland Athletics,6 came from very poor circumstances in the Dominican Republic. As Bretón (2000) explains,
Knowing he had no alternatives, the Athletics acquired Tejada’s considerable talent for $\$2,000$ . By comparison, Tejada’s white American teammate, Ben Grieve, received a $\$1.2$ million signing bonus. Similarly, the Texas Rangers acquired Sammy Sosa’s services in 1986 for $\$3,500$ —the exact amount the Brooklyn Dodgers paid to sign Jackie Robinson in 1946. (p. 14)
Furthermore, Bretón (2000) reports the following statement made by Dick Balderson, vice-president of the Colorado Rockies at the time of publication, “instead of signing four [American] guys at $\$25,000$ each, you sign 20 [Dominican] guys for $\$5,000$ (p. 14). As is the case for labor issues that occur in the sporting goods industry, standards for the acquisition of talent in developed countries are not maintained when talent originates in developing countries.
The true (e.g., monetary) value of the acquisition is not fully recognized and shared with the athletes, their clubs, teams, leagues, and/or sport system. Equitable exchanges of resources are not occurring. Although athletes may personally gain, the real beneficiaries are typically the professional leagues and teams in developed countries. From a global perspective, the acquisition of talent by developed nations’ leagues and teams is largely carried out at the expense of developing nations’ sport systems. The depletion of athletes with promising talent from developing countries is rarely replenished, in any form, by the organizations responsible for its depletion. Athletes are poached to enhance the quality of a sport team and league in affluent countries.
In other cases, the internationalization of leagues such as the NBA or football in Europe may have enhanced the profile of teams in these leagues among fans, media, sponsors, and advertisers across the globe, however, it may have undermined the success of domestic leagues in certain countries, for example, the Chinese Basketball League (Yao Ming) and the Brazilian Football League (Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima). Related to professional basketball, Wertheim (2004) explains that even though the internationalization of the NBA has greatly enhanced its prominence in the global marketplace, this prominence has not translated into similar success for other professional basketball leagues. Wertheim (2004) writes:
Stern evangelizes that the NBA’s worldwide sprawl is a blessing to leagues in other nations—his rising tide lifts their boat—but it doesn’t always play out that way. It’s not only that the U.S. has become the destination of top Chinese league players . . . , but also the increase in NBA telecasts and webcasts siphons fans from the CBA [Chinese Basketball League]. Why pay 40 yuan $(\$50.5.$ to watch the Beijing Ducks play the Guandong Southern Tigers when you can stay home and watch decidedly superior NBA games for free on television or broadband? Chen Quanli, head of CCTV’s [television network of the People’s Republic of China] sports division, claims that ratings for NBA games outdraw the CBA’s 3 to 1. (p. 79)
As for professional football (i.e., soccer), Foer (2004) explains that approximately 5,000 Brazilians have contracts to play football outside of Brazil. Wertheim (2004) argues that Brazil is the largest producer of football talent in the world, but as he explains,
European leagues, taking advantage of the downtrodden South American economy, have aggressively pursued all the best players. Brazilian teams, often owned by multinational corporations, have been all too happy to sell stars overseas for transfer fees that can top $\$10$ million—and it’s not as if that money goes back into the team. So while Real Madrid fans can cheer for Ronaldo [Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima], clubs in Brazil have secondrate rosters playing before disaffected crowds. (p. 80)7
In the American context, there have been important increases in the level of participation from international student-athletes in NCAA competitions. For example, in 2005, Weston (2006) reports that “in NCAA tennis, 63 of the top 100 men’s single players, and 47 of the top 100 women players were international student-athletes” (p. 841). Although more opportunities have been available to international athletes to train and compete in U.S. colleges and universities, Weston (2006) notes where concerns have been expressed by Americans about their diminishing domestic opportunities in college and university tennis and the possible link between these diminishing opportunities and poor rankings of American athletes in professional tennis.8
Related to the migration of athletes, foreign ownership of professional sport franchises has also generated a great deal of controversy. Vecsey (2007) writes:
When the Glazer [Malcolm Glazer] family from the United States took control of Manchester United in 2005, many loyal fans rushed the city walls with pitchforks and pots of boiling oil in a vain attempt to save the purity of British soccer. Yet the foreign hordes of investors keep arriving, bringing dollars or rubles or even Thai baht or Icelandic krona to the flourishing Premier League, by far the best soccer league in the world. (p. D4)
Fans were very vocal in expressing their concerns because they believed foreign ownership would compromise the cultural and social identity of their sport, their teams, and/or their leagues. There are several examples where public concerns about foreign ownership of sport teams have been expressed. For example, when the Seattle Mariners (MLB) was purchased by Japanese Hiroshi Yamauchi in 1992; when the LA Dodgers (MLB) was purchased by Australian Rupert Murdoch in 1998; when the Montréal Canadiens (National Hockey League) was purchased by American George Gillett in 2001; when Chelsea Football Club (English Premier League) was purchased by Russian Roman Abramovich in 2003; when Manchester United (English Premier League) was purchased by American Malcolm Glazer in 2005; and when Liverpool FC (English Premier League) was purchased by Americans George Gillett and Tom Hicks in 2007 (cf. Bonham & Hinchey, 2008; Howell, 2005; McRae, 2008; Rovell, 2008; Vecsey, 2007; Weiner, 2008).
The next topic to be addressed in this article relates to the role media have played in the globalization of sport.
Some researchers have termed the interrelationship between TNCs, media, and sport organizations as the global sport media complex (cf. Jhally, 1989; Miller et al., 2001; Raney & Bryant, 2006; Rowe, 1996; Scherer, Falcous, & Jackson, 2008). Others have called it the sport media nexus (cf. Grainger, Newman, & Andrews, 2005; Messner, 2002; Nicholson, 2007), the golden triangle (cf. Honeybourne, Hill, & Moors, 2000; Nixon, 2008), or the love-match (cf. Rowe, 1996). In my class, I call it ménage à trois. For me, ménage à trois seems to capture well the interplay of media, TNCs, and sport as all three ‘players’ are involved in the most intimate relationships . . . and they all benefit from what they bring to the relationship. Media have the expertise and technical equipment to produce sport into a package that can easily be consumed by spectators. Media are also involved in providing important financial resources to sport in the form of broadcasting rights. TNCs provide sponsorship money to sport organizations in exchange for visibility of their products and they also buy advertisement time and space from media to ensure visibility of their products. In turn, with the resources from broadcasting rights and from sponsorships, sport organizations are able to invest in developing a better product that will have more appeal to audiences favoring mutual and reciprocal benefits to all the ‘players’ in the ménage à trois.
There are several examples where sport has changed to accommodate media’s interest (cf. Miller et al., 2001; Nixon, 2008; Rowe, 1996), for example, stoppage in play to allow commercial breaks in telecasts of events, changes in sport rules to enhance the appeal of the sport for fans, for sponsors, and for media (mixed martial arts is a good example), and the creation of new sports (and/or events) to target new audiences for TNCs and media (extreme sports, ESPN’s XGames).
In addition, several global media conglomerates are increasingly involved in the acquisition of sport properties (teams, leagues, stadia) (cf. Gerrard, 2000,
2004; Grainger & Andrews, 2005; Harvey, Law, & Cantelon, 2001; Law, Harvey, & Kemp, 2002; Wright, 1999). As examples of media conglomerates involved in the business of sport, we could include: Disney (based in the U.S.), News Corporation (based in Australia), Time Warner (based in the U.S.), Vivendi SA (based in France), Viacom/CBS Corporation (based in the U.S.), and Bertelsmann AG (based in Germany). Media’s involvement in the business of sport can be problematic on several levels. As a number of media conglomerates increase their ownership of sport properties, we may see a decrease in the diversity in sport and sporting heritage. In addition, while media conglomerates increasingly gain control of sport properties, we can foresee a situation where only sports that can be commodified and commercialized will thrive. The value of sport will be determined by the size and composition of audience available for media, advertisers, and sponsors. As well, critical accounts of sport and the reporting of controversial stories may disappear as media that own the sport teams have no interest in supporting negative coverage.
The final issue I want to address is the environment in the context of the globalization of sport.
Sport makes a significant impact on the environment. A study was undertaken at the Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society at Cardiff University in Wales where the ecological footprint of rugby supporters was assessed during one game (Wales against Scotland) of the 2006 Rugby’s Six Nations tournament. Although the researchers (Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society, 2007; Collins, Flynn, Munday, & Roberts, 2007) acknowledge the important economic benefits of this event for the Cardiff economy, they also point out the significant environmental cost paid by the city. Their research demonstrates that the “energy and resources used by 85,499 rugby supporters . . . resulted in an ecological footprint equivalent to the area of 3,578 rugby pitches” (Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society, 2007, paragraph 5; Jones, 2007, paragraph 6). Furthermore, the researchers argued that the largest impact on the ecological footprint resulted from supporters’ food and drink consumption. A total of 66.5 tons of waste were generated during the event of which approximately $1\%$ was recycled (Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society, 2007; Jones, 2007). The ecological footprint was further affected by the travel to, and from, Millennium Stadium. The researchers estimated a total of 24.3 million kilometers travelled by the supporters for the game. This translated into an average of 284 kilometers per supporter. Based on the number of sport events held throughout the world, our ecological footprint related to sport is immense and, for the most part, goes unnoticed.
Another example where sport has not been so kind to the environment is in downhill skiing. In preparation for the Nagano 1998 Olympic Winter Games, the Fédération Internationale de Ski (FIS) wanted to extend the length of the men’s downhill course by 120 meters (395 feet), however, Japan and Nagano officials did not want to extend the course because it would be damaging to an ecologically sensitive area of the mountain. In the end (after a 5-year impasse blamed on “cultural differences” by the IOC), the Nagano Organizing Committee agreed to extend the start line by approximately 85 meters (i.e., 279 feet) (New York Times, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c). Initial concerns for vegetation and wildlife were set aside to ensure a longer downhill ski course for athletes.
Still on the theme of winter sports, is the building of snow domes to allow individuals living in countries where they do not experience the ‘real’ winter to practice sports such as downhill skiing, snowboarding, and skating. There are approximately 50 snow domes currently operating in 20 countries (UK, Indonesia, Taiwan, Malaysia, China) (Wilson, 2005). These facilities cover the space of 3 football fields and use the equivalent of 15,000 domestic refrigerators to keep the dome’s temperature between $-1^{\circ}$ and $-7^{\circ}$ Celsius to support snow-making equipment that make 30 tons of snow every night to maintain snow levels in the facility (Agence France-Presse, 2005).
In another example of sport’s impact on the environment, golf has been a concern. Even though golf is often associated with the great outdoors and individual’s harmony with nature, the development and maintenance of golf courses negatively affects wildlife and vegetation, not to mention the depletion of water resources required for the upkeep of the greens (cf. Maguire, Jarvie, Mansfield, & Bradley, 2002; Wheeler & Nauright, 2006). Golf courses are usually built in, or near, ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., forests, marshes, lakes, rivers, fields) and then, once developed, chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides are used to maintain the greens, further damaging the environment. As explained by Maguire et al. (2002), “building a golf course involves the clearing of natural vegetation and destroys natural landscapes and habitats. Trees, shrubs, hedgerows and plants are destroyed, hilltops are bulldozed and valleys are filled in to create an artificial golf landscape” (p. 93). The impact of golf on the environment has led to the development of an organization, Global Anti-Golf Movement, in 1993 (cf. Global Anti-Golf Movement, 2004; Maguire et al., 2002; Wheeler & Nauright, 2006) to increase awareness among the public about the negative impact golf has on the environment. As part of their manifesto, the Global Anti-Golf Movement (2004) states,
In the face of growing criticism of the adverse environmental impacts of golf courses, the industry is promoting the notion of “pesticide-free,” “environmentally-friendly” or “sensitive” golf courses. No such course exists to date, and the creation and maintenance of the “perfect green” comprising exotic grass inevitably requires intensive use of chemicals. (paragraph 6)
These are just a few examples of how the globalization of sport has had negative consequences for the environment. Several other examples could be used to further illustrate cases where the environment is consistently compromised to accommodate participants’ involvement in sports.
In choosing labor, media, and environmental issues as evidence of some of the inconvenient truths of the globalization of sport, I am not suggesting that we stop taking part in sport, that we stop buying sportswear and sport equipment, that we prevent athletes from migrating to other countries, that we stop building sport facilities, or that we stop holding sport events. The point of this article is to increase awareness regarding the perils of globalization. In developed countries, the level of consciousness about the ‘other side’ of the globalization of sport is not always high as individuals (including sport management students and scholars) are bombarded by positive examples and outcomes of globalization. I am calling for increased sensitivity regarding the cost of globalization for individuals in developing countries, for their sport system, and for their country.
It may be inconvenient for us to ask, “What are we willing to give up to protect sport and the sport industry and to ensure a more globally egalitarian situation with respect to sport?” In other words, are we (in developed nations) willing to share the wealth with all countries and organizations involved in all of the labor used in sport? Should rich professional sport leagues in developed countries invest a portion of their profits in the countries where they acquired talent for their teams/ leagues? These profits could be invested in the sport system to ensure talent development and ongoing support for the countries’ sport systems.
Should sport management students and scholars be sensitized to the impact sport has beyond economic and financial terms of developed countries’ sport teams and leagues? How do we ensure that these students understand the impact that sport has on developing countries, on sport systems from poorer countries, on workers producing our sportswear and our sport equipment? What choices and decisions can we make as consumers, as sport participants, as teachers, as researchers, as sport leaders to redress the imbalances that have occurred in sport as a result of globalization?
Can we exercise pressure on TNCs and media conglomerates to change their labor practices? Otherwise are we not complicit in perpetuating the perils of globalization based on our inactions? As a collective, we would not endure the working conditions and human resource practices of subcontractors involved in the production of our sporting goods—so what are we doing to change these poor labor practices? We need to ask ourselves, what role can we play in mobilizing the stakeholders involved (TNCs, governments, sport organizations, media, sponsors, advertisers, and individuals) to effect real change? Can we leverage sport sponsors to support sport systems beyond the borders of their head offices? For example, can the IOC solicit from its TOP 12 sponsors support for the sport systems of developing countries to reduce the sport performance and the resource gaps between developing and developed nations?
As discussed earlier, globalization has led to prosperity for many sport stakeholders, for example, media conglomerates, professional sport teams, franchises, and leagues, the IOC, and sport-related TNCs. The question we must ask, particularly with the inconvenient truths, is . . . has globalization deepened inequality or has it reduced it? Who has benefited from the economic wealth and growth originating from the globalization of sport? Who have been “winners” and who have been “losers”?
Has economic growth been used to benefit those who do not have access? How has access been defined and who has defined what sport is important? For example, in global initiatives where sport is used for development, who defines sport? Is it defined locally or by developed countries coming in to “help”?
Are sport organizations in developed nations increasing their wealth at the expense of developing countries’ sport systems? What can we do as teachers and researchers to ensure this imbalance is redressed? Should we ensure that globalization of sport is critically discussed within the sport management curriculum. I would also suggest we encourage sport management students to critically investigate the inconvenient truths when pursuing their research. Has the globalization of sport meant that the unique cultural experiences of sport in various countries such as Afghanistan (e.g., buzkashi), Australia (e.g., Australian rules football), Bangladesh (e.g., kabaddi), Brazil (e.g., capoeira), Canada (e.g., lacrosse and ice hockey), China (e.g., table tennis), Cuba (e.g., baseball), India (e.g., field hockey), Jamaica (e.g., cricket), Japan (e.g., sumo), Korea (e.g., taekwondo), Lithuania (e.g., basketball), New Zealand (e.g., rugby union), and the United States (e.g., baseball) are valued equally by those of us in sport management? Should we and our students be sensitized to social and cultural differences between countries’ sport priorities and systems?
The inconvenient truths regarding the globalization of sport need to be exposed and strategies to address the negative consequences of globalization of sport have to be devised and implemented. To conclude, as we reflect on the power of sport, we need to keep a critical lens on our understanding of the interrelationships between all the stakeholders involved in globalization.
|
Adams, R. J. (2002). Retail profitability and sweatshops: A global dilemma. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9, 147–153.
Agence France-Presse. (2005, April 26). Dubai desert gives way to ski resort. Aljazeera.net/English. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://english.aljazeera.net/ archive/2005/04/200849152045820278.html
Allison, L. (Ed.) (2005). The global politics of sport. The role of global institutions in sport. London: Routledge.
Andrews, D.L., & Grainger, A.D. (2007). Sport and globalization. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization (pp. 478–497). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Bairner, A. (2005). Sport and the nation in the global era. In L. Allison (Ed.), The global politics of sport. The role of global institutions in sport (pp. 87–100). London: Routledge.
Bale, J. (1990). The brawn drain: Foreign student-athletes in American universities. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Bale, J., & Maguire, J. (1994). The global sports arena: Athletic talent migration in an interdependent world. London: Frank Cass.
Bale, J., & Sang, J. Kenyan running. Movement culture, geography and global change. London: Frank Cass.
Bonham, D., & Hinchey, D. (2008, July 18). Boardroom sports: Foreign funds could back teams. Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www. rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/18/foreign-funds-could-back-teams/
Bretón, M. (2000). Fields of broken dreams. Latinos and baseball. ColorLines, 3(1), 13–17.
Carlson, P. (2004, August 8). Flag relay. For Olympians in training, flexibility is everything. Especially when it comes to citizenship. Washington Post, p. D01. Retrieved November 2, 2004, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A48948-2004Aug7.html
Centre for Business Relationships Accountability, Sustainability and Society. (2007, February 9). Rugby internationals leave large environmental footprint. Cardiff University. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/news/
Collins, A., Flynn, A., Munday, M., & Roberts, A. (2007). Assessing the environmental consequences of major sporting events: The 2003/04 FA Cup Final. Urban Studies, 44, 457–476.
Crawford, S. (1999). Nelson Mandela, the number 6 jersey, and the 1995 Rugby World Cup: Sport as a transcendent unifying force, or a transparent illustration of bicultural opportunism. In R.R. Sands (Ed.), Anthropology, sport, and culture (pp. 119–135). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Fay, T.G., & Snyder, D. (2007). A North American perspective on international sport. In J.B. Parks, J. Quarterman, & L. Thibault (Eds.), Contemporary sport management $(3^{\mathrm{rd}}$ ed.) (pp. 163–188). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). (2008). About FIFA. Associations. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/ federation/associations.html
Foer, F. (2004). How soccer explains the world. An {unlikely} theory of globalization. New York: Harper Perennial.
Foer, F. (2006). The goals of globalization. Foreign Policy, 153, 86–87.
Ford, C. (2006a). Peace and hoops: Basketball as a role player in sustainable peacebuilding. Willamette Law Review, 42, 709–736.
Ford, C. (2006b). Hooping with the enemy. A group of visionary risk-takers offer a most unlikely solution to the violence in the middle east. ESPN.com-The Magazine. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page $=$ playingforpeace&lpos $=$ spotlight&lid $=$ tab5pos1
Gerrard, B. (2000). Media ownership of pro sports teams: Who are the winners and losers? (case study). International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 2, 199–218.
Gerrard, B. (2004). Media ownership of teams: The latest stage in the commercialisation of team sports. In T. Slack (Ed.), The commercialisation of sport (pp. 247-266). London: Routledge.
Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (Eds.) (2007a). Globalization and sport. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (2007b). Sport and globalization: Transnational dimensions. Global Networks, 7, 107–112.
Global Anti-Golf Movement. (2004). The global anti-golf movement manifesto. Retrieved August 19, 2008, from http://www.antigolf.org/english.html
Grainger, A., & Andrews, D. (2005). Resisting Rupert through sporting rituals?: The transnational media corporation and global-local sport cultures. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1, 3–16.
Grainger, A.D., Newman, J.I., & Andrews, D. (2005). Global adidas. Sport, celebrity, and the marketing of difference. In J. Amis & B.T.B. Cornwell (Eds.), Global sport sponsorship (pp. 89–105). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Gratton, C., & Leberman, S. (2006). Sport in the global marketplace. In S. Leberman, C. Collins, & L. Trenberth (Eds.), Sport business management in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 89–105). Victoria, AUS: Thomson Dunmore Press.
Hargreaves, J. (2000). Heroines of sport. The politics of difference and identity. London: Routledge.
Hargreaves, J. (2002). Globalisation theory, global sport, and nations and nationalism. In J. Sugden & A. Tomlinson (Eds.), Power games. A critical sociology of sport (pp. 25–43). London: Routledge.
Harvey, J., & Houle, F. (1994). Sport, world economy, global culture, and new social movements. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 337–355.
Harvey, J., Law, A., & Cantelon, M. (2001). North American professional team franchises ownership patterns and global entertainment conglomerates. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18, 435–457.
Harvey, J., Rail, G., & Thibault, L. (1996). Globalization and sport: Sketching a theoretical model for empirical analyses. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 258–277.
Henry, I. P., & [the] Institute of Sport and Leisure Policy. (2007). Transnational and comparative research in sport: Globalisation, governance and sport policy. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Honeybourne, J., Hill, M., & Moors, H. (2000). Advanced physical education and sport. For AS level. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes.
Houlihan, B. (1994). Sport and international politics. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Houlihan, B. (1999). Policy harmonization: The example of global antidoping policy. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 197–215.
Howell, J.W. (2005). From SBC Park to the Tokyo Dome: Baseball and (inter)nationalism. In M.L. Silk, D.L. Andrews, & C.L. Cole (Eds.), Sport and corporate nationalisms (pp. 227–251). Oxford, UK: Berg.
Hussain-Khaliq, S. (2004). Eliminating child labour from the Sialkot soccer ball industry. Two industry-led approaches. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Spring (13), 101–107.
International Olympic Committee. (2008a). Nagano 1998 Did you know? For the first time. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/ innovations_uk.asp?OLGT $\l=\l.$ 2&OLGY = 1998
International Olympic Committee. (2008b). The Olympic Movement. Who is the Olympic Movement? Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http://www.olympic.org/uk/ organisation/index_uk.asp
International Platform on Sport and Development. (2005, September 1). News International Platform on Sport and Development Middle East update. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.sportanddev.org/en/news/middle-east-update.htm
Jhally, S. (1989). Cultural studies and the sports/media complex. In L.A. Wenner (Ed.), Media, sports, and society (pp.70–96). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jones, G. (2007, February 10). Rugby game leaves ‘eco-footprint’. BBC News. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6348223.stm
Kingston, G. (2005, February 10). ‘Poacher’ countries take aim at Canadian athletes. The Vancouver Sun, p. E1.
Lafranchi, P., & Taylor, M. (2001). Moving the ball: The migration of professional footballers. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Laurent, L. (2008, February 26). Puma still has teeth. Forbes.com. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/02/26/puma-earnings-sportsmarkets-equity-cx_ll_0226-markets17.html
Law, A., Harvey, J., & Kemp, S. (2002). The global sport mass media oligopoly. The three usual suspects and more. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37, 279–302.
Lim, S.J., & Phillips, J. (2008). Embedding CSR value: The global footwear industry’s evolving governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 143–156.
Maguire, J.A. (1999). Global sport: Identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Maguire, J.A. (Ed.) (2005). Power and global sport: Zones of prestige, emulation, and resistance. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Maguire, J., & Bale, J. (1994). Postscript: An agenda for research on sports labour migration. In J. Bale & J. Maguire (Eds.), The global sports arena. Athletic talent migration in an interdependent world (pp. 281–284). London: Frank Cass.
Maguire, J., Jarvie, G., Mansfield, L., & Bradley, J. (2002). Sport worlds: A sociological perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Major League Baseball. (2008). Player file: Miguel Tejada. Career Stats. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://mlb.mlb.com/stats/individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID $=$ 123173&statType $=1$
Maquila Solidarity Network. (2008). Clearing the hurdles: Steps to improving wages and working conditions in the global sportswear industry. Toronto, ON: Play Fair 2008 Campaign.
Marchak, P. (1991). The integrated circus. Montréal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Mason, D.S. (2002). “Get the puck outta here!”: Media, transnationalism, and Canadian identity. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 26, 140–167.
18 Thibault
Mason, D.S., & Duquette, G.H. (2005). Globalisation and the evolving player-agent relationship in professional sport. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1, 93–109.
McRae, D. (2008, February 7). Mr basketball eager to conquer the lost frontier of Britain. The Guardian. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.guardian. co.uk/sport/2008/feb/07/ussport
Means, J., & Nauright, J. (2007). Going global: The NBA sets its sights on Africa. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 9, 40–50.
Messner, M. A. (2002). Taking the field. Women, men, and sports. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Milanovic, B. (2005). Globalization and goals: Does soccer show the way. Review of International Political Economy, 12, 829–850.
Miller, T., Lawrence, G., McKay, J., & Rowe, D. (2001). Globalization and sport. Playing the world. London: Sage.
Moodley, K., & Adam, H. (2000). Race and nation in post-Apartheid South Africa. Patriotism, nationalism and non-racialism. Current Sociology, 48(3), 51–69.
Nafziger, J. A. R. (1988). International sports law. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational.
Neverdeen Pieterse, J. (1994). Globalization as hybridization. International Sociology, 9, 161–184.
New York Times. (1997a, November 11) Olympics; A compromise sought for downhill course. New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://proxy.library. brocku.ca/login?url $=$ http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct $=$ true&db $=$ aph&AN = 29741942&loginpage $=$ login.asp&site $=$ ehost-live&scope $=$ site
New York Times. (1997b, November 15). Olympics; Resolution seen on men’s downhill. New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://proxy.library.brocku.ca/ login?url $=$ http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct $=$ true&db $=$ aph&AN $=$ 29743989&loginpage $=$ login.asp&site $=$ ehost-live&scope $=$ site
New York Times. (1997c, December 2). Olympics; A compromise on downhill course. New York Times. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://proxy.library.brocku.ca/ login?url $=$ http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct $=$ true&db $=$ aph&AN $=$ 29753858&loginpage $=$ login.asp&site $=$ ehost-live&scope $=$ site
Nicholson, M. (2007). Sport and the media. Managing the nexus. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Nixon, H. L. (2008). Sport in a changing world. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Paramount Pictures. (2006). An inconvenient truth. About the film. Retrieved May 24, 2008, from http://www.climatecrisis.net/aboutthefilm/
Play Fair at the Olympics. (2004). Play fair at the Olympics. Respect workers’ rights in the sportswear industry. Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://www.fairolympics.org/background/olympicreporteng.pdf
Quinn, M. (2006, January 20). News International Platform on Sport and Development Playing for Peace: Successful Middle East twinned school tournament. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://www.sportanddev.org/en/news/playing-for-peacesuccessful-middle-east-twinned-school-tournament.htm
Ram, V. (2007, November 8). Rosy outlook lifts adidas. Forbes.com. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/11/08/adidas-reebok-sportsmarkets-equity-cx_vr_1108marketsx12.html
Raney, A.A., & Bryant, J. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of sports and media. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Riordan, J., & Krüger, A. (1999). The international politics of sport in the $2{\cal{O}}^{t h}$ century. London: E & FN Spon.
Ritzer,G.(Ed.)(2007).The Blackwellcompanionto globalization.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. New York: Russell Sage.
Robertson, R., & White, K.E. (2007). What is globalization? In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization (pp. 54–66). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rovell, D. (2008, May 23). SportsBiz. Foreign ownership of U.S. sports teams – I’m predicting more. CNBC.com. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.cnbc. com/id/24790770
Rowe, D. (1996). The global love-match: Sport and television. Media, Culture and Society, 18, 565–582.
Rusli, E.M. (2007, December 20). Nike speeds ahead on global growth. Forbes.com. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/12/20/ nike-athletic-closer-markets-equity-cx_er_ra_1220markets31.html
Sage, G.H. (1999). Justice do it! The transnational advocacy network: Organization, collective actions, and outcomes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 16, 206–235.
Sage, G.H. (2005). Corporate globalization and sporting goods manufacturing. The case of Nike. In D.S. Eitzen (Ed.), Sport in contemporary society. An anthology (pp. 362–382). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Scherer, J., Falcous, M., & Jackson, S.J. (2008). The media sports cultural complex. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 32, 48–71.
Softball West Magazine. (2004, August). The Greek Olympic team has a U.S. flavor. Softball West Magazine. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://softballwest.com/ articles/51/
Steenveld, L., & Strelitz, L. (1998). The 1995 Rugby World Cup and the politics of nation-building in South Africa. Media, Culture and Society, 20, 609–629.
Taylor, T. (1988). Sport and world politics: Functionalism and the state system. International Journal, 43, 531–553.
Teeple, G. (2000). What is globalization? In S. McBride & J. Wiseman (Eds.), Globalization and its discontents (pp. 9–23). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.
The Associated Press. (2004, August 3). Pope promotes sports for Christianity. NBC Sports. Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5592358/ print/1/displaymode/1098/
The San Diego Union-Tribune. (2004, August 10). Greek Olympic baseball team. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www.signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20040810/news_1s10greekbox.html
Thibault, L. (2007). Present issues in sport management and future research. Proceedings of the 2007 International Sport Science Congress. Pursuing happiness through sport and leisure (pp. 285–293). Seoul, Korea: Korean Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance.
Thoma, J.E., & Chalip, L. (1996). Sport governance in the global community. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technologies.
Thomas, G. M. (2007). Globalization: The major players. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to globalization (pp. 84–102). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Tomlinson, A., & Young, C. (2006). Culture, politics, and spectacle in the global sports events. An introduction. In A. Tomlinson & C. Young (Eds.), National identity and global sports events (pp. 1–14). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
United Nations. (2008). List of member states. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://www. un.org/members/list.shtml
Vecsey, G. (2007, October 26). N.F.L. tries to turn globalization into a team sport. The New York Times, p. D4.
Weiner, E. (2008, March 7). Sports. American sports may soon face a foreign invasion. The New York Sun. Retrieved on May 6, 2008, from http://www2.nysun.com/ article/72504?page_no $=2$
Wertheim, L.J. (2004, June 14). The whole world is watching. Sports Illustrated, 100(24), 72–86.
Westerbeek, H., & Smith, A. (2003). Sport business in the global marketplace. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Weston, M. (2006). Internationalization in college sports: Issues in recruiting, amateurism, and scope. Willamette Law Review, 42, 829–860.
Wheeler, K., & Nauright, J. (2006). A global perspective on the environmental impact of golf. Sport in Society, 9, 427–443.
Wilsey, S. (2006, June). The beautiful game. Why soccer rules the world. National Geographic, 209(6), 42–48.
Wilson, A. (2005, October 22). Outside it’s 80 degrees. Inside you get 23,000 sq metres of snow. Financial Times, p. 7.
Wolf, M. (2004). Why globalization works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wright, G. (1999). The impact of globalisation. New Political Economy, 4, 268–273.
---
|
The author would like to acknowledge Drs. Lisa Kikulis and Richard Wolfe for their insight and constructive feedback on this and earlier versions of the manuscript.
|
1. Part of the title of this manuscript, An inconvenient truth, originates from the title of an American 2006 documentary film on global warming directed by Davis Guggenheim and starring former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore (Paramount Picture, 2006).
2. These membership numbers are based on 2008 data.
3. As of May 2008, the IOC reported a total membership of 205 National Olympic Committees (NOC). Each NOC represents one country (International Olympic Committee, 2008b). Given the membership for the United Nations in May 2008 (i.e., 192 countries), the IOC has 13 more member-countries than the UN.
4. Nawal El Moutawakel was the first woman from Africa to win a gold medal at the Olympic Games. She was also the first Muslim woman and the first Arab woman to win gold at the Games (cf. Hargreaves, 2000).
5. Migration of athletes may originate from different sources. For example, the choice to migrate may come from the individual who moves to another country in order to train and compete, and perhaps to represent that country in international competitions while migration in other cases, may be based on the active recruitment of talent by leaders of other countries’ sport federations (cf. Bale & Maguire, 1994; Carlson, 2004).
6. Following his tenure with the Oakland Athletics, Tejada played for the Baltimore Orioles (2004-2007) and for the Houston Astros (2008- ) (Major League Baseball, 2008).
7. Between 2002 and 2007, Ronaldo Luís Nazário de Lima played for Real Madrid. Since 2007, he has played for AC Milan.
8. In her study, Weston (2006) refers to the Association of Tennis Professionals’ rankings reported on August 21, 2006 and the Sony Ericcson Women’s Tennis Association Tour rankings reported on August 26, 2006.
|
The Conscience and Commerce of Sport Management: One Teacher’s Perspective
|
Mary A. Hums University of Louisville
|
2009
|
Although the sport industry continues to evolve, one thing has not changed—the need for sport managers to be good citizens. What does it mean to be a good citizen and how does that relate to us as sport management educators and researchers? This lecture suggests what we as sport management educators can do to help our students become better citizens in this day and age. As new issues emerge, our graduates will be forced to make decisions which often place the Temple and the Agora—the spirit of sport and the business of sport, the conscience and commerce of sport management—in opposition to each other. These new issues encompass topics such as social entrepreneurship, technology, environmental respect, sport for development and peace, and sport and human rights, and need to be woven into the fabric of our sport management curriculum.
Thirty years ago I walked into a room in Iowa City, Iowa. The room was called the Mat Room, as it was the former wrestling room in Halsey Gym at the University of Iowa. It had that Mat Room look and that Mat Room smell—you know the one. There on the floor in front of me were 16 students, most of whom were barely three or four years younger than I was at the time. I looked at them— they looked at me—and they expected me to have something to say. I was a teaching assistant in the physical education department and this was the first day of the first class I ever taught—self-defense. After going over the hand-typed purple mimeographed syllabus, which back in the day before rubrics and assessments and conceptual frameworks was two pages long and contained what the students REALLY needed to know about the class, I said “See you Wednesday.” It was a twice a week class as I recall, probably 50 minutes or so long. On Wednesday we all showed up again and I was armed with my very first set of awesome lecture notes. I was ready to go. After about 20 minutes, I realized I had covered everything in my notes, and I had nothing left to say except “See you Monday!” What else could I say?
Twenty years ago I walked into a room in Columbus, Ohio. The room was lined with large targets on the wall, some nets hanging around, and then a wall of windows opposite the targets which overlooked a large open area on campus. There was a slightly built friendly fellow there who showed me where the golf clubs were kept for my Golf class. Most people from The Ohio State University recognize this place as the Women’s Field House and the friendly fellow as Mel Ravely. Ten years had passed and I was a teaching assistant teaching physical education again, although that was not really my career aspiration. I had been the athletic director, as well as a coach and physical education instructor at St. Maryof-the-Woods College for most of the years in between but I had decided it was time to go back and earn my PhD. There they were again—my students looking at me and waiting for me to have something to say. One day in class as the students were practicing their 7-irons into the targets, there was the sound of breaking glass. I looked over to see a student standing at her hitting station looking incredulously at the end of her club, which had no club head. The club head had slipped off on her follow through and gone through the window, leaving a perfectly shaped 7-iron club head hole in the glass where it passed through. Everyone in class was OK, and I looked out the window at several puzzled students who were looking up from outside the window, startled, but unhurt, wondering what had just happened.
Ten years ago I walked into a room in Athens, Greece. I had walked up busy Amalias Avenue in the heart of the city center, being passed by busses, cars, honking taxis, and the occasional motorbike on the sidewalk. I walked through the doors of the New York College building, up the smoky staircase to a second floor room with a marvelous view of the Temple of Zeus. I was no longer a teaching assistant, but an associate professor at the University of Louisville, having come from stints at Kennesaw State University and the University of MassachusettsAmherst. In front of me were ten students. We had just established a Master’s program in Athens, partnering with a local college to provide sport management education for people wanting to work for the Athens 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games. They looked at me—I looked at them, and they expected me to have something to say. English was their second language, and my Greek at that time was pretty slim, but I tried. One time, I asked a student a question, thinking I would try a little Greek, and he looked at me and said, “I think you meant to ask me for a pencil, Dr. Hums, but you just asked me for a streetlight.” At least I tried. Later some of the students took me to a basketball game featuring a local powerhouse, Panathanaikos. We drank Coca-Colas and talked hoops and I learned first hand that sport is the same in any language.
A little over ten months ago, I walked into a room in Leuven, Belgium. The room was filled with video equipment. There were cameras and lights, a fancy computer set-up, and large screens on the walls. Someone flipped a switch, some lights came up and in addition to the students in the room with me in Belgium, there appeared on the screens three other classrooms filled with students—one group was in Limerick, Ireland; another in Oslo, Norway; and the third in Olomouc, in the Czech Republic. Although I was not exactly a rock star I must say it was pretty cool. These students were the best and the brightest from 25 different countries and all enrolled in the Erasmus Mundus International Master in Adapted Physical Activity in their respective locations. I looked at my screens and sure enough it appeared they were looking at me and waiting for me to have something to say. We debated the issues surrounding Oscar Pistorius, the double below the knee amputee sprinter from South Africa, and his quest to attempt to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. The debate was spirited and informed, with viewpoints from around the globe. I left the room marveling at the international power of sport.
About ten days ago I walked into a room. There were 15 or so students waiting for my business of professional baseball summer school class at the University of Louisville. This time, the students were clearly the age now where I look very much like their mother. As usual, I reminded them to turn off their mobile phones and take off their hats; hence, acting like their mother as well. They looked at me and I looked at them. I thought about a day 30 years ago when my first selfdefense lesson focused on the palm-heel smash to the nose. I had come a long way. But more importantly, so had the students.
Sport management students today walk in a completely different world than those students gathered 30 years ago on the Mat Room floor. Local, national, and international events have molded the sport industry into a shape not seen before. How we are in the world and who we are in the world changes on daily basis. To paraphrase Thomas Friedman (and I know some people love him and some people loathe him), the world is no longer about walls but about webs. The world is no longer about from whom we are separated but rather to whom we are connected (Friedman, 2003). Barely a week goes by that I do not remind my students how fortunate we are to be involved in the global industry we call sport. But just because we are fortunate does not make it easy. Sport managers today face a myriad of situations never envisioned by Walter O’Malley and James Mason back when they first discussed the need for a specific degree in sport management or even when the first academic program took shape at Ohio University. But one thing has not changed—the need for sport managers to be good citizens. So what does it mean to be a good citizen and how does that relate to us as sport management educators and researchers?
The concept of citizenship has evolved over the years. According to Greek documentary film director Katerina Patroni, the Greek word for citizen is “politis.” In ancient times, people came together in cities, the “polis,” to live a life according to the truth—meaning “logos and harmonia,” reason and harmony—a profoundly metaphysical quest. Today people come together because they need each other, they cannot live alone, so their coming together is not in a profound quest for truth, but rather a desire to satisfy individual needs. Some may say people come together to exploit each other, which is profoundly selfish, just the opposite of the initial way of life of the “politis,” for the citizens in the Republic of Plato (K. Patroni, personal communication, 3 May 2009). When looking around today’s world, I would have to ask “WWPD?”—“What Would Plato Do?”—particularly if Plato found himself today working as a sport manager rather than as a philosopher.
Today when people think of being good citizens, they often think of respecting laws, voting on Election Day, and not throwing litter out of their car windows, but there is certainly more to being a good citizen than that. We need to look no further than the panel presentation here at the conference with Lisa Kihl, Jen Bruening, Katie Misener, Corinne Daprano, Anita Moorman, Eli Wolff, Rachel Madsen, and Justin Evanovich entitled Civic Engagement: Educating Citizens Through Sport Management, to see the importance of this issue.
What I would like to do now is to suggest what we as sport management educators can do to help our students become better citizens in this day and age. What topics do we need to weave into the tapestry of our curricula, including our lectures, projects, internships, and guest speakers to help our students be better citizens? In the following paragraphs, I would like to highlight some of the pressing issues, many ethical in nature, which our students will face when they become sport managers.
Ten years or so I had the good fortune to coauthor an article with Carol Barr and Laurie Gullion titled “Ethical Issues Facing Sport Managers,” which appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics (Hums, Barr, & Gullion, 1999). It was a pretty good article and I believe it may have well been the first article related to the sport industry to appear in that publication. I see it cited quite often and am grateful to those of you who have shared it with your students or used it in your research. When considering the issues covered in that article, however, that was then—this is now. This lecture could actually be seen as the updated version of that piece, its “second edition,” if you will. The issues, the industry, and our students are different today, but sport managers still face challenging issues every day on the job. So what are some of these issues as we prepare to round first and start heading to second in the 21st century? In the following paragraphs, I discuss (a) social entrepreneurship, (b) technology, (c) environmental respect, (d) sport for development and peace, and (e) sport and human rights.
There is currently a global trend toward social entrepreneurship, especially among young people. Recent articles have featured examples of social entrepreneurship (Berggren, 2008; Shapira, 2008), but neglected to address the sport industry. According to the Ashoka Foundation (n.d., $\P1{-}2)$ , “Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems ... Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.” As seen by the recent Sport for a Better World competition sponsored by the Ashoka Foundation, using sport as a vehicle for social entrepreneurship is a growing phenomenon. The competition garnered 381 entries from 69 countries and included programs such as Grassroots Soccer: Using the Power of Soccer in the Fight against AIDS from South Africa; The DOVES Olympic Peace Project from Cyprus; the Cambodian National Volleyball League for the Disabled; BoxGirls Roadwork: Girls and Women Running the City from Kenya; Team Sprint: Aboriginal Girls in Sport from Canada; and Partners of the Americas Using Sport for Latin American Youth Employment from here in the United States (Changemakers, 2007). Social entrepreneurship in sport entails individuals harnessing the power of sport to improve community life for people, often times for people who desperately need some sort of assistance just to survive in slums, refugee camps, and places in the world torn by conflict. But, we must not dismiss this as “something someone does somewhere else.” Sport managers have the opportunities to implement programs in their own neighborhoods which can make a world of difference. This is a wide open area for innovation and also research—doctoral students—are you listening?
The next issue is the impact of emerging technologies in sport, as seen in the recent discussion about Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee runner who sought the opportunity to qualify for the Olympic Games. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (2008) ultimately ruled the International Association of Athletics Federation needed to grant Mr. Pistorius that opportunity, but in the meantime the controversy brought the discussion of athletes with disabilities to the forefront. This debate, which had ardent followers both supporting and opposing Mr. Pistorius, illustrated not only the impact of developing technologies in disability sport, but also the role of sport federations generally in determining what equipment is safe, affordable, and fair for competitors (Hums & MacLean, 2008). Just because we can invent a golf ball that can fly 500 yards, does that mean we should sanction its use? What if it was extremely costly? Is it even safe to use a ball which travels that far (certainly not for me, despite having taught that golf class back at The Ohio State University). Does the use of advanced technology in sport which may provide an advantage to one person but not another evoke the question of fairness? Is it fair to allow technology to influence the outcome of a game? Think back to when you were athletes. What made you say, “That’s not fair!” Technology and sport are intertwined, but as future sport managers who will be impacted by governing body rules on a daily basis, our students need to be able to think abut this relationship.
Another aspect to technology is the rapidly changing ways in which information is now transmitted. Our students live in a Twittering, blogging, SMSing, instant messaging, Facebook world, and they must learn how to integrate this technology appropriately in their personal and professional lives, and the lives of their constituents. Knowledge can be transmitted instantaneously. Knowledge is power, but the meaning of that knowledge resides in its responsible use.
Next are the issues revolving around sport and the environment. “Going green” is all the rage these days, and our students need to know the actions they can take with their events and their facilities to contain the impact of sport on the environment. Nothing makes me a whole lot crazier on my own campus than seeing the artificial turf field hockey field being watered for hours! And I was a field hockey player! Recycling is certainly a good place to start, but there are many actions beyond that which help protect the environment. The Philadelphia Eagles have been hailed as the “greenest” NFL team (Potter, 2007). The United Nations Environment Programme has sponsored eight World Conferences on Sport and the Environment (WCSE), the most recent of which featured almost 350 organizations from 93 countries (World Conference on Sport and the Environment 2009, 2009). Some common ways sport impacts the environment include the “development of fragile ecosystems or scarce land for sport, noise and light pollution from sport, consumption of non-renewable resources (fuel, metals, etc.), consumption of natural resources (water, wood, paper, etc.), emission of greenhouse gases by consuming electricity and fuel, soil and water pollution from pesticide use, soil erosion during construction and from spectators, and the waste generated by facility construction as well as spectators” (United Nations Environment Programme, $2008,\P2)$ ). Do not underestimate the ability of our students to come up with innovative ideas. I did a case study with my Principles of Sport Administration class with primarily undergraduate students and was amazed at their awareness and creativity.
What do we mean by the term sport for development and peace? According to the Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group (2008, p. 3), sport for development and peace refers to “the intentional use of sport, physical activity, and play to attain specific development and peace objectives, most notably, the Millennium Development Goals.” Just a few weeks ago, the International Olympic Committee held the First International Forum for Peace and Development in Lausanne, Switzerland. In the position paper from the Forum, the delegates proclaimed, “sport has the power to build peace and encourage development, ranging from preventing violence to humanitarian relief and the long-term construction of society” (International Olympic Committee, 2009, p. 1). This sounds quite lofty. How does sport contribute to development and peace? Sport has universal popularity; it has the ability to connect people and communities; it is a communication platform; it cuts across many social and economic areas; and it has the potential to empower, motivate, and inspire (International Olympic Committee, 2009). Think about the work of a sport organization’s Community Relations Department or a city parks department’s recreational programming which is open to refugee and immigrant children. Clearly, while they may not name it that, some of the work sport managers do in these settings exemplifies sport for development and peace on a local level. Our students can do this type of work, and our students need to do this kind of work.
The next issue is the role of sport organizations in the discussion about sport and human rights. Sport and human rights can be visualized in two ways: (a) sport as a human right and (b) using sport to promote human rights. Eli Wolff and I have been hard at work in this area, and our work has included several International Council on Sport Science and Physical Education (ICSSPE) publications, a contribution to the upcoming Olympic Reader, and the development of a human rights in sport checklist for sport managers to use in assessing human rights in their sport organizations. Our major project, however, was the crafting of Article 30.5 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006), a document with the potential to touch the lives of the more than 600 million people around the world who have a disability. Now, that, is impact factor. We appreciate the good work undertaken by Anita Moorman, Bruce Kidd, Peter Donnelly, David McArdle, Nathanial Mills, Carole Oglesby, Doris Corbett, Keith Gilbert, and others who have contributed to this developing body of knowledge. Believe me, we would welcome research partners interested in examining this topic of compelling international interest. I find the discussion of sport and human rights to be perhaps the most challenging of all the topics I have addressed in my presentation. How does sport and human rights apply to a ticket manager with a professional team, or a marketing director for a college or university? This is why work continues on honing a Human Rights Checklist for Sport Organizations (Hums, Wolff, & Morris, 2009; Hums, Moorman, Wolff, Morris, & Lyras, 2009; Sport in Society, 2008), to provide the sport manager on the ground with some concrete evaluation techniques to measure how well their sport organizations are performing in this area.
Of course there are many other issues which sport managers will be concerned with as well, including corporate social responsibility, global warming, sport and religion, sport and natural disasters, and sport and refugees. These are important topics as well, but time does not permit an exhaustive coverage of all these issues. These do however, provide excellent avenues for discourse as well as areas ripe for research and class discussion. No matter what the issues, our students will be placed in situations which require them to make thoughtful choices and decisions, and which will place them at times, in situations where they must think about balancing business and ethical decisions, placing them in the nexus between “the Temple and the Agora,” or what I refer to in this piece as the “Conscience and Commerce” of sport management.
In summary then, how does a sport management educator prepare students for an industry fraught with rapidly changing issues and treading water in a fragile economy? This complex question has sometimes been referred to as the debate between the Temple (spirit of sport) and the Agora (the marketplace of sport; Martinkova, 2006), or what I call the debate between the conscience and commerce of sport management. As new issues emerge, our graduates will be forced to make decisions which often place the Temple and the Agora—the spirit of sport and the business of sport, the conscience and commerce of sport management—in opposition to each other. Learning specific skills such as critical thinking and civic engagement, combined with hands on experience, can help students have a framework for making the decisions which will confront them. Learning about the issues I have spoken about in my presentation should be embedded into a sport management curriculum, and not just afterthoughts.
Can we teach our students about all these topics? No—each one of us has a certain level of expertise and interest in each of these topics. Some of the topics we may embrace. Some of the topics may make us uncomfortable, as they force us to actively reevaluate our own personal values and belief systems, topics such as HIV/AIDS prevention, wars and occupations of countries by other countries, or the inequitable distribution of wealth across the globe where we as residents of the United States are held accountable for our inordinate consumption of the world’s wealth and resources. But this is not about us, the professoriate, but rather about our students, the future sport managers whose minds we hold in the lectures we deliver, the textbooks and articles we write, and the everyday conversations we have in our classrooms, offices, and hallways. Our students currently face a complex world which presents them with situations we never could have possibly envisioned. How to prepare them? Perhaps we can look ahead to a complex world by looking back to lessons from a simpler time, lessons which are recorded in the Shakertown Pledge, which reads in part (Tamney, 1992, p. 94):
I commit myself to lead an ecologically sound life. I commit myself to join with others in the reshaping of institutions in order to bring about a more just world. I commit myself to occupational accountability. And I declare myself to be a world citizen.
We need to teach our students to be the voices that challenge, and to do that we must challenge ourselves and be challenging in what we teach. Remember—every day we walk into our classrooms, we will look at them—10 days, 10 months, 10, 20 or 30 years from now—and they will look at us, and expect us to have something to say.
Challenge your students. Challenge yourselves.
|
Ashoka Foundation. (n.d.). What is a social entrepreneur? Retrieved from http://www. ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur
Berggren, K. (2008, May 30). Compassionate capitalists: Young social entrepreneurs merge values and business savvy to change the world. National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from http://ncronline.org/node/1075
Changemakers. (2007). Competition summary. Retrieved from http://www.changemakers. com/en-us/node/728/entries
Court of Arbitration for Sport. (2008). CAS2008/A/1480 Pistorius v/IAAF. Retrieved from http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/1085/5048/0/ amended%20final%20 award.pdf
Friedman, T. (2001). Longitudes and attitudes: The world in the age of terrorism. New York: Anchor Books.
Hums, M.A., Barr, C.A., & Gullion, L. (1999). Ethical issues confronting sport managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 51–66.
Hums, M.A., & MacLean, J.C. (2008). Governance and policy in sport organizations (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.
Hums, M.A., Wolff, E.A., & Morris, A. (2009, March). Ensuring human rights in sport: Constructing a human rights in sport monitoring checklist. Presented at the annual conference of the Sport, Recreation, and Law Association, San Antonio, TX.
Hums, M.A., Moorman, A.M., Wolff, E.A., Morris, A., & Lyras, A. (2009, September). Monitoring human rights in sport: How a human rights in sport checklist can assist with best practices. Presented at the annual conference of the European Association for Sport Management, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
International Olympic Committee. (2009). Recommendations: First International Forum on Sport for Peace and Development. Retrieved from http://multimedia.olympic.org/ pdf/en_report_1431.pdf
Martinkova, I. (2006). The ethics of human performance. Lecture at the 2006 International Olympic Academy Educators Session, Olympia, Greece.
Potter, N. (2007). NFL’s greenest team – and not just the uniforms. Retrieved from http:// abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3648383
Shapira, I. (2008, October 14). Recent college grads forgo traditional careers, money to start nonprofits focused on outreach. Washington Post, p. B01.
Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group. (2008). Introduction to sport for development and peace. Retrieved from http://www.righttoplay.com/ site/ DocServer/Final_Report_Chapter_1. pdf?docID $scriptstyle=9881$
Sport in Society. (2008). Human rights in sport checklist. Boston: Author.
Tamney, J.B. (1992). The resiliency of Christianity in the modern world. Albany, NY: State University of Albany Press.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
United Nations Environment Programme. (2008). Impact of sport on the environment. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/sport_env/general_information/impact_sport.asp
World Conference on Sport and the Environment 2009. (2009). Announcements. Retrieved from http://www.wcse2009.com/
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Internationalizing Ourselves: Realities, Opportunities, and Challenges
|
Karen Danylchuk The University of Western Ontario
|
2010
|
Internationalization is a very relevant topic on university campuses and most universities include a commitment to it in their mission statement or strategic plans. Over the years, universities have realized the importance of providing students with an international perspective that will prepare them to succeed in an increasingly globalized world. The globalization of the sport industry makes our field an ideal medium for addressing the concept of internationalization. As leaders in the field of sport management, we must ensure that we teach, research, and advocate from an international perspective. This paper discusses how we as sport management academicians and students might prepare ourselves to become global citizens by internationalizing ourselves through our teaching,research, and service. A commentary on the status of internationalization in our field as well as suggestions for change is provided.
For those of you in the room who are relatively new to the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), I would like to provide a few remarks about Dr. Bob Boucher who has just introduced me. Bob has been a “man of all seasons" with respect to our organization. Not only was he NASSM's first President and a previous recipient of both the Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award and the Garth Paton Distinguished Service Award, but most importantly, at the urging of Earle F. Zeigler, began initial discussions in 1985 at the University of Windsor with Janet Parks and Bev Zanger from Bowling Green State University regarding the formation of NASSM. These individuals spread the net and brought into their discussion circle additional founders. Aside from being one of our longest standing members, Bob is Dean of the Faculty of Human Kinetics at the University of Windsor, and has been a highly respected dean, department chair, athletic director, professor, and mentor for dozens of students and colleagues (including myself) throughout his career.
I am extremely honored to be the recipient of this award, and I extend my appreciation to the Executive Council and Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award Committee. I am also very humbled to be joining the distinguished group of previous recipients of this award. Not only is this an outstanding group of scholars, but significant contributors to our association. Each one has played some part in my involvement on Executive Council and other committees, or as research collaborators.
This honor holds special significance for me, however, due to my longstanding interaction with Dr. Zeigler. For many of you here this evening, the name Earle F. Zeigler may only be synonymous with the field of sport management,but he is also considered aninternational pioneer in the physical education and recreation, sport history, and sport philosophy fields. I am fortunate to have known Earle for the past 30 years, which represents a mere one third of his life as he celebrated his 90th birthday last summer. Earle currently resides in Richmond, British Columbia, and at age 90 is still as productive as ever publishing books, monographs, articles, and commentaries. In fact, his publication record now exceeds 430 manuscripts along with 50 books and monographs. Another aspect you should know about Earle is that he exercises on a daily basis swimming laps and lifting weights. He is even an adventure seeker! When Earle and his wife Anne went to Puerto Vallarta this February, Earle decided to go parasailing while Anne ventured off on another excursion. He is indeed an inspiration not only to our field, but to society in general!
When I arrived at The University of Western Ontario (UWO) in 1980 to begin a Master of Arts in Physical Education with a specialization in “Sport Administration" (as it was called at the time), I had the special privilege of having Dr. Zeigler as my program supervisor. This was Earle's “second" stint at our university having been a department head of physical, health, and recreation education and an intercollegiate athletics coach at The UWO from 1949 to 1956. Before his return to The UWO in 1971 where he became the Dean of a newly created Faculty of Physical Education, Earle served in administrative posts for seven years at the University of Michigan and eight years at the University of Illinois. During my graduate work at The UWO, Earle was back in the throes of doing what he always did so well-advising, motivating, and encouraging students. As one of his students, Earle engaged me in his ongoing filing project whereby we searched the library for any new materials in our field and recorded the reference citations in his card index system . . . by hand. We did not have the luxury of computers, Google, and all the other present day “quick find" search engines. Research entailed ongoing trips to the library, handwritten notes, typewriter produced papers (hopefully with a corrector key!), and punch cards for data entry.
In her 2002 Zeigler Lecture, Donna Pastore discussed the importance and variety of mentors over one's career and lifetime. Not only has Earle been one of my mentors, but he has also served as the mentor for other key figures in NASSM, such as Garth Paton, after whom our Distinguished Service Award is named, and “Chella" Chelladurai, the “Godfather” of NASSM and the second (if you count Earle as the first) Earle F. Zeigler Lecture recipient in 1991. These two individuals have also held special significance in my career-Garth encouraged me to get involved in the committees and Executive Council of NASSM, and Chella was my Master's thesis supervisor, doctoral dissertation sounding board, and career mentor. So you see, we have a room full of people mentoring people!
The challenge of choosing a topic for an address this evening was rather daunting, but I sought the advice that two of my predecessors received in preparation for their addresses. First, Dennis Howard was advised: choose a topic you know something about. In considering that what I know might indeed be limiting, I will provide some reflections about a topic for which I hold a keen interest. Second, Jackie Cuneen was advised to keep it short, so I will attempt to follow this advice as well.
By way of introduction, I want to share with you a few observations from early in my career. I had the good fortune before beginning my years as a professor at The UWO to administer, teach, and coach for four years from 1982 to 1986 at Hong Kong International School (HKIS), an independent day school from kindergarten to grade 12. With a single suitcase in hand, but preceded by three army/navy surplus trunks that went by ship, I flew off to Hong Kong in August 1982. Having visited this exciting Asian enclave three years prior, I was somewhat prepared for what might easily have been a culture shock.
The mission of Hong Kong International School incorporated a broad and global focus: “Dedicating our minds to enquiry, our hearts to compassion, and our lives to service and global understanding" (HKIS, 2010, para. 7).While the curriculumfor the students at the school was American-based, the student population of 1,500 consisted of 40 nationalities where English for many of them was a second language. Consequently, the curriculum incorporated an international fair with respect to its approach. Students from kindergarten through junior high were exposed to Chinese culture classes, as well as Mandarin and Cantonese language lessons. Students at the high school level were provided further language options in Spanish, French, and German. Special events such as assemblies, guest speakers, cultural fairs, and sport competitions held an international component. Our sport teams competed within the colony against the otherBritish and Chineseschools,aswell astheGerman/ Swiss and French International Schools, and we traveled to other Asian countries for international competitions. The faculty and staff, while primarily American, also consisted of local and other international hires (like myself) to ensure an international cross-section of ideas would be delivered to the students. The headmaster, in fact, went on an annual recruitment tour to hire teachers from abroad. Case in point, I was interviewed at the Detroit International Airport when the headmaster touched down between flights. As teachers, we attended an annual conference within our region in countries such as the Philippines and Taiwan. In addition, there were numerous community outreach programs for the students, including an annual mandatory Day of Giving (similar to what we know as “service learning” today), whereby the students interacted with disadvantaged and challenged groups. High school students were also required to participate in a one-week "interim" led by the teachers, which was a local or overseas cultural experience in countries such as Tibet, Nepal, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, China, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. I myself led interim experiences downhill skiing in Japan, biking in China, and hiking in Korea.
Over my four years in Hong Kong, I was able to observe and be part of an educational environment where the students and faculty did not see ethnicity, religion, and social background as barriers, but as realities, newfound challenges, and opportunities for enrichment. Both the school and the place appeared to be well ahead of the times. Living as a minority (at the time, Hong Kong was still a British colony, albeit one composed of $98\%$ Chinese) was an enlightening and positive experience and I found Hong Kong to be one of the most exciting and progressive places on the planet, a true cornucopia of an international way of life.
This introduction leads me to the topic I wish to discuss——-internationalization. In the closing remarks of her Zeigler address in 1993, Joy DeSensi expressed her hope for “a true multicultural understanding within sport and especially on the part of our sport managers/administrators, as well as educators preparing these professionals" (DeSensi, 1994, p. 73). Two years ago, Lucie Thibault, in her address, discussed the impact and perils of globalization on sport, and suggested that “sport management students should be sensitized to issues of multilingualism, multiculturalism, and multidisciplinarity in the delivery of sport in a global context"' (Thibault, 2009, p. 2). Last year, Mary Hums challenged us to prepare our students to become global citizens (Hums, 2010). I believe that these challenges may be addressed through efforts to internationalize ourselves and our discipline.
To introduce the topic of my presentation, it is important to address the following questions: How is internationalization in higher education defined and how does it differ from globalization? Why is internationalization important? And whose responsibility is it? As noted by Green (2003):
It is not a new idea that a university education must produce graduates who will contribute to civic life, both locally and globally; lead productive lives; and understand that the future of nations, individuals, and the planet are inextricably linked. (p. 2)
The concept of internationalization is not new. In fact, as early as the 1950s, the term “worldmindedness" was coined by Sampson and Smith (1957) to suggest that individuals should value the viewpoints, experiences, and worldviews of others, especially those quite different from themselves. Merryfield, Lo, Po, & Kasai (2008) further noted a commonly held belief:
Many people across societies wear blinders of ethnocentrism (we are the best, we don't need to learn about anyone else). In some communities, xenophobia is pervasive, and young people may grow up learning that anything foreign is bad, bizarre, dangerous, or evil. Lack of interest in other cultures or just ignorance about how the world works may serve as blinders for action when people who are faced with seemingly local issues do not understand the possible global connections. (p. 7)
This leads to the question: How do these changes affect what young people need to learn in school? As today's students interact within global, economic, political, technological, and environmental systems, they have the opportunity to participate in societies that are not defined by nations and geographical borders (Osler & Starkey, 2003). Today's citizens need to be worldminded to use their global knowledge and intercultural skills to make informed decisions in our interconnected world (Mudimbi-Boyi, 2002). As noted by Merryfield et al. (2008):
The acceleration of knowledge creation, the dynamics of electronic communication and the resulting availability of global perspectives are changing the nature of public discourse and action. As more and more people gain access to information and interact with individuals and communities across the planet, they acquire new worldminded ways of learning, debating, and creating which in turn expand the scope of civic consciousness and responsibilities beyond national borders. (p. 6)
This begs the next question: Are our students being prepared to understand and become engaged as worldminded citizens? Do we as sport management academicians have a responsibility in this regard? And if so, are we achieving this task? In recent years, the word "internationalization" has become a common term to address this need.
Some scholars defined internationalization rather simplistically as the process of making campuses more internationally oriented (Hanson & Meyerson, 1995; Harari, 1989; Pickert & Turlington, 1992). Others suggested it is the process of integrating international education into the curriculum, whereas others argued, however, that internationalization extends beyond merely the curriculum, but to people in the entire campus community and the presence of an institution-wide appreciation for better understanding other cultures and societies (Harari, 1992). International educators advocate systemic international infusion by weaving international perspectives into every discipline, faculty hiring decision, and mission statement for universities.
In essence then, internationalization is “"the process of integrating an international or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education" (Knight, 2003, p. 2). The perspectives of both the Association of International Educators in the United States and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) are similar in noting that the integration of an international and intercultural dimension in content, materials,activities, and understanding should be incorporated in the teaching, research, and public service functions of universities to enhance the relevance in an interdependent world. However, I also believe strongly in the importance of an institutional commitment to internationalization driven by strong leadership, as well as the idea that internationalization should be viewed as a way of thinking.
Globalization, on the other hand, is often confused with the term “internationalization', or used interchangeably, but it is different (Daly, 1999). Whereas globalization refers to an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and trade, internationalization may be viewed as a reaction or response to globalization, and in the case of higher education, in the university and college environment (Knight, 1999). According to Knight (1999), "internationalization and globalization are seen as different but dynamically linked concepts. Globalization can be seen as the catalyst, whereas internationalization is the response, albeit the response in a positive way" (p. 14).
Internationalization is a hot topic on university campuses these days. Nearly every university mission statement or strategic plan includes a commitment to it. In fact, a recent survey of Canadian universities revealed that $95\%$ explicitly refer to the international dimension in their strategic plans, and more than three-quarters cite internationalization as one of their top five priorities (Tamburri, 2007). As noted by Tamburri (2007), “over the years, universities have grown increasingly aware of the benefits of diversifying their student body and providing students with an international perspective that will allow them to succeed in an increasingly globalized world" (Tamburri, 2007, p. 8). Becoming more socially and globally aware is vital not only as individuals but as global citizens.
As well, dramatic demographic changes in the cultural and linguistic diversity of people are occurring in many nations throughout the world, and the United States and Canada are no exceptions. Consider, for example, that worldwide migration has climbed to historically unprecedented levels and more people live outside their country of birth than in any other period of human history (Esses, 2009). In fact, $20\%$ of Canada's population was foreignborn in 2005 compared with $12.6\%$ in the United States in 2007, and by 2031, it is predicted that $31\%$ of Canada's population will comprise visible minorities and $26\%$ will be foreign born (Statistics Canada, 2010). Migration and the increasing diversity that results are changing the face of communities across our countries. These changes have challenged higher education institutions to modify their curricula and instructional strategies to meet the needs of diverse learners and to prepare all graduates to have the awareness, knowledge, and skills to be effective in a diverse society (Morey, 2000).
Furthermore, a major shift at higher education institutions has occurred in recent years in terms of the importance of recruiting international students. The education of international students is considered a major export industry and a significant benefit to the economy. Consider that in 2008, international students spent an estimated $\$6.5$ billion on education in Canadaa figure greater than the revenue generated by'exporting softwood lumber and coal (Stewart, 2010). As well, 83,000 jobs were created from international student activities (Stewart, 2010). In the recent Ontario provincial budget, our Finance Minister announced that the goal to increase international enrolment by $50\%$ is “very good public policy"(Daniszewski, 2010, p. A3). International students now represent $7\%$ of full-time undergraduate and almost $20\%$ at the graduate level in Canada, with a slightly lower amount in the United States — $2\%$ of undergraduate and $22\%$ of graduate at four-year public institutions and $4\%$ of undergraduate and $15\%$ of graduate at four-year private institutions (AUCC, 2007). In Canada, these students originate from more than 200 countries, with China being the leader followed by the United States, France, India, and other Asian countries (AUCC, 2007).
The United States used to account for more than $40\%$ of the total number of international students in the world. However, after the events of September 11, 2001 (9/11), many prospective international students chose Australia and the United Kingdom as a destination to study abroad because the United States’ government tightened its immigration policy toward international students while other countries increased their global recruiting campaigns (Ota, n.d.). In fact, Australia increased its international student recruitment by $150\%$ immediately following 9/11 (Ota, n.d.). The statistics for the United States have rebounded and the number of international students in Canada is steadily increasing, but it is still low relative to countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, in part due to Canada's rather late entry into the field of active international recruitment.A number of strategies, however, have been implemented in recent years to entice qualified students from around theworld to considerstudiesinCanada.
One cannot argue that the globalization of the sport industry makes our field an ideal medium for addressing the concept of internationalization. After all, the sport industry is in and of itself already an international phenomenon. Therefore, I will attempt to discuss how we might prepare ourselves (academicians and students alike) to become global citizens through internationalization, and how we might capture our rapidly changing world through what and how we teach, research, and provide service to the community from an international perspective and in the context of sport management.
There are a wide variety of methods to internationalize our teaching and learning curriculum. The most common means is to incorporate international content into our courses, be it through international resources, such as readings, textbooks, films, videos, case studies, and guest lecturers, or devoting a session to an international topic. However, these are considered “add-on approaches,”' and may be criticized for not actually rethinking the core of the course from different perspectives, in terms of internationalization. Therefore, a more in-depth approach might entail the addition of an international course within the curriculum itself. Another related approach is to require students to take an internationally-oriented course from another faculty (e.g., international relations/affairs and global studies, European studies, Asian studies, international business, and international development studies), or even a foreign language course.
On most campuses, internationally-oriented programs tend to fall within international relations/affairs and global studies, European studies, Asian studies, international business, and international development studies. Aside from increasing enrolment in these programs in Canada (AUCC, 2007), foreign language programs are also growing (AUCC, 2007). However, the number of institutions requiring graduates to have knowledge of a second language has declined in recent years (AUCC, 2007). Furthermore, there are only a very small number of institutions that require students to take one or more courses with an international dimension.
Measures for faculty members to internationalize themselves entail exchanges, visiting scholars′ programs, study abroad programs, and participation in international conferences, to name but a few. Some universities have taken a less common approach by hiring faculty members from other countries to provide a truly international perspective.
Knowledge export, which is the provision of products and services overseas, has become yet another integral aspect of many universities. In fact, in a recent survey of the AUCC, three-quarters of the universities indicated they are engaged in delivering education and training programs outside of Canada and more than two-thirds indicated they are actively marketing education products and services in other countries. (AUCC, 2007). Delivery modes include distance education, offshore campuses, twinning programs, joint degrees, and even franchised courses and programs. These methods, in particular joint degrees, have certainly become an important initiative on my own campus. In fact, the issue currently being discussed revolves around the degree outcome for joint degrees. That is, should a student be able to obtain two degrees—one from the home institution and one from the away institution——-for studying at both institutions? Regardless of the issues and challenges, university administrators recognize that any of the knowledge export methods enhance the reputation of being an international institution, provide opportunities for international student recruitment along with an alternative source of income generation (the pervasive economic motive!), develop new international partnerships, and provide opportunities for faculty members and staff.
From the perspective of students, opportunities for international experience may be achieved by studying abroad for exchanges, co-op programs, internships, and service learning. Interest and support for these methods have increased dramatically in recent years. Although the percentage is still small $2.2\%$ of full-time students in Canada studied abroad in 2006), the absolute numbers have skyrocketed (AUCC, 2007). In fact, the number of American students studying abroad in 2007-08 increased by $8.5\%$ from the previous year to 262,416 (Open Doors, 2009). The majority of students, however, will not work or study in another country. In Canada, the major barrier is lack of financial support, followed by the curriculum at the home university being too inflexible or too heavy, low awareness and commitment of faculty members, and lack of necessary language skills (AUCC, 2007). Students must rely on the willingness and ability of their instructors to internationalize the courses they teach. This can be challenging, however, because faculty members are increasingly under pressure to cover “core” content material at the expense of international education and social issues (Knight, 2000). Therefore, change is slow as faculty members tend to teach the way they were taught. As well, where faculty members are engaging meaningfully with the concept, they are often working in isolation, scattered across the disciplines, few in number, and not coordinated in any way to allow collaboration that would normally be available in an emerging field. Progress has been made in recent years, however, to support faculty members and increase their level of engagement in internationalizing the curriculum through such means as workshops provided by an educational development center or an international office, the appointment of an international student advisor, faculty handbooks, and special funds to support the internationalization of courses.
As we all know, research is a core function of universities, albeit the degree of emphasis varies among universities. Research is by nature a collaborative activity, and "historically, this collaboration has always included a robust international dimension, which has influenced the research enterprise itself and enriched the internationalization of our campuses" (AUCC, 2009, p. 1). Promoting an international dimension in research is considered important to ensure a country's economic, scientific, and technological competitiveness. Interestingly, one-fifth of the world's scientific papers are coauthored internationally and there is a sustained effort on the part of researchers around the world to engage collaboratively in the production of knowledge and innovation (Hatakenaka, 2004). In Canada, more than $40\%$ of academic publications by Canadians have coauthors from other countries—-twice the rate of 15 years earlier (AUCC, 2009). Recent trends to increase the institutional engagement in international research collaboration have included international research networks, technological transfer agreements, joint research projects, the sharing of research facilities and major infrastructure, the linking of research centers and virtual networks, faculty member and student exchanges and sabbaticals, and the cosupervision of doctoral students from other countries, to name but a few. A number of programs and initiatives support these efforts, such as government granting agencies, institutional funding, research chair programs, and graduate student exchange programs and scholarships. While sport does not figure in the top sectors of funding priority with respect to research collaboration, health, with its obvious derived benefits from sport, is rated second to the environment.
Canada and the United States have a long history of research collaboration with industrialized countries, but in recent years, this collaboration has expanded to other parts of the world, notably Brazil, Mexico, Russia, India, and China. This in part reflects the growing importance of emerging countries in the global economy and the global advances in science and technology.
In academia, the so-called service component of faculty members’ responsibilities tends to be approximately $20\%$ of the expected workload for tenured and nontenured faculty. Opportunities to internationalize ourselves through our service component may be achieved with community committees and organizations that have an international element, along with international events coming to our communities. And for students, there are increasing opportunities for extracurricular international activities outside the classroom, such as international events on and off campus, International Development and Education Weeks, student-sponsored seminars, and buddy programs that pair domestic and international students.
Notwithstanding these seemingly universal methods of internationalization, there are some very realistic barriers to its incorporation in universities. As noted by Green (2003):
Barriers can be institutional, such as scarce resources, disciplinary paradigms, and structures, 0r the absence of incentives. They also can be individual in nature, including lack of faculty expertise, lack of interest, negative attitudes, or the unwillingness or inability of faculty to integrate international learning into their disciplinary perspectives. (p. 1)
In 2003, the International Association of Universities, a UNESCO-based, international, nongovernmental organizationfounded in1950 tofacilitate international cooperation in higher education, conducted a first-ever global survey of its 621 members in 66 countries related to the practices and priorities of internationalization at their institutions. Lack of financial support at the institutional level was identified as the most important obstacle for internationalization. While two-thirds of the institutions appeared to have an internationalization policy/strategy in place, only about half of these institutions had budgets and a monitoring framework to support the implementation. Therefore, the presence of it in the strategic plan is one element, but it must be a priority in terms of institutional commitment and visionary leadership to devote the necessary human and financial resources to support it. An additional complication in Canada relates to our chief funding source (i.e., the Government), where funding is linked to domestic student intake. While international student intake is strongly encouraged, with the costs to service them, more dollars are necessary.
In my view, lack of institutional commitment and visionary leadership to devote the necessary human and financial resources to support such a program is the primary obstacle. Internationalization requires its articulation by the leadership while simultaneously institutionalizing a strategic planning process that is representative and participative. The major work of internationalization, however, rests on the shoulders of faculty, but it requires vigorous support from institutional leaders (Green, 2003).
Nevertheless, a number of strategies may be used to address these obstacles, namely supportive and highly committed leadership; a coherent, institution-wide (or unit-wide) strategy; clearly defined goals; wide faculty engagement; shared leadership responsibilities; alignment of resources and removal of barriers; and persistence over time. As noted by Green (2003), “leaders must help people think differently. Supporting structures are essential, although no single structure will work for all campuses. An international office should facilitate coherence and coordination among the many threads of internationalization" (p. 1).
So what about our field of sport management? I believe that sport management as an academic discipline is in an ideal position to incorporate internationalization into the body of knowledge, its delivery, and the preparation of our students. After all, the sport industry is a global phenomenon. The ongoing and increasing commercialization of the Olympic Games and other major international sport events such as the FIFA World Cup and Le Tour de France; the export and import of international talent at all competitive levels; the expansion of multinational sport product and service corporations; cross-marketing and promotional agreements between partners in different countries; advances in on-demand information technologies resulting in virtual fans; the shift in the balance of power in international sport; and the increased role of sport in the world economy are just a few examples of this phenomenon (Fay & Snyder, 2007). As suggested by Fay (forthcoming), the “emergence of international business and management as a field of study within the broader confines of academic programs in business and management predicts the potential of international sport for being a new sub-discipline of study within sport management." This is not surprising given that sport has become a powerful vehicle in the international exchange process by delivering lasting economic, social, and heaith benefits, especially in developed countries. Furthermore, "the global sports industry is increasingly reflecting the trends in the world economy, with a growing shift towards emerging markets" (Wilson, 2009, p. 1). As leaders in the field of sport management, we must ensure that we teach, research, and advocate from an international perspective.
So how is sport management as an academic discipline in North America doing in this regard? Let us first consider the curriculum and its delivery. Many members of our academic discipline already employ many of the strategies I outlined, such as the use of international content. As well, the offering of international sport management courses and the preparation for careers in international sport have gained momentum in many university sport management programs, but not by all schools due to a variety of factors, some of which are beyond the control of the current deliverers of these programs (e.g., faculty workload, finances). As noted by Chelladurai in his 1991 Zeigler address, “"we spread ourselves too thin" because "'we don't have the workforce to specialize in the subareas of our field" (p. 216). It is now almost 20 years later. Are we facing the same challenge?
While individual institutions have control over what they offer and how they deliver it, there have been efforts over the years through the Sport Management Program Review Council (SMPRC) program approval process to ensure that specific standards of the curriculum/body of knowledge are met. These standards tended to be more specific than what is presently in place through the more recent accreditation body of the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation (COSMA). At the moment, the Common Professional Component (CPC) requirements for sport management education at the undergraduate level appear to be vague, especially in regard to international sport management. That is, the current CPC topical areas suggest one of the core components to be “social, psychological and international foundations of sport" (COSMA, 2010, p. 11). Does the latter part of this component imply “international sport management'"? It is possible that the vagueness of COSMA's terms may lead to confusion and may have been detrimental to the focus on international components. Should we be more defined in encouraging international sport management as a key component in sport management accreditation?
The master's and doctoral curricula in the accreditation do not contain any required course components as this is left to the discretion of the individual institutions. However, as noted by one international educator, Nehrt (1987),.if our doctoral students do not complete any international courses during their degrees, the next generation of faculty members may have difficulty in introducing international content into the courses they teach (Nehrt, 1987). This is problematic given that some doctoral programs are so research focused with very little emphasis on teaching.
Also in regard to the curriculum, there has been a slow but gradual increase in the number of textbooks and chapters devoted to international sport management, which in my view, demonstrates an awareness of its importance as a component in our field. There is much room for growth in this regard. Hopefully, the introductory textbookswill continue to devotesubstantial emphasis to this component in their updated editions. New technologies, such as e-book format, have made the process of sharing our information internationally easier than ever, notwithstanding inherent language translation and cultural challenges. Earle F. Zeigler himself has converted many of his books into this format, which will allow for broader dissemination internationally. Finally, trade publications, such as SportsBusiness Journal and SportBusinessInternational,are also nowfocusing on international sport issues.
What about international student mobility with respect to our academic discipline? While Study Abroad programs are not new to our field, there has been a large increase in the number of programs, as well as the emergence of companies to service this growing aspect of the international market (note their presence at our conference exhibitors booths). Interestingly, while these Study Abroad programs entail some unique locations, there appears to be an absence of exchanges between the United States and Canada, the two partners of NASSM. Much can be learned from our partners north and south of the border. A case in point is the newly established CanadaU.S. Institute at The University of Western Ontario campus, which is the first Canadian institute think-tank dedicated solely to the study of the relationship between these two countries.
As well, internships are an important and popular aspect of our sport management programs. There is much room to internationalize these experiences for our students by developing relationships with international partners. Coordinated efforts among our sport management colleagues need to be made to lessen the challenges of culture and language. From an international student recruitment perspective, it is clear that there is a strong interest from students around the world to study here in North America. Some universities tend to be more involved in this capacity than others, but it is important to keep the doors open.
I return to my belief that internationalization should be viewed as a way of thinking. I ask the questions: how many of you purposely incorporate an international way of thinking into your teaching and curriculum? Do you incorporate international content as add-on approaches, or do you have the requisite human and financial resources to offer distinct international courses for your students? Have you considered joint teaching collaborations, or for that matter, joint sport management degrees with international partners? Certainly there are challenges and realistic limitations in the latter regard, but technological advancements have made these initiatives more possible than ever via alternative delivery options, such as distance learning, compressed terms of study, and international study blocks.
What about internationalizing our research? It is evident from the sheer growth in the number of sport management-related journals that our research is being circulated around the world. However, does this research emanate from international research collaboration? To answer this question in the context of our own Journal of Sport Management and out of interest for this address, I (along with my PhD student Laura Wood) examined the content of each issue, specifically the number of Research Reviews and Research Notes, from 1987 to the present. My intention was to examine collaboration between American and Canadian researchers, and also North American researchers with those outside of North America. Results indicate that there has been a very gradual increase in the number of collaborative articles over the years, ranging from one each year from 1987 through 1995, with a small gap from 1988 to 1990 inclusively where there were no collaborative manuscripts, to seven in 2009. In percentages,the range extended from $7\%$ in 1987 to $23\%$ in 2009, with an average of $14\%$ . However, I believe an important observation is that the presence of collaboration has become quite consistent in nearly every issue in recent years as you may see from 60 collaborative articles. Of the 60 collaborative articles over this time period, $38\%$ involved American with Canadian researchers, $23\%$ were American and/or Canadian with Australian and/or New Zealander collaborators, $15\%$ entailed American and/or
Canadian with Asian collaborators, $12\%$ wereAmerican and/or Canadian with European collaborators, and $12\%$ involved collaborators who were not from the United States or Canada. Obviously, these findings are limited to one journal and therefore may not be generalizable to other journals. While there is indeed some valuable research collaboration that is ongoing, it will be interesting to track whether it will gradually increase within our field. In his Zeigler address three years ago, Dan Mahony recommended that we should have research agendas for our field. This is one area where it could be accomplished, even if it merely means collaborating with professors in other faculties in international studies on our own campuses. Workshops to encourage international sport management collaboration organized by Pitts and colleagues, Daprano and colleagues, and others have made an attempt in this regard.
Finally, sport management is an ideal discipline in which to provide academicians and students with service opportunities, be it through involvement in hosting international sport events, and working with community sport councils, recreation departments, fitness clubs, sport clubs, and schools, with a particular focus on the international and/ or immigrant cohort. We must continue to encourage these types of involvement.
This discussion leads to our own academic organization. Should NASSM become involved in the process of internationalization with respect to our discipline? Does NASSM have a responsibility to endorse and promote internationalization? As the first international sport management academic organization that in my opinion was therole model and impetus for the establishment of other regional/continental associations, I believe that the answer is yes. However, I will preface that stance by suggesting that NASSM has for many years demonstrated both a commitment and willingness to be involved in internationalization. Over the years, this has been achieved in a variety of ways, such as through its encouragement of international presenters at our own conference, international papers in our journal(s), the appointment of an international delegate (and most recently, the establishment of an International Initiatives ad hoc committee), and the promotion of Study Abroad and internship opportunities in our NASSM newsletter. However, the question remains: How might NASSM do better in internationalizing our organization? I offer a few suggestions.
As noted by Inglis in her Zeigler address in 2006, "conversation provides the vehicle to help us engage, clarify meanings, and be part of future directions" (p. 2). So have we become too complacent and focused on what we have proven to do well—-that is, run an excellent annual conference and disseminate our research in two scholarly journals? As suggested by Mahony in his address three years ago, the number of conferences is increasing which ironically gives us less opportunity to dialogue and subsequently may serve to widen our differences. Perhaps it is time to get members of the other regional/continental sport management organizations together for “conversations" and “dialogue" about how we can better internationalize our academic discipline from a global perspective. After all, we now have regional associations around the world-NASSM, European Association for Sport Management (EASM), Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ), Asian Association of Sport Management (AASM), Asociaci6n Latinoamericana de Gerencia Deportiva (ALGeDe), and the newly formed African Association for Sport Management (ASMA). While we are involved in hosting an “International Alliance Conference” on a rotational basis every few years, this alliance often consists of some informal recognition of the alliance rather than specific dialogue concerning how we might move forward as a global organization that can have impact on the sport industry and the sport management scholarship. Is it time once again to reopen the dialogue concerning an International/Global Sport Management Association?
Perhaps some new initiatives may entail the encouragement of joint degree programs and additional faculty member and student exchanges. There are obvious challenges that accompany these suggestions, and one might question whether they are more the role of individual institutions (i.e., universities and colleges) rather than the regional academic associations of NASSM, EASM, SMAANZ, AASM, ALGeDe, and ASMA.
What about the students, our future sport management academicians? Perhaps we need to closely examine what our European colleagues have achieved for years to encourage the involvement of sport management students around the world through various initiatives, for example, their preconference Student Seminar. This idea has also been adopted by AASM. As of this past spring, EASM Organized its first-ever Summer School at the University of Bayreuth in Germany directed at senior undergraduate students, with a Winter Sport Management workshop being planned as well. Might we consider similar initiatives for our North American students?
There have been some concerted efforts on the part of the NASSM Executive Councils over the years to increase our visibility. It seems beneficial to continue in this regard. While I am not suggesting that NASSM is in the position to become a sponsoring partner in an international hallmark event, perhaps we could, however, consider further means to enhance our profile as an international sport organization.
In conclusion, I challenge you to think about how you can “internationalize” yourself. For professors, perhaps it is through introducing or increasing the international content in your curriculum, investigating the possibility of teaching in another country, or recruiting an international student. Alternatively, it may mean attending an international conference, and if finances permit, taking along a student. But if you do this, make sure you save some time to get to know the place you are visiting. As we all know from our internships, exchanges, and study abroad programs, there is much to learn by seeing and doing. From a research perspective, perhaps it is by collaborating with an international colleague on a research project, or adding an international dimension to your research in regard to content. From a service perspective, it might entail getting involved in a university and/or nonuniversity committee that has an international component.
For students, perhaps it is through studying abroad for a semester or for the duration of the complete degree, or taking an international studies’ course, or learning a foreign language. From a research perspective, ask yourself how your research might have international implications. In realizing that “success in the international sport and business sphere is predicated on personal contact and friendship" (Fay & Snyder, 2007, p. 185), consider getting involved in a NASSM student committee, or attending international conferences, be it academic or linked to a professional sport-related organization. Seek out individuals who have international experiences and learn from them. Consider volunteering at an international sport event or conference. But make yourselves aware of what is going on outside of your campus. While there is much to be said about the positives and negatives of social media, use these forms of media in a responsible and educational manner, and not at the expense of a wide variety of publications with a focus on international affairs, such as newspapers, professional journals, and trade publications. As Earle F. Zeigler advocated long ago, professionals should take the time to keep abreast of the world around them.
Perhaps a “start'" for all of us is merely introducing yourself and your students to an international participant at a conference or sitting at a luncheon or dinner with individuals from another region or country. You might just learn something new or realize how you share similar beliefs and interests, or even begin a possible teaching or research collaboration. It is my prediction that not only will you feel more enlightened by the experience, you may actually enjoy it! And so I leave you with one of Earle F. Zeigler's favorite words: "Think". THINK about how you can internationalize yourselves and your students.
|
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2007).Internationalizing Canadian campuses:Main themesemergingfrom the2007Scotiabank-AUCCworkshoponexcellenceininternationalizationatCanadian universities.Ottawa,ON:AUCC.
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2009). International research collaboration. Ottawa, ON:AUCC.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 215-219.
Commission on Sport Management Accreditation. (2010). Accreditation principles and self-study preparation. Reston, VA: COSMA.
Daly, H. (1999). Globalization versus internationalizationSome implications. Ecological Economics, 31, 31-37.
Daniszewski, H. (2010, March 26). More student spaces cheered. London Free Press,p. A3.
DeSensi, J. (1994). Multiculturalism as an issue in sport management.Jounal of Sport Management, 8, 6374.
Esses, V. (2009). Migration and ethnic relations: Study at UWO. YourCity Magazine. London, ON: Your Magazines Canada Inc.
Fay, TG,& Snyder, D. (2007).A North American perspectiv on international sport. In J.B. Parks, J. Quarterman, & L. Thibault Eds),Contemporary sport management 3d ed, pp. 164-188). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Fay, T.G. (2010). Preface. In M. Li, E. Mclntosh, & G. Bravo (Eds.),International sport management.
Green,MF.(2003）The challenge ofintrnatonalzing undergraduate education: Global learning for all. Paper presented at the Global Challenges and US Higher Education Conference, Duke University, NC.
Hanson, K.H., & Meyerson, J. (Eds.). (1995). International challengestoAmericancollegesanduniversities:Looking ahead. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.
Harari, M. (1989). Internationalization of higher education: Effecting institutional change in the curriculum and campus ethos. Occasional Report Series on the Internationalizationof Higher Education Repor#1.Long Beach, CA: California State University, Center for International Education.
Harari, M. (1992). The internationalization of the curriculum. In C.B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 52-79). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators.
Hatakenaka, S. (2004). Internationalization in higher education: A review. London: Higher Education Policy Institute.
Hong Kong International School (HKIS). (2010). Mission and student learning results. Retrieved from htp://www.hkis. edu.hk/slr.html
Hums, M. (2010). The conscience and commerce of sport management: One teacher's perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 1-9.
Inglis, S. (2007). Creative tensions and conversations in the academy Journal of Sport Management, 21, 114.
Knight, J. (1999) Internationalization of higher education In J. Knight & H. de Wit (Eds.), Quality and internationalization in higher education (pp. 13-23). Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development.
Knight, J. (2003). Updated internationalization defnition. Industry and Higher Education, 33, 2-3.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approache,andatinlual fudinI tional Education, 8, 5-31.
Mahony, D. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working togetherforsport management's futureJournal ofSport Management, 22, 1-10.
Merryfeld, M., Lo, T.Y, Po, S.C., & Kasai, M. (2008). Worldmindedness: Taking offthe blinders. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(1), 6-20.
Morey, A.1. (2000). Changing higher education curricula for a global and multicultural world. Higher Education in Europe,25,25-39.
Mudimbi-Boyi, E. (2002). Beyond dichotomies: Histories, identities, cultures and the challenges of globalization. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Nehrt, L. (1987). The internationalization of the curriculum. Journal of International Business Studies,18,83-90.
Open Doors. (2009). Open doors report. Washington, DC: Institute of International Education.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2003). Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship. Theoretical debates and young people's experiences.Educational Review, 55,243-255.
Ota, H. (n.d.). Differences in the context of internationalization by region: North America. Retrieved from http://www. gcn-osaka.jp
Parsons, R.L. (2007). The effects of the internationalization of universities on domestic students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.gu.edu.au
Pickert, S., & Turlington, B. (1992). Internationalizing the undergraduatecurriculum:A handbookforcampus leaders. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Sampson, D.L., & Smith, H.P. (1957). A scale to measure world-minded attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 99-106.
Statistics Canada. (2010). Canada's population diversity. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca
Stewart, P. (2010, March). Academic values vs commercial values.CAUTBulletin,A3.
Tamburri, R. (2007, November). A helping hand in a strange land. University Affairs, 8-11.
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 1-20.
Wilson, B. (2009, October 27). Ghana looks to build sports industry. BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc. co.uk/2/hi/business/8320342.stm
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Competition: The Heart and Soul of Sport Management
|
David Shilbury Deakin University
|
2011
|
Understanding competition is central to the task of strategy formulation and implementation and it is the link between competition and strategy that was explored in the 2011 Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Lecture. It was argued that strategy, given its centrality to organizational phenomena, and strategy research in particular, provides rich and diverse competitive contexts with the potential to reveal some of the unique properties of sport management. To ascertain the prevalence of sport-related strategy research, three sport management journals were subject to content analysis to identify published manuscripts related to strategy. Before presenting the results, the Lecture considered competition on and off the field, the origins of competitive behavior in sport management and a brief review of the major research themes in the generic strategic management literature. Results revealed that 20 $(2.5\%)$ of the 805 manuscripts published in the three journals were strategy focused. Research themes and contexts were presented as well as a bibliometric analysis of the reference lists of the 20 identified strategy manuscripts. This analysis highlighted the journals that are influencing published sport management strategy-related research. It was concluded that strategy research specific to sport management has been sparse to date, yet the role of strategy formulation is central to the role of management and should also be central to sport management scholarship.
I am extremely honored and humbled to be the 2011 Zeigler recipient. I am aware that the hosting of the 2011 North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) conference at the University of Western Ontario was especially significant given Dr. Zeigler’s distinguished contributions to this institution and his attendance and active participation in the conference. I appreciated the significance of being at the University of Western Ontario to receive an award bearing Dr. Zeigler’s name. As many past Zeigler recipients have noted, Dr. Zeigler was instrumental in stimulating action to create NASSM. Twenty-six conferences later NASSM has much to be proud of in terms of its contributions to focusing attention on sport management scholarship, both within North America and beyond. Technically, I am one who fits within the “beyond” category but, given my regular participation in NASSM conferences and other organizational activities, I have a special affinity for NASSM and for everything it symbolizes. My personal involvement and contributions to both NASSM and the Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ) have been the catalyst for the theme chosen for the Zeigler lecture in June 2011. My role with SMAANZ in relation to NASSM has allowed for some interesting reflections on issues pertaining to competition, cooperation and strategy generally.
My major external service and leadership contributions have primarily related to the development of SMAANZ. SMAANZ was formed in 1995 followed by its journal, Sport Management Review, which was established in 1998. SMAANZ was modeled on NASSM, and in the spirit of thinking globally and acting locally, the founding members adapted operating protocols to match local conditions. In many ways SMAANZ mirrors NASSM, in other ways, it is distinctive, yet the goal remains the same in relation to promoting scholarship. At one level, SMAANZ is obviously competing in the same space as NASSM, yet, at another level, both organizations are predominantly working to enhance and promote sport management scholarship in their local domain. Competition is most obvious in relation to the journals. There remains, however, the challenge of maintaining a healthy competitive balance, extracting the positives of healthy competition rather than the negatives of unhealthy competition. I like to think that SMAANZ has, in some small way, contributed to the healthy elements of competition by encouraging NASSM, the European Association for Sport Management (EASM) and other World Association partners to continually reflect on their progress and the quality of what they do. Of course, the same is equally true for SMAANZ in terms of the competitive encouragement it receives from its World Association partners.
Cooperation between all six regional associations is most obvious through recent initiatives to create a World Association for Sport Management, which will require focused cooperation among the six regional partners, yet at the same time, require each regional association to continue competing to promote its core products. Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996) have described this mix of competition and cooperation as co-opetition. Co-opetition “describes how businesses simultaneously compete and cooperate with competitors, suppliers, customers, and other ‘players’ in their environments” (Dobbs, 2010, p. 35). The need for simultaneous competition and cooperation has been well documented in our field in relation to sports leagues (e.g., Sanderson & Siegfried, 2003; Stewart, Nicholson, & Dickson, 2005). Competition, in particular, is a familiar and well-known concept.
We have all experienced competition through participation in sport and we have all witnessed the positive and negative elements of competition. In the sports business, competition is first and foremost thought of in the context of the action on the field of play. The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Moore, 1997) defines competition as “an event or contest in which people compete” (p. 264). To compete is “to strive for superiority or supremacy” (p. 264). The use of the words “superiority” and “supremacy” highlight the potential negative outcomes of competition. By definition, competition is about declaring winners and losers as a measure of superiority. Clearly, that is the case in professional sport, where it is argued that elite athletes have the cognitive and emotional maturity to cope with the impact of winning and losing.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the pressure of professional sport overcomes many athletes. Consequently, a challenge confronting contemporary sport managers is the need to determine policies and procedures that regulate the behavior of athletes, coaches and officials in response to intensely fought contests, often over-heated by emotions. Moreover, the pressure to win, maintain contracts and consistently achieve peak performance gives rise to another raft of social policies aimed at maintaining the balance between healthy and unhealthy competition. Examples include antidoping and gambling policies. Many sport management scholars are actively involved in research in this important social policy space.
Definitions of sport universally refer to competition as a key characteristic (e.g., Coakley, 2009). Institutionalized competition is one characteristic separating sport from informal recreation and play. The vast majority of roles, tasks and functions of sport managers are either directly or indirectly related to managing competition. The on-field competitive landscape is the responsibility of the coaching staff, and management of the competitive landscape off the field is the responsibility of senior executives. Given the high media profile of many sports and the acute attention on results, managing the weekly highs and lows from competition outcomes is a feature of the sport domain. More than most industries, outcomes of competition are on show weekly and sometimes daily. Managing the implications of competition, both on and off the field, is a critical success factor and a strategic imperative in its own right. Competition, therefore, is the heart and soul of sport management.
How coaches “manage” competition, in terms of preparing their athletes to compete, has received abundant attention in the literature. How senior sport executives “manage” competition or, more specifically, tackle the task of formulating and implementing strategy in their organizations is less clear. Ultimately, the goal of senior executives is to effect strategies that enhance an organization’s competitive position and economic performance. As Dobbs (2010) noted, “competitive behaviors among firms in an industry are not only common, they are expected and demanded by shareholders” (p. 35). This is equally applicable to the sport industry, although the pace of acceptance and understanding of business strategy has varied depending on whether sports systems and structures have been grounded in the origins of amateur or professional sport.
Competition, therefore, is central to strategy and it is the link between competition and strategy that will be explored in this paper. To do so, it is necessary to examine the origins of competitive behavior in sport management, followed by a brief review of the major research themes in the generic strategic management literature. This will lead to the major purpose of this paper, which is to examine the extent to which strategy research is represented in the sport management literature. This analysis was confined to strategy research published in three mainstream sport management journals including the Journal of Sport Management (JSM), Sport Management Review (SMR) and European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ). If strategy-related research is important to the field, it should be well represented in the three sport management journals reviewed. Essentially, the following two questions shaped the focus of this paper.
• How many strategy-related manuscripts have been published in the three journals, and what is their focus? • Having identified the range of strategy-focused manuscripts, is it possible to detect any special features of strategy research in relation to sport management?
Before answering these two questions, it is informative to consider the origins of competitive behavior and strategy research in sport management.
It is now 55 years since Simon Rottenberg (1956) published his seminal article in the Journal of Political Economy examining the labor market in baseball. As Peter Sloane (2006) noted when evaluating Rottenberg’s contribution some 50 years later, “the economics of sport can truly be said to have begun with Simon Rottenberg’s paper …” (p. 2). Sloane continued, stating that Rottenberg “sketched out the main features of major league baseball and these, described by Fort as the eleven anchors of the sports economics literature, have been taken to apply to other team professional sports leagues” (p. 3). The intention here is not to embark on a detailed analysis of these anchors (see Table 1), but they are worth noting as all eleven cases describe, in some way, competitive behavior inherent in professional sports leagues. All of these competitive behaviors translate to strategic decisionmaking required to maintain competitive balance, and, consequently, the strategies or actions the League and participating clubs can enact.
As will be shown in the next section of this paper, many of the theories pertaining to competitive behavior and therefore strategy are grounded in the economics literature. This is equally the case in sport. The salary cap and draft are perhaps the best known regulatory mechanisms designed to equalize competition. Uncertainty of outcome, a key principle underlying the rationale for a draft and salary cap, has also been investigated in relation to fan satisfaction in the NFL as an important indicator of ticket sales, television and radio advertising (Paul, Wachsman, & Weinback, 2011), highlighting an important link to marketing strategy. Equally, competitive balance is a strong research theme in the sport economics literature (cf. Fort & Quirk, 2010; Humphreys, 2002; Késenne, 2000). The sport labor markets in North America, Europe and Australia have also been the focus of research on the mechanisms used to determine how player movement within leagues is managed, and how the players’ share of revenue is calculated (cf. Booth, 2005; Fort, 2005; Frick, 2007). Managing competition and competitive balance is, therefore, central to the job of sport managers.
Returning to Sloane’s (2006) evaluation, he concluded that Rottenberg’s contribution to the economics of sport was significant, however, he contests claims by Rottenberg that professional sports leagues should be analyzed using the same frameworks as for other industries. Sloane noted, for example, in relation to competition policy, that Rottenberg “believed that no special treatment was required for sport in relation to anti-trust policy” (p. 18). In practice, this has not been the case, with Major League Baseball (MLB) having been granted antitrust exemption in 1922, and the 1961 Sport Broadcasting Act allowing the sale of league-wide broadcast rights for the major leagues (Sloane, 2006).
The question of whether “managing sport” is different has consistently exercised the minds of sport management scholars. Chalip (2006), for example, stated that “if the study of sport management is to position itself as a distinctive discipline, then it must take seriously the possibility that there are distinctive aspects to the management of sport” (p. 3). Although Rottenberg claimed the distinctions to be minimal, at least in the context of economic analysis, Sloane and others (e.g., Fort & Winfree, 2009) do not share that view. Moreover, much has changed in the 55 years since Rottenberg’s seminal work, not the least being the amount and variety of revenues generated from broadcast rights relative to ticket sales.
Smith and Stewart (2010), when reviewing the special features of sport, stated, “While it is inappropriate to conclude that the features discussed … demand a specialised form of management practice, our analysis suggests that sport leagues and competitions still have many idiosyncrasies that demand considered and strategic responses” (p. 10). Factors reviewed by Smith and Stewart included the need to consider variable quality and competitive balance, the critical importance of setting up structures for collaborative behavior and, managing players as income earning assets. These were just some of the idiosyncratic areas related to competition as noted by the authors. It is reasonable to presume, therefore, that any defining features of sport management are likely to be grounded in competition and should emerge in the conduct of strategy research, and an analysis of the sportrelated strategy literature. If competition is the heart and soul of sport management, then strategy research and its analysis should expose the key features of sport that will continue to pump life through the “mind” and “body” of the academy.
Strategy has been a topic of great interest to scholars outside the domain of sport management. Before examining the published sport management strategy-related work it is useful to briefly review the generic strategy literature and four major research themes. This review is important, because there needs to be evidence of a clear link between mainstream strategy theories and their application to the sport setting.
Table 1 Eleven Anchors of Sport Economics
<html><body><table><tr><td>·Thelabormarketismonopsonistic</td><td>·Theprospectofveryhighsalariesattractsanover-</td></tr><tr><td>·Theproductis monopolisitc</td><td>abundance of playersleading to wide salary dispersion ·Baseballteam ownersarerationalprofitmaximizers</td></tr><tr><td>There are rich and poor clubs, based on attendances as opposedtopopulationsize</td><td>·Differences in the quality of rivals should not be‘too great toproduceasuccessfulproduct(uncertaintyofoutcome)</td></tr><tr><td>Attendancesareafunctionofsomekeyvariables</td><td>·Thefreemarketisasefficientasthereserveclauseinterms of resource allocation (the invariance principle)</td></tr><tr><td>The reserve clause does not provide an equilibrium distributionoftalent</td><td>·The demise of the reserve clause would have no impact on the amount of training or the quality of play</td></tr></table></body></html>
Sloane (2006, p. 3)
Strategy can be thought of as a pattern of actions employed by managers to position an organization for competitive advantage, and can be both proactive and reactive. Strategic management refers to the managerial process of formulating the pattern of actions and implementing them. The birth of the field of strategic management, according to Rumelt, Schendel and Teece (1994), can be traced to three key works including Alfred Chandler’s Strategy and Structure (1962), Igor Ansoff’s Corporate Strategy (1965), and Kenneth Andrews’ The Concept of Corporate Strategy (1971), which was originally published in 1965 as a Harvard University textbook, Business Policy: Texts and Cases. All three texts are familiar to students who have studied strategic management, and each is characterized by a prescriptive formula of “strategy” relying on managerial action in response to environmental circumstances.
These authors represented a change in approach to strategy, recognizing that strategic management involves both strategic choice and organizational change. In the relatively stable post-World War II period where highgrowth and stability was a feature of most economies, managerial decision-making and change were not considered significant factors in a firm’s performance. With the onset of changing technologies and market conditions in the 1970s and beyond, strategy-related research began to change. Scholars recognized that more dynamic models were required to address an increasingly complex strategic environment, which led to heightened interest in management theory and education generally. Typically, early classes in strategy were embedded in business policy courses and were most evident in American graduate business administration programs. The business policy model reflected one of two main streams of research to emerge during this period.
The first stream of research, according to Furrer, Thomas, and Goussevskaia (2008), was the process approach which was embedded in the business policy model and “consisted essentially of descriptive studies of how strategies were formed and implemented” (p. 4). Based on observing how strategy decisions were made, this stream of research led to a better understanding of the process of how strategies were determined, both intended and unintended, as was evident in Mintzberg’s (1978) work examining patterns in strategy formation. The second stream of research came to be dominated by Michael Porter and the need to better understand the relationship between strategy and performance. Porter’s work, which is best known through his two books entitled Competitive Strategy (1980), and Competitive Advantage (1985), was theoretically based in industrial economics which deals with “the structure of markets, the conduct of firms (strategic behavior), and the social costs and benefits that result from various market structures and firm behavior” (Lewis, Morkel, Hubbard, Davenport, & Stockport, 1999, p. 15). Porter’s work advanced the prevailing structure-conduct-performance (S-C-P) paradigm beyond performance in terms of social outcomes (i.e., production efficiency, full employment). His work also considered the performance of individual firms, which are typically focused on issues such as pricing, advertising, product development, and investment in operations (Lewis et al., 1999). Porter’s approach was more firmfocused and dynamic than that originally demonstrated in the structure-conduct-performance paradigm (Gerrard, 2003).
Porter’s five forces analysis of industry competition has become essential course content for generations of students and practicing managers. Essentially, it provides a structured approach to assessing the attractiveness of an industry, by analyzing entry and exit barriers, the threat of substitutes, the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers, and the overall intensity of competition among competitors in an industry. Managers, therefore, became the catalysts to reshape industry competition in a way that had previously been ignored. Managers astute enough to change the rules of competition in an industry were likely to create a sustainable competitive advantage, a key pillar on which Porter’s work was based.
During the 1980s, strategy research shifted from its focus on industry structure to the firm’s internal capabilities and the use of its resources. Although other theories were also in vogue at the time, the resource-based theory of competitive advantage was developing and has become an influential stream of research. Wernerfelt (1984) first wrote about the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm, but it was not until the 1990s, through the work of Barney (1991) and others, that this work became more recognized (Ramos-Rodríguéz & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). Furrer et al. (2008) noted that the RBV focused on “how the possession of valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources may result in sustainable competitive advantage” (p. 5).
This logic extended to core competencies, as identified by Prahalad and Hamel (1990), in which competencies defined a firm and where value was located. Collis and Montgomery (1998) observed that “managers in multi-business firms began to conceive of their firms as portfolios of competencies not just portfolios of businesses” (p. 21). The RBV and core competencies perspectives led naturally to the current focus on human and intellectual capital as a company’s key strategic resource. If this is the case, then the preparation of sport managers to fulfill roles at CEO and senior management level is critical to the advancement of our field. Outcomes from this stream of research lead to some interesting questions about the extent to which sport management programs teach strategic management, and infuse students with the necessary conceptual skills required to think and act strategically. In part, this is addressed through collective learning from all subjects taught in a course. They all, in some way, contribute to developing problem-solving skills and the information required to manage sport organizations. The real issue, however, is the extent to which the theoretical and practical scaffolding is presented to students to allow them to develop the capacity to synthesize information commensurate with high level strategic thinking which is often abstract in nature. Although the quality and uniqueness of our research helps define our field, so too do senior managers (or senior graduates) and their perceived competencies in the highly visible and competitive domain of major sports.
This review of the generic literature has necessarily been truncated, but it has mapped some of the more influential research streams in relation to strategic management. Significantly, these research themes should emerge when mapping strategic thought in sport management via the three mainstream journals assessed.
To recap, the aim of data collection was to:
• identify all strategy-related manuscripts published in JSM, SMR and ESMQ and document their major themes; and • use bibliometric techniques to examine the reference lists of all identified strategy manuscripts for the purpose of understanding which journals are influencing the research published in the above three journals.
Stage one of this investigation assessed the table of contents of every issue in the three journals. Manuscripts focused on strategy were identified, examined, and keywords were developed to capture the major theoretical theme, and the context of each article. This work was then extended to include a textual analysis of the abstract of each manuscript, using Leximancer software (version 3.5). Leximancer is a qualitative analytic tool designed to examine unstructured textual data, and to produce meaningful insights through concepts that are then clustered into higher-level themes. It also depicts relationships between key concepts and themes. Citation analysis was used for stage two of this investigation, which was a content analysis of the reference lists of all relevant manuscripts. Data were organized to show the most frequently cited journals.
A total of 805 citable items were published in the three journals. Citable items refer to the number of substantial articles published, and substantial articles refer to original manuscripts and reviews, including case studies which were subject to review. In each journal the search commenced from their inception until the end of 2010. In JSM, 462 manuscripts have been published since 1987; 176 manuscripts have been published in $E S M Q$ since 2001; and 167 in SMR since 1998. From these 805 manuscripts, 20, or $2.5\%$ of all manuscripts, were identified as strategy-related. Eleven were identified in JSM, five in SMR and four in ESMQ. All four in ESMQ were a result of a 2003 special issue focused on the resource-based view of strategy.
Table 2 shows the eleven manuscripts published in JSM and their dominant theory and context. Strategic capability, strategic analysis and strategic behavior represent one group of papers, followed by competitive advantage and competitive behavior. The RBV is also central to two of the papers, with one further RBV manuscript in the context of organizational efficiency. Two papers were focused on nonprofit strategy, one on marketing plans, and one specifically on vertical integration. Interestingly, David Stotlar’s (2000) review of vertical integration is the only Zeigler lecture to specifically address strategy or a specific element of strategy. Slack’s 1995 lecture, although not dedicated to strategy, touched on its importance to our field.
Table 3 shows the five manuscripts identified in SMR, with two focused on competitive fit and competitive advantage, two on strategic capability in the context of governance, and one devoted to cluster theory. Table 4 shows that all four manuscripts published in the ESMQ 2003 special issue on the RBV were obviously focused on this theme, with an emphasis on competitive advantage.
The textual review of abstracts progresses insights from a static keywords perspective to a more dynamic analysis showing interrelationships between higher-level themes and lower-level concepts. Figure 1 illustrates the key themes and interconnections between them. Although it is recognized that using only the abstracts for this textual analysis is limited, an interesting visual snapshot of the main theoretical themes inherent in the strategyresearch published in the three journals is provided. Density of data in these visual maps can be increased to reveal greater depth and, consequently, the interrelationships between concepts and themes (see Figure 2). Figure 1, for instance, illustrates the major themes with “advantage” the largest circle indicating its prominence in the abstracts. Leaving aside the large “sport” circle (referring to sport the noun, and the subject being managed) and the smaller “sports” circle (referring to specific sports, or organizations and leagues), which is to be expected, other prominent themes include strategy, integration, resources, leadership, financial, and companies, with other references to research and the study of strategy generally. The nodes within the circles and their linkages to other themes are evident in Figure 2. A clear link, for example, is shown between competitive advantage and the resource-based view, which in turn links to resources, leadership, performance and financial concepts.
To further enhance this textual analysis it would be necessary to examine all 20 manuscripts as one document, penetrating more deeply into the themes and concepts and their interrelationships. This more detailed approach should further the aim of identifying the unique features of strategy theory, if there are any, in relation to sport management. In the short-term, this analysis is most likely to reveal the unique contexts in which strategy research is being undertaken. These contexts reflect a variety of “competitive” conditions. For example, professional sport is intensely competitive and, consequently, competitive behavior off the field is intense, not just within leagues but also across the broader sport, recreation and leisure industries. Community-based sport is also competitive, but not to the same extent as professional sport, and not with the same degree of precision attached to the execution of skills. These varying competitive or environmental conditions provide extremely diverse and potentially rich research settings. Context, therefore, is most likely to reveal what, if any, “special features” of sport management might exist. The search for what defines our field may simply be a matter of perspective or, in other words, the way we choose to look at the problem.
Table 2 Journal of Sport Management
<html><body><table><tr><td>No</td><td>Article</td><td>Theory</td><td>Context</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Sutton, W.A. (1987). Developing an initial marketing plan for intercollegiate athletic programs, 1, 146-158.</td><td>Marketing plans</td><td>Intercollegiate athletics</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Rail, G. (1988).A theoretical framework for the study of complex organizations,2,40-52.</td><td>Strategic analysis/ sociology</td><td>Strategies/power relationships</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Thibault, L.,Slack, T.,& Hinings, B. (1993).A framework for the</td><td>Nonprofit strategy</td><td>Canadian NSOs</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1994). Strategic planning for nonprofit sport organizations: Verification of a framework, 8, 218-233.</td><td>Nonprofit strategy</td><td>Strategic planning/ Canadian NSOs</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Amis, J., Pant, N., & Slack, T. (1997). Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage: A resource-based view of sport sponsorship, 11, 80-96.</td><td>resource-based view</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Berrett, T., & Slack, T. (1999). An analysis of the influence of decisions, 13, 114-138.</td><td>Competitive behavior</td><td>Sponsorship/Canadian corporate sponsorship</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Stotlar, D. (2000). Vertical integration in sport, 14, 1-7.</td><td>Vertical integration</td><td>Professional sport/ broadcasting</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Smart, D., & Wolfe, R. (2000). Examining sustainable competitive Competitive advantage/ advantage in intercollegiate athletics: A resource-based view, 14, 133-153.</td><td>resource-based view</td><td>Intercollegiate athletics</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Sack, A.L., & Nadim, A. (2002). Strategic choice in a turbulent environment: A case study of Starter Corporation, 16, 36-53.</td><td>Strategicchoice/five forces analysis</td><td>Starter Corp/ merchandising, licensing</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Gerrard, B. (2005). A resource-utilization model of organizational efficiency in professional sports teams, 19, 143-169.</td><td>Resource-based view/ economics</td><td>Organizational efficiency</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2009). Board involvement in strategy: Advancing governance of sport organizations,23,245277.</td><td>Strategic capability</td><td>Governance/New Zealand NSOs</td></tr></table></body></html>
Table 3 Sport Management Review
<html><body><table><tr><td>No</td><td>Article</td><td>Theory</td><td>Context</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Shilbury, D. (2000). Considering future sport delivery systems, 3, 199-221.</td><td>Cluster theory</td><td>Revenues/delivery systems/NSOs</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Berrett, T., & Slack, T. (2001). A framework for the analysis of seeking corporate sponsorship, 4, 21-45.</td><td>Competitive fit</td><td>Sponsorship/Canadian NSOs</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Evans, D.M., & Smith, C.T. (2004). The internet and competitive advantage: A study of Australia's four premier professional sporting leagues, 7, 27-56.</td><td>Competitiveadvantage</td><td>The Internet/ professional sport</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Ferkins, L., Shilbury, D., & McDonald, G. (2005). The role of the board in building strategic capability: Toward an integrated model, 8,195-225.</td><td>Strategic capability</td><td>Governance/NSOs</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2010). Developing board strategic capability in sport organizations: The national-regional governing relationship,13,235-254.</td><td>Strategiccapability/ interorganizational theory</td><td>Governance/New Zealand NSOs</td></tr></table></body></html>
Table 4 European Sport Management Quarterly
<html><body><table><tr><td>No</td><td>Article</td><td>Theory</td><td>Context</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Gerrard, B. (2003). What does the resource-based view “bring to the table' in sport management research?, 3, 139-144.</td><td>Resource-basedview</td><td>Researchimplications</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Mauws, M.K.,Mason, D.S., & Foster, W.F. (2003). Thinking strategically about professional sports, 3, 145-164.</td><td>Competitiveadvantage/ resource-basedview</td><td>Professionalsport/ economicrents</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Smart,D.L.,& Wolfe, R.A. (2003).The contribution of leadership and human resources to organizational success:Empirical assessment of performance in Major LeagueBaseball,3,165-188.</td><td>Resource-basedview</td><td>Leadership, human resources/MLB</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Amis, J. (2003). "Good things come to those who wait": Strategic managementofimageandreputationatGuinness,3,189-214.</td><td>Competitiveadvantage</td><td>Image/reputation</td></tr></table></body></html>
Figure 1 — Textual review of abstracts, major themes
This analysis thus far has demonstrated the application of generic theories of strategy to a variety of contexts specific to sport. For example, the current analysis reveals a focus on context via Canadian national sport organizations (NSOs) and the need to understand nonprofit strategy and sponsorship, which also extends to corporate behavior in relation to sponsorship. New Zealand NSOs were also featured examining the strategic capability of nonprofit volunteer boards to determine strategic direction through planning processes.
The assessment of theoretical foundations and the issue of determining sport management’s unique properties were also assisted by the citation analysis. Ninehundred-and-twenty-five citations were identified from the reference lists of the 20 manuscripts, which included 452 citations from the 11 JSM papers, 271 in SMR, and 202 in ESMQ. Of the 925 citations, 503 $(54.4\%)$ were to journal articles. Table 5 illustrates the top 15 journals cited. The Strategic Management Journal was the most frequently cited (63), followed by JSM (56). Arguably, this is a good reflection of the theory—context argument in relation to the special features of sport management. It also shows a positive reliance on the top-ranked strategy and sport management journals. Thereafter, the bulk of the journals are generic management or marketing focused, with four sport management journals in the top 15. The Sport Business Journal (12), SMR (11) and ESMQ (9) were the other three sport journals but, in reality, the number of citations was small and hardly influential. Of the books cited, only Porter’s Competitive Strategy (6) and Competitive Advantage (4) were cited more than three times.
Figure 2 — Textual review of abstracts, major themes and concepts
With only $2.5\%$ of all published manuscripts in JSM, SMR and $E S M Q$ reporting strategy research, it is unlikely that the motivation for citation to the sport management journals was associated to strategy theory. Therefore, context was the most likely explanation for most of the citations to those three journals. What the textual review of abstracts did not reveal, as well as the keywords analysis, was the unique contexts in which strategy research is being applied. These varying competitive environments define context and, as has been argued, the importance of strategy research to contribute to the evolution of our field.
Table 5 Top 15 Journals Cited in Strategy Manuscripts
<html><body><table><tr><td>Rank</td><td>Journal</td><td>Citations</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>StrategicManagementJournal</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>JournalofSportManagement</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Academyof ManagementReview</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Journal ofManagement</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>InternationalJournalofAdvertising</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>AcademyofManagementJournal</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>NonprofitManagement&Leadership</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>AdministrativeScienceQuarterly</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Nonprofit&VoluntarySectorQuarterly</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>SportBusinessJournal</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>SportManagementReview</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>CorporateGovernance:An</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>InternationalReview</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>HarvardBusinessReview</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>14 15</td><td>JournalofManagementStudies EuropeanSportManagementQuarterly</td><td>6 6</td></tr></table></body></html>
|
This analysis has demonstrated that strategy research currently represents a very small proportion of the manuscripts published in the three key sport management journals. Slack (1996), in his 1995 Zeigler lecture, stated, “… despite the centrality of strategy to the operations of all organizational phenomena, there have been very few studies of this topic in our field” (p. 101). Sixteen years later it is difficult to argue that much has changed in relation to strategy research. Slack might appreciate, however, given the tone and focus of his address that, of the strategy research conducted there is evidence of a diversification of contexts. Canadian and New Zealand NSOs, intercollegiate sport, corporations focused on sport sponsorship and merchandising, MLB, and broadcasters are just some of the research contexts identified. Moreover, based on the citation analysis, it is also clear that strategy research is influenced by the leading generic management journals highlighting important links to management theory.
This analysis has revealed that strategy research specific to the field of sport management has been sparse. It is not clear why this is the case, particularly given the centrality of strategy to organizational life. It has been argued that strategy theory and practice off the field is akin to the competition dynamic on the field. Like on-field success, competitive success off the field is an imperative, with strategic action a factor of the knowledge, skills, and techniques of individual managers. Our research underpins this transfer of strategy-related knowledge. Successfully formulating and implementing strategy is essential for sport management graduates working as senior executives, as off-field outcomes are highly visible for sports-loving communities and, therefore, have the potential to impact on the perceptions of our field. This is not an inconsequential concern as our field trades in the pleasure of leisure, and often it is associated with the nonserious, intellectual pursuits in life.
In searching for the unique identifiers in our field of sport management via strategy research, it is difficult, based on this analysis, to find any—there is simply not enough published work. Context, as has been argued, is the most likely vehicle for this analysis, and there was some evidence of a diverse range of contexts. Assessing the varying competitive forces on and off field provides the contextual signposts for where differences and uniqueness might be found. To date, strategy research has not been tackled with the centrality it deserves. Managing competitive forces on and off the field is central to the task of management and, therefore, if competition is the heart and soul of sport management, then strategy research is the conduit to the spirit and character of our field.
Andrews, K. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood: Dow-Jones Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965). Corporate strategy: An analytical approach to business policy for growth and expansion. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.
Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resource and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 395–410.
Booth, R. (2005). Comparing competitive balance in Australian sports leagues: Does a salary cap and player draft measure up? Sport Management Review, 8, 119–143.
Brandenburger, A.M., & Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Coakley, J.J. (2009). Sports in society: Issues and controversies (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.
Chandler, A.S. (1962). Strategy and structure. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Collis, D.J., & Montgomery, C.A. (1998). Corporate strategy: A resourced-based approach. Singapore: Irwin/McGrawHill.
Dobbs, M.E. (2010). Co-opetition matrix for analyzing the cooperation competition mix in an industry: Examples from Major League Baseball. Competition Forum, 8(1), 35–43.
Fort, R. (2005). The golden anniversary of the baseball players’ labor market. Journal of Sports Economics, 6, 347–358.
Fort, R., & Quirk, J. (2010). Optimal competitive balance in single-game ticket sports leagues. Journal of Sports Economics, 11, 587–601.
Fort, R., & Winfree, J.A. (2009). Sports really are different: The contest success function and the supply of talent. Review of Industrial Organization, 34, 69–80.
Frick, B. (2007). The football players’ labor market: Empirical evidence from the major European leagues. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 54, 422–446.
Furrer, O., Thomas, H., & Goussevskaia, A. (2008). The structure and evolution of the strategic management field: A content analysis of 26 years of strategic management research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 1–23.
Gerrard, B. (2003). What does the resource-based view “bring to the table” in sport management research? European Sport Management Quarterly, 3, 139–144.
Humphreys, B.R. (2002). Alternative measures of competitive balance in sports leagues. Journal of Sports Economics, 3, 133–148.
Késenne, S. (2000). Revenue sharing and competitive balance in professional team sports. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 56–65.
Lewis, G., Morkel, A., Hubbard, G., Davenport, S., & Stockport, G. (1999). Australian and New Zealand strategic management. Concepts, context and cases (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formation. Management Science, 24, 934–948.
Moore, B. (Ed.). (1997). The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Paul, R.J., Wachsman, Y., & Weinback, A.P. (2011). The role of uncertainty of outcome and scoring in the determination of fan satisfaction in the NFL. Journal of Sports Economics, 12, 213–221.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 79–91.
Ramos-Rodríguéz, A-R., & Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980-2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 981–1004.
Rottenberg, S. (1956). The baseball player’s labor market. The Journal of Political Economy, 64(3), 242–258.
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E., & Teece, D.J. (1994). Fundamental issues in strategy. In R.P. Rumelt, D.E. Schendel, & D.J. Teece (Eds.), Fundamental issues in strategy: A research agenda (pp. 9–54). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sanderson, A.R., & Siegfried, J.J. (2003). Thinking about competitive balance. Journal of Sports Economics, 4, 255–279.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97–105.
Sloane, P.J. (2006). Rottenberg and the economics of sport after 50 years. An evaluation. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor Discussion paper (IZA DP No. 2175).
Smith, C.T., & Stewart, B. (2010). The special features of sport. Sport Management Review, 13, 1–13.
Stewart, B., Nicholson, M., & Dickson, G. (2005). The Australian Football League’s recent progress: A study in cartel conduct and monopoly power. Sport Management Review, 8, 95–117.
Stotlar, D.K. (2000). Vertical integration in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 1–7.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
“It Takes a Village:” Interdisciplinary Research for Sport Management
|
Alison Doherty Western University
|
2012
|
This paper, from the Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Award Lecture presented at the NASSM 2012 Conference in Seattle, outlines the merits and challenges of interdisciplinary research for the field of sport management. This alternative approach involves relating, integrating, and relocating disciplinary thinking to arrive at a mutually-determined research problem that represents new ways of conceptualizing phenomena. It enables moving away from the monodisciplinary research that characterizes much of our field to examine phenomena from different angles, and perhaps more effectively close the research-practice gap with knowledge derived from multiple perspectives. The author argues that it is time to engage in interdisciplinary research in sport management as no one discipline has all the answers; rather, “it takes a village” to solve the complex problems in our world.
Preparing for the Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Award Lecture gave me the opportunity to reflect on the many and varied individuals with whom I have had the pleasure of working over the years. It made me realize that, in addition to my family, I have been blessed to be part of a rich and vibrant “village” of students and colleagues that has enriched my life and my work. I chose this phrase—“it takes a village”—for the title of my lecture because it resonates with my personal and work life. It is a philosophy that I truly believe, and maybe couldn’t function without! Why should one ‘go it alone’ if they don’t have to? Why shouldn’t we step in to help, if help is needed? Of course, I use the phrase in its broadest sense—that ‘two heads are better than one’, ‘many hands make light work’ and so on. However, we are probably all familiar with its most popular or at least most commercial use, as the title of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s best-selling 1996 book, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, building on the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child.”
A quick Google search reveals, after you get past the links to the First Lady’s book, that the origin of the phrase is contested, being attributed to Nigerian Igbo culture, as well as other African cultures, yet all with the same sentiment regarding the importance of communal effort and that ‘one person does not have all the answers.’ And we can cite it in many different contexts: It takes a village to raise a child, to build a barn, to develop a doctoral student, to host a conference! I’m particularly thinking that ‘it takes a village’ to address complex problems in our world. That village is interdisciplinary research.
The purpose of my lecture and this paper is to bring interdisciplinary research to the table; some ‘food for thought’ in terms of insight, direction and encouragement to consider how our work could benefit from an interdisciplinary approach. In their 2005 special issue of the Journal of Sport Management, Amis and Silk (2005) call for alternative approaches to the study of sport management: “to push at the horizons of the field” (p. 355). Their aim, and mine, is to “aid the power of those in the academy to [conduct and] apply research so that it impacts, and is meaningful to, the various communities that sport management has the potential to touch” (Amis & Silk, 2005, p. 355). I believe interdisciplinary research has this potential.
I also believe the notion of interdisciplinarity reflects the man whose name bears the award which I am very humbled to receive. Dr. Zeigler has had a long and meaningful reach into the disciplines and academic organizations of sport history, philosophy, physical education, and management. He has long been an advocate for “involve[ing] scholars and researchers from many disciplines with a variety of backgrounds” (Zeigler & Spaeth, 1975, p. 19), and his work continues to bring multiple perspectives to bear on any given issue that has grabbed his attention (e.g., Zeigler, 2003, 2007, 2011).
It is important to begin with some conceptual clarity regarding interdiscipinarity, which I attempt to provide by defining and distinguishing disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary research. I draw particularly on Bruhn’s (1995) illustrations for help in capturing the distinctive characteristics of the different paradigms. This is followed by a consideration of the merits and the challenges of an interdisciplinary approach, building to an argument for its use in sport management.
According to Buller (2008, p. 396), disciplines are “specific constructions and orderings of knowledge that [generally offer] one temporally and culturally grounded take on the world.” They have their “own way of observing, thinking and formulating problems” (Bruhn, 2000, p. 61) and their own language (Buller, 2008). Indeed, “the strength of an academic discipline is its distinct body of knowledge that is not covered by another discipline” (Doherty, 2012, p. 1), developing and reinforcing a particular version of social reality (Mair, 2006).
The traditional, disciplinary research paradigm involves an investigator (or group of investigators) from one discipline working on a problem, which is likely framed differently than another disciplinary investigator’s problem (even if they are focused on the same phenomenon). This is represented in Figure 1. The research question tends to arise directly from previous research and the research process tends to follow an established pattern based on accepted assumptions about the world (ontology) and knowledge development (epistemology) in that discipline (Mair, 2006; Oughton & Bracken, 2009; Watson, 1997). Most of the work today continues to be this traditional form (Bruhn, 2000; Love & Andrew, 2012; McGrath, 2007) as scholars endeavor to better explain the world around us from their respective vantage points.
As a broad field, sport management is made up of multiple disciplines. This is evident in our foundational textbooks (e.g., Chelladurai, 2009; Hoye, Smith, Nicholson, Stewart, & Westerbeek, 2009; Pederson, Parks, Quarterman, & Thibault, 2011), and in the research disciplines indicated in the 2012 NASSM conference program; namely, communication, diversity, economics, ethics, finance, governance, legal aspects, management/ leadership, marketing, organization theory, and tourism. Perhaps there are some disciplinary categories missing from this list, and perhaps some of these should be subdivided further to more accurately reflect the growth of our field. Some of these disciplines have received more attention than others (Doherty, 1998; Peetz & Reams, 2011; Pitts & Pederson, 2005), but for the most part each continues to advance within the academy.
Figure 1 — Representations of disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary research (adapted from Bruhn, 1995).
Multidisciplinary research, then, involves an investigator or group of investigators from different disciplines working on a common problem (see Figure 1). The investigators can be from disciplines within a field, like sport management, or across fields, like sport management and life sciences. Multidisciplinary research is distinguished by the nature of the collaboration among disciplinary investigators. According to Bruhn (1995, p. 332), this collaboration includes “[relatively] informal consultation among investigators… and solicitation of observations and advice from experts from other disciplines.” Collaborators from different disciplines generally work independently (in parallel or sequentially; Aboelela et al., 2007; Choi & Pak, 2006) on parts of a project (Porter, Roessner, Cohen, & Merreault, 2006), providing their respective insights to generate a broader understanding of a phenomenon. As such, the disciplines inform the research problem, but generally not each other. Everyone brings, and works on, their own piece of the puzzle but they “do not seek to transcend their respective… boundaries to generate new understandings” (Mair, 2006, p. 198). Choi and Pak’s (2006) analogy of multidisciplinary research as a salad seems to capture this well: Different disciplinary ingredients are brought to the bowl, and tossed together, but each remains “intact and clearly distinguishable” (Choi & Pak, 2006, p. 360).
An example might be a project examining the hosting of a major sport event. Such an investigation may be considered from the perspective of volunteer management, multiple levels of governance, economic impact, environmental sustainability, and so on—each representing distinct knowledge disciplines. We can imagine that each perspective would inform the overall project, while the respective scholars tackle their own piece of the puzzle, although not necessarily other pieces. The outcome is a broad understanding of the event, based on the combination of disciplinary knowledge, but not necessarily an integrated understanding.
In contrast, interdisciplinary research involves several investigators working together on the same, mutuallydetermined problem (see Figure 1). Interdisciplinary collaboration is characterized by two or more investigators or teams of investigators, from different disciplines, working closely together designing the problem, determining the methodology to study it, analyzing the data, and interpreting the findings. Bruhn (2000) acknowledges that a single investigator could be informed about more than one discipline and certainly bring an “interdisciplinary perspective” (p. 59, italics in original). However, he argues that it is the interaction between researchers from different disciplines that is fundamental to the creativity and new insights that interdisciplinary research generates (Bruhn, 2000).
Indeed, this research paradigm draws upon the notions of relationality or relational practice (Buller, 2008) and integration (Bruhn, 1995, 2000). Interdisciplinary research is a process of relating one perspective, one discipline, one way of knowing, one “take” on things to another perspective, discipline and so on, and then integrating those perspectives for a fuller and deeper insight into and understanding of a problem, issue or question. The process is also characterized by relocation (Buller, 2008) of each discipline’s original “take” on a phenomenon (or way of studying it) to a new way of seeing.
To do this, each discipline brings its expertise to each phase of the research project; it is a communal effort that “melds the input of different disciplines into both the design and the execution of a unified project” (Bruhn, 1995, p. 337). According to Mair (2006, p. 198), “it is a purposeful challenge to old ideas to create new understandings.” Choi and Pak (2006) liken interdisciplinary research to a cooking pot: Ingredients are combined and the dish takes on a new form when the boundaries of disciplinary knowledge, methods and analyses blur as integrated ideas and perspectives ‘simmer’.
When building a case for interdisciplinary research it is important to acknowledge that all three research paradigms have their own merits and place in developing knowledge. In fact, they may be seen as progressive in terms of the degree of relating and integrating different disciplines (cf. Aboelela et al., 2007; Choi & Pak, 2006). Bruhn (1995) notes that the main difference between the three paradigms is “the degree of commitment the investigator wishes to make that goes beyond his/her disciplinary expertise” (p. 332); to integrate with others and relocate his/her traditional way of seeing and doing research. A group of disciplinary researchers could become a multidisciplinary team with each member working on a common problem. A multidisciplinary team could become an interdisciplinary research team whose members bring their perspective to the table for the purpose of generating a novel blend of insights and analyses. So why choose an interdisciplinary approach? The case for interdisciplinary research can only be made by considering the potential advantages and benefits of its use, and the challenges, risks, and pitfalls. I present several arguments for an interdisciplinary approach, followed by several caveats for its use.1
Interdisciplinary research is useful, even necessary, for addressing complex problems. We can think of high profile issues, such as smoking cessation, climate change, and the AIDS epidemic, for which it has come to be realized that an interdisciplinary perspective is necessary to “join the cracks” and bridge knowledge gaps about the underlying mechanisms and effective management of these issues (cf. Aboelela et al., 2007; Bruhn, 1995; Choi & Pak, 2006; Mair, 2006; Maton, Perkins, & Saegert, 2006). Bruhn (1995) notes that such “undisciplined” or messy problems require more than a traditional, disciplined research approach. According to Mair (2006, p. 198), “rather than slicing one facet of social life and placing it under the ‘microscope,’ [we] must appreciate the varying and ever-changing set of relationships and entanglements that guide social life, as well as their various interpretations.” Life is complex, and we can really only understand it from a variety of disciplines that take each other into account, for a fuller and more meaningful explanation. Calling for interdisciplinary research, Bruhn (2000) argues that “it is the interaction between researchers from different disciplines that leads to greater creativity and insights into tackling complex problems” (p. 59, italics in original).
Another argument for interdisciplinary research is the realization that single phenomena can and should be looked at from different angles (Buller, 2008). As Popper (1963) noted many years ago: “We are not students of some subject matter, but students of problems. And problems may cut right across the borders of any subject matter or discipline” (p. 88). According to Bruhn (2000),
Problems do not fall neatly within disciplinary lines and disciplinary tools limit the parameters in which problems can be studied and solved. As a result the same problem may be studied simultaneously, but separately, by several researchers from different disciplines resulting in differing if not contradictory conclusions, and gaps usually appear [when aspects of a problem] were not addressed because they were [intruding on] another discipline. (p. 60)
We can consider the example of concussion in sport. This current topic can be and has been discussed, analyzed and managed from a variety of perspectives or lenses. It can be addressed as a medical issue (the pathology and treatment of the concussive state; e.g., Makdissi, Darby, Maruff, Ugoni, Brukner, & McCrory, 2010; Maroon, Lovell, Norwig, Podell, Powell, & Hartl, 2000), a legal issue (liability; safety considerations; e.g., Hecht, 2002; Osborne & Ammon, 2012), and a social and cultural issue (e.g., a circumstance of particular sports that have evolved to have greater cultural appeal; social resistance to the nature of those sports; tolerance for return to play following concussion; Culverhouse, 2011; DeNeui & Sachau, 1996; Eitzen, 2012; Hokowhitu, Sullivan, & Tumoana Williams, 2008). It can be and has been examined from a biomechanical perspective (the mechanisms of concussion; e.g., Delaney, Puni, & Rouah, 2006; Guskiewicz & Mihalik, 2011), a marketing perspective (“selling” sport with increased likelihood and incidence of concussion; e.g., Andrew, Koo, Hardin, &
Greenwell, 2009; Seungmo, Greenwell, Andrew, Lee, & Mahony, 2008), policy/governance perspectives (the regulatory environment—what should be controlled, and how; e.g., Goldberg, 2008; Greenhow, 2011), and perhaps many others. Interdisciplinarity would allow concussion in sport to be (re)defined, acknowledged, examined, understood, and ultimately managed as a phenomenon with physical, social and cultural features and consequences.
According to Buller (2008), scholars in areas such as these tend to view the phenomenon from their “distinct disciplinary perspectives and bodies of knowledge” even though concussion in sport “[does] not belong solely to one disciplinary family and not to another” (p. 395). An interdisciplinary approach to this issue, as an example, provides a format for conversations and connections that may advance fundamental understanding or solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or area of research practice. As Mair (2006, p. 199) notes, “partial understandings reveal only partial opportunities for social struggle and meaningful social change.” Spence (2012) echoes this arguing that, in the context of coaching psychology, “incomplete models of human experience [constrain us from] knowing what to do next” (p. 122).
Interdisciplinarity allows us to see alternative views of phenomena, such as “the bad and the ugly sides of sport” that Frisby (2005) refers to in her Zeigler lecture; notably, corruption, environmental destruction, fan violence, and labor conditions tied to sport. Frisby calls for a critical social science approach to research with its tasks of insight (questioning taken-for-granted knowledge regarding context and relationships), critique (determining how dominant practices favor certain groups), and transformative redefinition (through research that addresses new questions emerging from that critique); thus, exploring “alternative structures and arrangements in order to disrupt dominant discourses and established orders” (p. 8). Interdisciplinary research can facilitate this critical social science approach that encourages us to consider alternative perspectives (see also Mair, 2006).
Interdisciplinary research also allows alternative interpretations of findings. Bruhn (1995) notes that “serendipitous findings are [just as] likely to occur in an interdisciplinary [as] a traditional research project, but the meaning of those findings may take on greater importance when discussed by investigators from different perspectives” (p. 333). I expect many of us have looked at our findings of a particular study and wondered “well, what does that mean?!” Not only can interdisciplinary research help reframe our research questions, it can help us understand the findings.
Relatedly, interdisciplinary research is a (much-needed) response to “the disciplinary mode of research production [that has led] to an excessive fragmentation of knowledge” (Sa, 2008, p. 540). Even a quick look at the table of contents of the journals in our field provides some evidence of this with papers so narrowly focused they are likely of little interest to anyone outside the particular discipline. As McGrath (2007) notes, “management scholarship seems to draw upon disciplinary frameworks one discipline at a time” (p. 1372). This may be a function of limiting ourselves to variables and relationships that can be reasonably covered in one study (van Knippenberg, 2011); “focusing on what can be tested, rather than what should be tested” (Doherty, 2012, p. 2, italics in original). While a sound and distinct body of knowledge comes from drilling down to ever deeper and more specific research questions (consider, for example, our advancements in understanding corporate social responsibility in sport), we risk microtheorizing (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011), rather than developing and examining more complex frameworks that reflect many real world problems.
Again, traditional disciplinary research has its merits and its place in knowledge development. Indeed, sport management is strengthened by our disciplinary research. However, monodisciplinarity or developing and pursuing research questions only one way, to the exclusion of other perspectives, can be limiting and stifling.
In a similar fashion, some have spoken out against the monodisciplinary departmental “silos” in which we are increasingly situated, and isolated; where members do not communicate across disciplinary boundaries, to our frustration and disadvantage (Chalip, 2006; Mahony, 2008; Sa, 2008). Interdisciplinarity enables us to “overcome this silo mentality” (Mahony, 2008, p. 8).
Another reason for an interdisciplinary approach is that students are increasingly interested in and enthusiastic about problems of global importance. As noted earlier, social inequality, disease prevention, and climate change are just some of the complex problems that can be effectively and perhaps best addressed through interdisciplinary research. Today’s students are aware of and engaged in addressing these issues through, for example, service learning courses, alternative Spring Break programs, and summer volunteering abroad opportunities.
We need to consider the place of sport and sport management alongside other disciplines in addressing these and other complex problems (including sportrelated problems such as environmental destruction and third-world labor conditions [cf. Frisby, 2005; Thibault, 2009] and sport for development in third-world nations [cf. Kidd, 2008]), and be able to share that with our students. In doing so, we acknowledge that “the real problems of society do not come in discipline-shaped boxes” (Spence, 2012, p. 123) and we encourage students to look at phenomena from different angles, and presume that no one person (or discipline) has all the answers; that it “takes a village.”
Tony J. Watson, author of In Search of Management (Watson, 1994), noted over a decade ago that management is “an especially suitable case for interdisciplinary treatment… [as] issues of human individuality… [must] be related to issues of structure and process… of economic behavior [and] political activity” (Watson, 1997, p. 3) and so on. As such, we must draw not just from different dimensions within organization or management theory, but also turn to the theoretical insights of other disciplines across the social sciences (Watson, 1997). McGrath (2007) adds that management scholars in particular, and I would certainly include sport management scholars, have the opportunity and ability to integrate a variety of theoretical streams to create combinations of ideas that are relevant to managerial problems.
Sport management is a relatively young academic field (Chalip, 2006); however, we have come a long way (Cuneen, 2004; Inglis, 2007). According to Cuneen (2004), we have been moving from a field with “potential” to one with “merit,” with sport management clearly “entrenched in academe” (p. 1). Various sport management leaders note the strength of our continually developing sound body of knowledge and literature and, with specific regard to NASSM, a well-designed program approval process, rigorously reviewed research journal, and sound conference structure (Cuneen, 2004; Pitts, 2001) as evidence of our evolution as a field. Like the broader field of management (McGrath, 2007), academic organizations like NASSM have thriving memberships, and the number of undergraduate and graduate sport management programs continue to expand. Costa (2005) reports that leading sport management scholars from around the world indicate the sport management infrastructure, recognition of sport management as a legitimate field of study, and development of overall sport management knowledge as particular successes of the field, although with room for continued improvement. Indeed, in his Zeigler lecture, Chalip (2006) draws attention to a ‘healthy malaise’ in the field of sport management, suggesting that we cannot rest on our laurels (yet!). He particularly notes the importance of continuing to strengthen our discipline(s) so that we may better link, and I would add integrate, with other disciplines, such as public health, education, social services, law enforcement, foreign affairs, biotechnology, and so on. Buller (2008) notes that, “good interdisciplinarity requires strong disciplinarity” (p. 397). I believe we are on a sound path.
Further, leading sport management scholars have identified interdisciplinary research as a particularly important ideal and tactic for the future of quality sport management research (Costa, 2005). One of the reasons given was that interdisciplinarity “will allow us to leverage our theoretical and methodological expertise with that of scholars from other fields” (Costa, 2005, p. 141). Not only will this help to broaden our body of research (cf. Mahony, 2008), it will make our work more visible, recognized and valued and thus “enhance our professional development and image” (Weiss, 2008, p. 70), upping our cachet with other disciplines and fields. Interestingly, the scholars in Costa’s (2005) study felt that acceptance, credibility and respect of sport management researchers in the broader academy was another important ideal for the future, although they were not particularly confident this would be realized. Interdisciplinary research may, as it happens, enable sport management scholars to strengthen the field itself (through self-reflection, creative thinking, and broader research) while gaining a (further) foothold with other disciplines and fields.
Indeed, a few of our colleagues have recently drawn attention to the potential benefits of particular interdisciplinary research agendas, and I acknowledge here the suppositions of Schwarz (2010), Giulianotti and Klauser (2010), and Love and Andrew (2012). Schwarz makes a case for interdisciplinary dialogue between sport management and sport studies in the biophysical, psychosocial and sociocultural domains, while Love and Andrew argue for the intersection of sport management and sociology of sport research, although noting the “limited number of distinct paths connecting [these] two ‘sides’” to date (p. 252). Giulianotti and Klauser propose an interdisciplinary research agenda to examine the issues and problems that are being experienced with regard to security for sport mega-events. They argue that sport mega-event security should be examined from sociological, critical urban geography, and risk theory perspectives.
As Thibault (2009) notes in her Zeigler lecture, there are complex issues, particularly with the globalization of sport, that require our attention and involvement. She focuses on the “inconvenient truths” of these issues, which further highlights their complexity, beyond “the many virtues associated with the global movement in sport” (Thibault, 2009, p. 6); namely, the commodification and commercialization of sports in society, the environmental impact of sport and particularly mega sport events and facilities, and the use of developing countries’ workforce for the production of sportswear and equipment. The earlier example of concussion in sport and Giulianotti and Klauser’s (2010) example of sport mega-event security can certainly be added to that list.
We do not ‘own’ these (and other) issues just because they are about sport, nor do other fields or disciplines. But we can and perhaps should take the lead on developing interdisciplinary research to address them; we at least need to be in the game. In addition to generating new knowledge and creative solutions, a communal effort has, as noted earlier, the potential to strengthen our field and various disciplines. It can do so by helping us understand where and how sport management can engage with other disciplines beyond its traditional boundaries, and in turn by injecting new ideas (Mair, 2006) that can inform our theorizing (Doherty, 2012) and enhance the practical meaning of our scholarly work. Complex issues in sport may be an ideal opportunity for sport management to reach out and link with other disciplines in a “sport-focused” (Chalip, 2006) yet interdisciplinary research agenda.
Finally, interdisciplinary research, with its broader yet integrated focus that may generate more relevant knowledge, may be expected to help address the researchpractice gap; a gap that may in fact be a function of the specialized knowledge that is characteristic of disciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity provides “an opportunity for bridging the spaces where disciplinary thinking intersects” (Mair, 2006, p. 201). Those spaces likely contribute, at least in part, to the gap between our research and practice in the field. Practitioners face multifaceted problems and issues in the ‘real world’, for which there is unlikely one answer. Not only must our research address those questions and problems that are relevant in the field, but doing so with the benefit of multiple integrated perspectives may provide (more) meaningful insights and implications for practice. Reducing the gap through relevant knowledge is a desirable goal of interdisciplinary research.
Nevertheless, there are a number of challenges to interdisciplinary research; otherwise it would be more prevalent! First of all, it can be uncomfortable and intimidating to think this way, and to work this way. It may be (or at least feel) risky to talk outside one’s discipline. Interdiscplinary research is somewhat of a contradiction (Weingart, 2000), as we are trained and rewarded for our disciplinary work. It takes a sufficient “degree of comfort or security… [to] leave a fixed disciplinary platform in order to consider the influence of other factors, methods, and explanations for a problem” (Bruhn, 1995, p. 332). This comfort and security comes, at least in part, from strong disciplinarity (that is, knowledge, experience, and confidence in one’s own area), familiarity with other disciplines, and openness to alternative perspectives.
Second, interdisciplinary research can be difficult! Negotiating one’s way with colleagues from other disciplines can be challenging because of the “creative tension” that exists when it is believed that a certain perspective(s) takes precedence (Inglis, 2007). The interarticulation of different discourses that is necessary to arrive at a common language is a difficult path (Buller, 2008; Crow, Levine, & Nager, 1992; Choi & Pak, 2006; Oughton & Bracken, 2009; Spence, 2012).
Third, there is really no culture of interdisciplinary research in sport management and in many fields across the academy, nor in our institutions. True, current funding is increasingly available for this form of research, given the concern for addressing complex problems with greater breadth (e.g., the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in the U.S., and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC] and Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] in Canada; Porter et al.,
2006; Rhoten, 2004; Sa, 2008). Relatedly, there appears to be “widespread adoption of interdisciplinarity as an institutional goal or strategy among universities” over the past 10–15 years (Sa, 2008, p. 538; also Rhoten, 2004). However, there is reportedly lip service being paid to the call and support for truly interdisciplinary research initiatives (Bruhn, 2000; Porter et al., 2006; Rhoten, 2004; Sa, 2008); in many cases ‘settling,’ if you will, for multidisciplinary projects led by scholars working relatively independent of each other. These growing pains are fueled by continued institutional endorsement of traditional disciplinary research as a barometer of success (Bruhn, 2000; Rhoten, 2004; Sa, 2008). For example, Bruhn (2000) notes that it may be difficult, if not impossible, for junior nontenured faculty to conduct interdisciplinary research; it takes a great deal of time, which those in ‘publish or perish’ mode do not have, and it is generally not judged positively by disciplinary peers who question its quality and significance (also McGrath, 2007; Sa, 2008). As well, interdisciplinary research is expected to unfold within and among historically fragmented institutions characterized by disciplinary departmental “silos” that are not particularly accommodating to collaboration (Sa, 2008).
Linked to that is a lack of support for interdisciplinary research in the academy. Peer-reviewed journals across a number of fields and disciplines continue to favor disciplinary work and discourage papers that cross disciplinary boundaries as the latter tends to address multiple rather than specific audiences (Bruhn, 1995; McGrath, 2007) and may be hard to evaluate (Sa, 2008). Academics’ loyalty to their discipline(s) and related professional associations reinforces this focus (Sa, 2008). Indeed, Costa (2005) notes that interdisciplinary research “is not well accepted [and has a tendency to] ‘be marginalized’ in the sport management academy” (p. 129). The resources, rewards, and culture necessary to effectively support an interdisciplinary research strategy are generally lacking. I see these as very real but not insurmountable challenges to engaging in and realizing the benefits of interdisciplinary research.
Nonetheless, there is limited use of interdisciplinary research in the social sciences (National Academy of Sciences, 2005), from which the field of sport management is largely derived. So what are our chances of making this really happen, effectively? As Amis and Silk (2005) note, “a healthy sport management is surely one that is constantly questioning and challenging itself… we can go further in our efforts to embrace a wider variety of questions, approaches, and methods” (p. 355). In pointing out that “you cannot whistle a symphony,” Mahony (2008, p. 5) encourages us to involve others from outside of sport management in our research agendas.
I offer a personal example of how an interdisciplinary approach might be used to address a complex phenomenon, viewing it from several different angles, moving beyond a single disciplinary perspective and, ideally, helping to ‘fill the cracks’ and ‘bridge the gap between research and practice in the field. Building on an ongoing research program focused on community sport, I am excited about the prospect of extending my contribution to knowledge regarding the community sport environment by inviting to the table disciplinarians in philosophy, anthropology, child and youth physical and social development, leisure, government and public policy, urban planning, and community psychology, and perhaps other areas. It will be critical to relate each of our own perspectives to the others’, and to integrate common, complementary and even contrasting knowledge, questions and methods to arrive at a mutually-determined problem and the means to examine it. Ultimately, I expect my own, and others’, thinking about community sport to be relocated. The outcome of this communal effort will ideally be a research framework that guides the examination of concepts and the relationships among them that possibly no one in the group had considered before. As Mair (2006) notes, “having these [many and different] lenses brought together with an integrated focus holds the potential to develop better social theory… and real avenues for more effective social change” (p. 201).
Several ‘best practices’ for interdisciplinary research have been identified that can guide us forward. First, we can consider the people. There appears to be no magic number of people that should be involved, and certainly the research team composition may evolve. Aboelela et al. (2007) note that merely adding researchers from different disciplines does not make the effort interdisciplinary. Similarly, Crow et al. (1992, p. 751) note that “three heads are not [necessarily] better than one,” given some of the challenges of interdisciplinary research, but they certainly have the potential to be. Team members may be from different disciplines within a field or across fields, and collaborators may be found within one’s institution or beyond. (I would further argue that an interdisciplinary research team need not be restricted to scholars, but may benefit from practitioners representing different disciplines as well.) Interdisciplinarians tend to be “hybrid scholars” anyway, whose research already crosses borders. Certainly, to increase the chance of successful integration, a scholar must value diversity, have the capacity for self-assessment, and be sensitive to the dynamics inherent when different cultures (in this case disciplines) interact (Maton et al., 2006; Reich & Reich, 2006).
We can also consider best practices for the process of interdisciplinary research. The research team needs to have a leader and champion who may be constituted in advance or may emerge from the group (Bruhn, 1995). This person must have credibility with all members, and be a skilled moderator and mediator of personalities and disciplinary perspectives (Bruhn, 1995; Maton et al., 2006). There must be parity and reciprocity among members for successful integration (Crow et al., 1992), in the midst of an “acknowledged departure from the robustness of disciplinary-specific epistemologies and an acceptance of the inherent ‘messiness’ of communication” (Buller, 2008, p. 397). Researchers must be able “to make mistakes gracefully” (Aboelela et al., 2007). Research may begin as a multidisciplinary process, as a perhaps more comfortable starting point for members: Each disciplinary scholar or group may be directed to do their ‘bit,’ and then (re)convene further to relate, integrate, and ultimately relocate the research project going forward (cf. Buller, 2008). The resulting research framework must have conceptual and methodological integrity; that is, integrating material from different disciplines should “avoid an ‘anything goes’ approach” as concepts, theories, and methods that are put together indiscriminately are not likely to hold together from the start, or along the way (Watson, 1997, p. 4). Finally, effective interdisciplinary research requires good communication, trust, compromise and creativity (Aboelela et al., 2007; Bruhn, 1995, 2000; Maton et al., 2006; Oughton & Bracken, 2009). But perhaps mostly it needs opportunity.
That opportunity will be made more apparent if there is support from the academy. As scholars, colleagues, mentors, advisors, editors, and reviewers in the field of sport management, we need to be open to this alternative approach. Amis and Silk (2005) contend that “sport management is a field blinkered by disciplinarity” (p. 360). We can forge a new, additional path that welcomes a “variety of ways of seeing and interpreting in the pursuit of knowledge” (Amis & Silk, 2005, p. 361), and we can do this with the confidence of strong disciplines and a sound field behind us. Opportunity will be revealed in the development of both the practice and culture of interdisciplinary research in sport management, and the transmission of that to future investigators (cf. Bruhn, 1995; Maton et al., 2006).
As Mahony (2008) notes, “it is not a natural tendency in the academy to work across units on a campus or across universities. We tend to feel most comfortable operating in our own separate silos and sometimes have policies and procedures that work against collaboration” (p. 8). I encourage each of us to at least consider the interdisciplinary approach by reflecting on our own work and the various angles from which it might be examined. Surely some of us are ready to go there; to acknowledge that maybe we haven’t quite got the full, or even full enough picture and that additional and alternative disciplinary perspectives may be meaningful to help us better understand the problems and issues we are examining. We may also ponder how our line of inquiry might fit with broader research questions or problems. We should think outside the lines: Critique what we each have done to date, and reflect on what else we might do; and, look across our respective units, faculties and universities, and consider what other disciplines and particular research projects resonate with our own.
Sport management is just one street in a bigger village. We need to cross the street and even head to the park to see who we might ‘play’ with. As my 12-year old would say, “I’m going to see who’s there, and what they are doing; maybe get in a game.”
1. As Bruhn (1995) notes, the interdisciplinary approach is not for everyone, nor for every research problem. Several authors note particular conditions under which disciplinary, multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research may be most appropriate (e.g., Choi & Pak, 2006; Maton et al., 2006; Spence, 2012). In this paper I make a case for interdisciplinary research broadly; however, the reader is encouraged to consider its use with regard to different research conditions.
|
Aboelela, S.W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S.A., . . . Gebbie, K.M. (2007). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42, 329–346. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00621.x
Amis, J., & Silk, M. (2005). Rupture: Promoting critical and innovative approaches to the study of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 355–366.
Andrew, D.P.S., Koo, G., Hardin, R., & Greenwell, T.C. (2009). Analyzing motives of minor league hockey fans: The introduction of violence as a spectator motive. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 5, 73–89. doi:10.1504/IJSMM.2009.021751
Bruhn, J.G. (1995). Beyond discipline: Creating a culture for interdisciplinary research. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 30, 331–341. doi:10.1007/ BF02691605
Bruhn, J.G. (2000). Interdisciplinary research: A philosophy, art form, artifact or antidote? Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 35, 58–66. doi:10.1007/BF02911166
Buller, H. (2008). The lively process of interdisciplinarity. Area, 41, 395–403. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2008.00856.x
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.
Chelladurai, P. (2009). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Choi, B.C.K., & Pak, A.W.P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Medecine Clinique et Experimentale, 29, 351–364.
Clinton, H.R. (1996). It takes a village: And other lessons children teach us. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Costa, C.A. (2005). The status and future of sport management: A Delphi study. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 117–142.
Crow, G.M., Levine, L., & Nager, N. (1992). Are three heads better than one? Reflections on doing collaborative interdisciplinary research. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 737–753.
Culverhouse, G. (2011). Throwaway players: The concussion crisis from pee wee football to the NFL. Lake Forest, CA: Behler.
Cuneen, J. (2004). Managing program excellence during our transition from potential to merit. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 1–12.
Delaney, S., Puni, V., & Rouah, F. (2006). Mechanisms of injury for concussions in university football, ice hockey, and soccer: A pilot study. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 16, 162–165. doi:10.1097/00042752-200603000-00013
DeNeui, D.L., & Sachau, D.A. (1996). Spectator enjoyment of aggression in intercollegiate hockey games. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 21, 69–77.
Doherty, A. (1998). Managing our human resources: A review of organizational behaviour in sport. Sport Management Review, 1, 1–24. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(98)70097-X
Doherty, A. (2012). Investing in sport management: The value of good theory. Sport Management Review, 10.1016/j. smr.2011.112.006.
Eitzen, D.S. (2012). Fair and foul: Beyond the myths and paradoxes of sport. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1–12.
Giulianotti, R., & Klauser, F. (2010). Security governance and sport mega-events: Toward an interdisciplinary research agenda. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 34, 49–61. doi:10.1177/0193723509354042
Goldberg, D.S. (2008). Concussions, professional sports, and conflicts of interest: Why the National Football League’s current policies are bad for its’ (players’) health. HEC Forum, 20, 337–355. doi:10.1007/s10730-008-9079-0
Greenhow, A. (2011). Concussion policies of the National Football League: Revisiting the ‘Sport Administrator’s Charter’ and the role of the Australian Football League and National Rugby League in concussion management. Sports Law eJournal. Retrieved August 23, 2012 from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/slej/13.
Guskiewicz, K.M., & Mihalik, J.P. (2011). Biomechanics of sport concussion: Quest for the elusive injury threshold. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 39, 4–11. doi:10.1097/JES.0b013e318201f53e
Hecht, A.N. (2002). Legal and ethical aspects of sports-related concussions: The Merril Hoge story. Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law, 12, 17–64.
Hokowhitu, B., Sullivan, S.J., & Tumoana Williams, L.R. (208). Rugby culture, ethnicity and concussion. MAI Review, 1, Article 4. Retrieved August 23, 2012 from http://review. mai.ac.nz/index.php/MR/article/view/82/110.
Hoye, R., Smith, A., Nicholson, M., Stewart, B., & Westerbeek, H. (2009). Sport management: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Inglis, S. (2007). Creative tensions and conversations in the academy. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 1–14.
Kidd, B. (2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society, 11, 370–380. doi:10.1080/17430430802019268
Love, A., & Andrew, D.P.S. (2012). The intersection of sport management and sociology of sport research: A social network perspective. Sport Management Review, 15, 244–256. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2011.08.001
Mahony, D.F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10.
Mair, H. (2006). The potential of interdisciplinarity for leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 28, 197–202. doi:10.1080/01490400500484099
Makdissi, M., Darby, D., Maruff, P., Ugoni, A., Brukner, P., & McCrory, P. (2010). Natural history of concussion in sport: Markers of severity and implications for management. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 464–471. doi:10.1177/0363546509349491
Maroon, J., Lovell, M.R., Norwig, J., Podell, K., Powell, J.W., & Hartl, R. (2000). Cerebral concussion in athletes: Evaluation and neuropsychological testing. Neurosurgery, 47, 659–672.
Maton, K.I., Perkins, D.D., & Saegert, S. (2006). Community psychology at the crossroads: Prospects for interdisciplinary research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 9–21. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9062-3
McGrath, R.G. (2007). No longer a stepchild: How the management field can come into its own. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1365–1378. doi:10.5465/ AMJ.2007.28166144
National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.
Osborne, B., & Ammon, R. (2012, May). Heading off traumatic brain injury: An analysis of concussion legislation in the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, Seattle, WA.
Oughton, E., & Bracken, L. (2009). Interdisciplinary research: Framing and reframing. Area, 41, 385–394. doi:10.1111/ j.1475-4762.2009.00903.x
Peetz, T.B., & Reams, L. (2011). A content analysis of Sport Marketing Quarterly: 1992-2011. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20, 209–218.
Pederson, P.M., Parks, J., Quarterman, J., & Thibault, L. (2011). Contemporary sport management (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1–9.
Pitts, B.G., & Pederson, P.M. (2005). Examining the body of scholarship in sport management: A content analysis of the Journal of Sport Management. The SMART Journal, 2, 33–52.
Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Porter, A.L., Roessner, J.D., Cohen, A.S., & Perrault, M. (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics and nurture. Research Evaluation, 15, 187–195. doi:10.3152/147154406781775841
Reich, S.M., & Reich, J.A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 51–62. doi:10.1007/s10464- 006-9064-1
Rhoten, D. (2004). Interdisciplinary research: Trends and transitions. Items – Social Science Research Council, 5, 6-11. Retrieved August 24, 2012 from http://www.ncar.ucar. edu/ Director/survey/Interdisciplinary%20Research%20 Trend%20or%20Transition.v2.pdf.
Sa, C.M. (2008). ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. Higher Education, 55, 537–552. doi:10.1007/ s10734-007-9073-5
Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36, 338–360. doi:10.5465/ AMR.2011.59330942
Schwarz, E.C. (2010). The reciprocal and influential connection between sport marketing and management and the sport sciences. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 7(1/2), 33–43. doi:10.1504/ IJSMM.2010.029710
Seungmo, K., Greenwell, T.C., Andrew, D.P.S., Lee, J., & Mahony, D.F. (2008). An analysis of spectator motives in an individual combat sport: A study of mixed martial arts fans. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 109–119.
Spence, G.B. (2012). Coaching and cross disciplinary collaboration: More complexity and chaos? International Coaching Psychology Review, 7, 122–136.
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 1–20.
Van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Advancing theory in organizational psychology. Organizational. Psychological Review, 1, 3–8.
Watson, T.J. (1994). In search of management. London: Routledge.
Watson, T.J. (1997). Theorizing managerial work: A pragmatic pluralist approach to interdisciplinary research. British Journal of Management, 8, 3–8. doi:10.1111/1467- 8551.00034
Weingart, P. (2000). Interdisciplinarity: The paradoxical discourse. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Eds.), Practicing interdisciplinarity (pp. 25–41). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Weiss, M.R. (2008). “Riding the wave”: Transforming sport and exercise psychology within an interdisciplinary vision. Quest, 60, 63–83. doi:10.1080/00336297.2008. 10483569
Zeigler, E.F. (2003). Guiding professional students to literacy in physical activity education. Quest, 55, 285–305. doi:1 0.1080/00336297.2003.10491805
Zeigler, E.F. (2007). Sport management must show concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 297–318.
Zeigler, E.F. (2011, June). Sport as a key partner in the “reign of the Big Four”. Keynote paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American Society for Sport Management, London, ON.
Zeigler, E.F., & Spaeth, M.J. (1975). Administrative theory and practice in physical education and athletics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Interdependence, Mutuality, and Collective Action in Sport
|
George B. Cunningham Texas A & M University
|
2013
|
In this paper, from the Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Award Lecture presented in Austin, Texas, the author proposes that all persons have an obligation to ensure sport is inclusive and socially just. Works from a variety of disciplines, including religion, sociology, and social psychology, support the thesis. The author calls for collective action among sport management academicians, coalesced around teaching, research, and service to promote change. The final sections address potential counter narratives and provide an overview of the outcomes associated with an inclusive and socially just sport environment.
I have spent most of my career studying diversity in the sport and physical activity context. My colleagues and I have examined how members of under-represented groups experience sport as participants, coaches, and administrators. We have also focused on prejudice, stigma, and discrimination, and their role in personnel decisions, marketing efforts, and physical activity opportunities. We have also examined diversity’s influence on important work processes and performance outcomes. In an effort to capture this focus, I created a word cloud consisting of all of our manuscript titles (see Figure 1).
Throughout this time, I have observed that, frequently, the people most interested in diversity are members of under-represented groups. For instance, scholars who study gender issues are most likely to be women, just as conference presentations focusing on race are most likely to be given by Latinos and African Americans. We have observed a similar pattern in our research of people working in sport organizations: people who are not in the typical majority are most likely to champion diversity (Cunningham & Sartore, 2010) and openly advocate for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees in the workplace (Melton & Cunningham, 2012).
Some might argue that such a pattern is logical, as members from under-represented groups have a vested interest in those research topics. They might have personally experienced prejudice while participating in sport, or know someone who has; thus, they have a direct stake in their research program. The other side of that coin, of course, is that men, Whites, and heterosexuals lack such a personal stake; consequently, it is equally understandable, from this position, for them to not research diversity and social justice issues or advocate for equality in the workplace.
In this paper, I argue that such a perspective is either naïve, short sighted, or imperceptive. Instead, I submit that we all have a stake in ensuring sport is inclusive and socially just. We are all impacted, be it directly or indirectly, by structures, systems, and cultures that engender inequality. And as such, we are all equally bound to engage in collective action to ensure that sport is a space where all can be physically active, and where opportunities to be successful are not based on how we look or who we love, but on competencies and skill sets. Regardless of where we focus our scholarly efforts or the subjects of the courses we teach, we can all, in some way, contribute to a socially just sport environment. In what follows, I draw from literature in a variety of disciplines, including religion, sociology, and social psychology, to expand on this thesis and offer various mechanisms through which such action can result in meaningful change.
A key element to my thesis is that we are inextricably connected with one another. The ideas I advance and behaviors in which I engage certainly impact me, but they also influence others, either directly or indirectly. Indeed, we share a common ancestry and personhood, and as such, we both impact and are impacted by one another.
I admit that such a position is not a novel one. Socrates, elements of different religious traditions, Beethoven, and the Wachowski siblings, among many others, have all presented a similar position in one way or another. Lucie Thibault’s (2009) wonderfully engaging Zeigler address did the same, highlighting globalization’s far-reaching impact on all persons. The late pastor and civil rights leader Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King also captured this sentiment in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Writing to Southern White clergy members while he was imprisoned, King noted:
Figure 1 — Illustrative Summary of Research Focus
I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states… Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. (as cited in Gottlieb, 2003, p. 178)
His prose highlights our common humanity and the outcomes—justice or the lack thereof—we share.
There is also empirical evidence from a variety of disciplines illustrating as much. Consider, for instance, research focusing on workplace incivility, a form of subtle discrimination. We know that people who are subjected to uncivil behaviors experience work poorly. But there is also research showing the effects are much more encompassing. Simply observing uncivil behavior can negatively impact some people (Cunningham, Miner, & Benavides-Espinoza, 2012; Hitlan, Schneider, & Walsh, 2006; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2007), and mistreatment of women in the workplace has a collective negative impact on everyone’s work experiences (Glomb, Richman, Hulin, & Drasgow, 1997). This research demonstrates that incivility impacts not just the perpetrator or the victim, but also other employees.
As another example, consider the prevalence of sport marketing strategies objectifying women as a way to sell everything from watches to tickets for sport events.
While sex might sell, and thus line sport administrators’ and owners’ pockets, it also has negative psychological effects for those viewing it. A series of provocative studies from Elizabeth Daniels shows that girls and women who observe hyper-sexualized images of female athletes are more likely to have negative body images themselves (Daniels, 2009) and express anger over the objectification of women in sport (Daniels, 2012). Boys who view these images are likely to view the hyper-sexualized female athletes as sex objects (Daniels & Wartena, 2011). On the other hand, when female athletes are depicted in strong, athletic poses, girls and women are likely to have positive body images (Daniels, 2009) and view athletes as role models (Daniels, 2012), while boys are more likely to value women’s accomplishments (Daniels & Wartena, 2011).
Our interconnectedness also manifests through welcoming work environments. Researchers have firmly established the relationship between inclusiveness and physical activity participation among members of underrepresented groups (e.g., Lucas-Carr & Krane, 2012; Utsey, Payne, Jackson, & Jones, 2002; Zipp, 2011). But, the benefits of diversity and inclusion are far more encompassing than this relationship. Florida (2002, 2003, 2012), for instance, has shown that creative, talented people are attracted to areas where inclusiveness is the norm, and it is these people who are largely responsible for driving economic growth. We see similar patterns in the sport context, where diversity and inclusion are associated with the attraction and retention of a talented workforce (Cunningham, 2008; Fink et al., 2001; 2003), workplace creativity (Cunningham, 2011a), economic gains (Cunningham & Singer, 2011), and objective measures of performance (Cunningham, 2009; 2011b). These outcomes benefit all persons in the workplace, not just members of under-represented groups.
These examples offer empirical support for King’s contention: we are all connected with one another such that the justice, equality, and inclusion affect every individual. And, if this is the case, then the implications are profound. We, as a collective body of sport management scholars, can no longer pretend that the perils of globalization, issues of access, the prevalence of prejudice and discrimination, or the presence of inequality do not impact everyone; because they do. And we can no longer let the few be responsible for ensuring access and equality for all sportspersons; instead, it is the job of the whole—each and every one of us. This understanding of our interdependence and interconnectedness requires collective action aimed at guaranteeing that sport is characterized by inclusion and social justice (for additional evidence of the link between common identity and collective action, see Simon et al., 1998; Subasic, Schmitt, & Reynolds, 2011).
But let me extend this line of reasoning further. I submit that when we are aware of injustice and fail to act, we are complicit in its perpetuation. In channeling the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel (2008), our silence only benefits the oppressors, not the oppressed. It promotes inequality, not access and opportunity. Let us again consider the words of King in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” The latter part of his prose was directed toward White moderates—clergy members who acknowledged the need for change but were unwilling to be involved. They urged King to be patient and wait for transformations to occur at a later time. King countered that no meaningful change, no quest for equality, ever came about through placidity or because of the natural passage of time. He wrote:
‘We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work [of people pursuing change and justice]’ (as cited in Gottlieb, 2003, p. 182).
And so it is in the current time, as justice and equality in sport will only be realized through our collective actions—not our silence.
How, then, might this collective action be realized? We have many possibilities, all of which coalesce around our three primary activities in the academy: teaching, research, and service. To be clear, I am not suggesting that everyone shift their research focus, for instance, to one of inclusion and justice. Rather, what I offer here is that we have the opportunity—a responsibility—to find how, irrespective of our research niches or teaching expertise, we can contribute to a more just and inclusive sport environment. By effectively integrating these efforts, we can realize synergistic outcomes.
Within the realm of teaching, our collective action means that we teach for a social good. This might occur, for instance, by adopting a critical approach to our educational endeavors—an approach that differs from the prevailing conservative nature of sport management education (Zakus, Malloy, & Edwards, 2007). As Shaw, Wolfe, and Frisby (2011) have shown, this means teaching our students to question taken-for-granted norms and assumptions, challenge the status quo, and engage in transformative activities (see also Adler, Forbes, & Willmott, 2007; Shaw & Frisby, 2006). And, we must also participate in these activities in our roles as mentors and professors.
Teaching for social good might also take the form of intentionally affecting our communities through sport. I am encouraged that many of our colleagues across the academy have adopted this approach—one aptly illustrated by the efforts at Seattle University. Here, event management and marketing students partnered with Street Soccer Seattle to host a street soccer tournament in the community. The event served two purposes: (a) giving people who love soccer an opportunity to play and compete and (b) generating awareness about the benefits of street soccer for those effected by homelessness. We know from previous research that such events can be used to increase the social and cultural capital among those experiencing homelessness (Lyras & Welty Peachey, 2011; Welty Peachey, Cohen, Borland, & Lyras, 2013). Thus, in addition to learning practical, hands-on skills related to developing and promoting events, the students used sport to meaningfully affect change in their communities. In the process, they also developed more inclusive attitudes toward people experiencing homelessness. This is, I submit, sport management education at its best.
In addition, engaging in collective action also means conducting research to promote diversity and inclusion. Given the importance of theory in the advancement of a discipline and scientific innovation (Cunningham, 2013; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000), our primary efforts should entail developing theory focused on achieving equality, inclusion, and opportunity in sport and physical activity. Others, such as Zeigler (2007) and Frisby (2005), have advanced similar positions. Frisby, for example, suggested that sport management scholars were uniquely positioned to question how industry practices and norms produce and reproduce inequalities. Similarly, Zeigler suggested “theory should relate to sport and physical activity involvement for all people of all ages, be they normal, accelerated, or special in status” (p. 298). I concur with these positions and submit that we need many theories addressing this issue. To borrow from Mintzberg (2005), “we need all kinds of theories—the more the better. As researchers, scholars, and teachers, our obligation is to stimulate thinking, and a good way to do that is to offer alternate theories—multiple explanations of the same phenomena” (p. 365).
Beyond theory development, we need renewed research efforts aimed at promoting access and inclusion. Most of the work in this area has taken place in the field, through participatory action research projects, case studies, ethnography, or other forms of qualitative field work (e.g., Frisby, Crawford, & Dorer, 1997; Lucas-Carr & Krane, 2012; Welty Peachey et al., 2013). In many ways, working so closely alongside sport and physical activity participants allows all involved with a unique opportunity to affect change. And, because of this, some might argue that research aimed at promoting access and inclusion should follow this path, adopting a critical or emancipatory lens. I am not, however, necessarily convinced this is the case. Social psychologists have a long, rich history in using laboratory and field-based experiments to understand the nature of prejudice and methods of prejudice reduction (for a review, see Paluck & Green, 2009). There is similar work in our own discipline, where, for example, some scholars have effectively employed experimental designs to promote more inclusive language (e.g., Parks & Roberton, 2002). Large-scale survey research also has the potential to promote social justice and equality. We have shown, for instance, that all forms of diversity, when coupled with an inclusive workplace culture, can be a source of enrichment and success (Cunningham, 2008, 2009, 2011a, 2011b). Leaders have used these findings to bolster their arguments for the value of diversity within the intercollegiate athletics setting (e.g., Brand, 2009). In short, we should use all our skill sets—and our varied paradigmatic lens—to collectively engage in research action aimed at promoting equality and inclusion.
Finally, engaging in collective action means our service and outreach activities are focused on creating and sustaining diverse and inclusive sport spaces. It means strategically allocating our time and efforts to activities where change can be realized. This can take place within our programs, colleges, or universities. Or, collective action through service might mean working with local communities for equality and change.
I provide two illustrative examples here. At Drexel University, Ellen Staurowsky and her colleagues started the LGBT Issues in Sport Blog in the fall of 2012, with the intended purpose of being “the premier online location to share information and resources regarding LGBTQ issues in sport” (2014). The focus is on translational research efforts, distilling scholarly work for mass consumption. In this way, the blog serves to bridge the gap between social scientists whose work focuses on LGBT inclusion and the coaches, administrators, and players who can use this scholarship in their everyday activities.
As another example, Corliss Outley (2013) led an effort to involve youth in the political process of improving their cities’ neighborhoods and decreasing the incidence of childhood obesity. The focus on neighborhoods is particularly important considering the built environment is a key factor influencing physical activity levels, particularly among racial minorities and the poor (Henderson, 2009; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). The adolescents, which included boys and girls from 6th to 9th grade, participated in a multiweek leadership training program and then conducted an assessment of different neighborhoods to determine issues related to walkability and safety, among other factors. They then developed reports, and presented their findings and recommendations to the city councils and various groups. This service project not only helped instill leadership skills, but because most of the recommendations were eventually implemented, it showed the youth that they could be agents of change in bettering their communities.
As these examples illustrate, we can, through our teaching, research, and service, collectively affect sport and physical activity, making it more inclusive and socially just. But, I also recognize, that not everyone will necessarily agree with this position. Thus, in the final section, I address counter narratives—sources of resistance to participating in collective action. I highlight two here.
The first counter narrative is one of trepidation and resistance. In this case, some might suggest that while they appreciate my views and even support some forms of equality and inclusion, they have anxiety about supporting others. In this case, people might not welcome or desire an increase in the proportion of people who, for instance, have different political beliefs, whose sexual orientation or gender identity is different from theirs, or who worship a different god, or who worship no god at all. Such perspectives are a very real part of some teams and sport organizations.
It is important to remember, though, that beliefs people have about others are not innate, but instead, are socially constructed. The social psychology literature is rich with examples showing that people’s biases and perceptions are shaped by history, interactions with others, and their lived experiences (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005; Paluck & Green, 2009). As such, just as we have learned to harbor prejudice toward others, we can also take steps to increase our cultural competencies and improve our attitudes toward people who are not like us. While there are many ways to do this, perhaps the most effective one is contact—be around others who are different.
When we enmesh ourselves in activities with others who are from different backgrounds, very interesting things are likely to occur. We learn something about those who differ from us, the anxiety we might have otherwise felt will decrease, and we will develop empathy and perspective taking (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2008). All of these should serve to reduce biases and the resistance toward those out-group members.
I have certainly found this to be the case in my own life. In fact, over the past year, I have: organized and hosted a conference focusing on sexual orientation and gender identity in sport; served as president of Aggie Allies, an organization providing support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in the Texas A&M community; participated in two trips to Trinidad and Tobago as a way of developing cross-cultural collaborations to investigate childhood obesity; taken part in various interfaith dialogue gatherings; served on committees aimed at advancing women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields; marched with individuals from various races on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day; helped coach a baseball team for people with mental disabilities; and volunteered at the food bank each month. In each case, I have been the minority within that context, and without fail, these experiences have allowed me to learn, grow, and develop as a person.
A second counter narrative is one of impact: some might question the difference they can make in the larger sport landscape. But let’s not sell ourselves short. While solitary efforts to promote diversity and inclusion might only represent an ant hill, it is the collection of ant hills, built on top of one another that make a mountain (see also Valian, 1996). Every effort counts, and our collective action, as sport managers, can and will make a difference.
One need only examine the work of Jeanne Manford. For those who might not be familiar with Manford, she was the founder of PFLAG, or Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (see community.pflag. org). She started this organization in 1972 after her son, who was gay, had been harassed and mistreated. What started as a small organization—an effort to support her son—grew over time, such that by the time of her death in 2013, PFLAG had over 200,000 members and 350 affiliates in the US. In describing the impact she had, President Obama noted that hers was:
The story of America: an ordinary citizen, organizing, agitating, and advocating for change. Of hope stronger than hate. Of love more powerful than any insult or injury. Of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second class citizen, which no one is denied their basic rights, and in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (as cited in PFlag National video file, 2013)
Some of our colleagues, such as Pat Griffin and Richard Lapchick, have followed this path. But, we need more Jeanne Manford-like people in sport and physical activity–more people who love; more people who see injustice and take a stand; more people who fight for the rights not just of themselves, but for all persons; and more people who encourage and empower others to stand with them. When this happens, when more sport management educators, students, and scholars join in the fight for equality and justice, then real change can and will happen.
Former United Nations secretary general Dag Hammarskjold once said, “In our age, the road to holiness necessarily passes through the world of action” (1967, p. 23). So, too, does the path to equality, access, and inclusion. We are all connected to one another, intertwined in our actions and words by our common humanity. And, as such, we, as a communal sport management body, have a responsibility to engage in collective action—efforts manifested through our teaching, research, and service activities. In doing so, we can and will create change, as I am convinced that what we do, what we say, and the love we show others can and will make a difference.
|
Adler, P. S., Forbes, L. C., & Willmott, H. (2007). Critical management studies. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The Academy of Management Annals (Vol. 1, p. 119–179). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brand, M. (2009, March). Diversity hiring is right, smart. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/myles-brand/diversity-hiring-is-right_b_173719. html.
Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Commitment to diversity and its influence on athletic department outcomes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 1(2), 176–201.
Cunningham, G. B. (2009). The moderating effect of diversity strategy on the relationship between racial diversity and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(6), 1445–1460. doi:10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2009.00490.x.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011a). Creative work environments in sport organizations: The influence of sexual orientation diversity and commitment to diversity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(8), 1041–1057. doi:10.1080/00918369.201 1.598413.
Cunningham, G. B. (2011b). The LGBT advantage: Examining the relationship among sexual orientation diversity, diversity strategy, and performance. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 453–461. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2010.11.003.
Cunningham, G. B. (2013). Theory and theory development in sport management. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.01.006.
Cunningham, G. B. & Sartore, M. L. (2010). Championing diversity: The influence of personal and organizational antecedents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 788–810. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00598.x.
Cunningham, G. B. & Singer, J. N. (2011). The primacy of race: Department diversity and its influence on the attraction of a diverse fan base and revenues generated. International Journal of Sport Management, 12(2), 176–190.
Cunningham, G. B., Miner, K., & Benavides-Espinoza, C. (2012). Emotional reactions to observing misogyny: Examining the roles of gender, forecasting, political orientation, and religiosity. Sex Roles, 67(1-2), 58–68. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0121-y.
Daniels, E. A. (2009). Sex objects, athletes, and sexy athletes: How media representations of women athletes can impact adolescent girls and college women. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(4), 399–422. doi:10.1177/0743558409336748.
Daniels, E. A. (2012). Sexy versus strong: What girls and women think of female athletes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 79–90. doi:10.1016/j. appdev.2011.12.002.
Daniels, E. A. & Wartena, H. (2011). Athlete or sex symbol: What boys think of media representations of female athletes. Sex Roles, 65(7-8), 566–579. doi:10.1007/s11199- 011-9959-7.
Drexel University. Re: LGBT Issues in Sport Blog: Theory to Practice. (2014) Retrieved from http://stream.goodwin. drexel.edu/lgbtsportresearchnet/?page_id=189.
Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). On the nature of prejudice. Fifty years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Managing diversity in Division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 10–50.
Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2003). Managing employee diversity: Perceived practices and organizational outcomes in NCAA Division III athletic departments. Sport Management Review, 6, 147-168.
Florida, R. (2002). The economic geography of talent. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(4), 743–755. doi:10.1111/1467-8306.00314.
Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community, 2(1), 3–19. doi:10.1111/1540-6040.00034.
Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class, revisited. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Frisby, W., Crawford, S., & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participatory action research: The case of low income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 8–28.
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 1–12.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 309–328. doi:10.1006/ obhd.1997.2728.
Gottlieb, R. S. (Ed.). (2003). Liberating faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, and ecological wisdom. New York: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Hammarskjold, D. (1967). Markings (Sjoberg, L. & Auden, W. H. (trans.). London: Faber and Faber.
Henderson, K. A. (2009). A paradox of sport management and physical activity interventions. Sport Management Review, 12(2), 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2008.12.004.
Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T., & Walsh, B. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55(3-4), 187–195. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9072-5.
Kerlinger, F. N. & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, Texas: Harcourt College Publishers.
Lucas-Carr, C. B. & Krane, V. (2012). Troubling sport or troubled by sport: Experiences of transgender athletes. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 6(1), 21–44.
Lyras, A. & Welty Peachey, J. (2011). Integrating sport-fordevelopment theory and praxis. Sport Management Review, 14(4), 311–326. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.006.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377. doi:10.1177/109019818801500401.
Melton, E. N. & Cunningham, G. B. (2012). Who are the champions? Using a multilevel model to examine perceptions of employee support for LGBT inclusion in sport organizations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Miner-Rubino, K. & Cortina, L. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254–1269. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254.
Mintzberg, H. (2005). Developing theory about the development of theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (p. 355–372). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Outley, C. (2013, April). Race, ethnicity, and youth development. Paper presented at Teaching Locally, Engaging Globally: Increasing Undergraduate’s Knowledge of the International Dimension of Childhood Obesity, Trinidad and Tobago.
Paluck, E. L. & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607.
Parks, J. B. & Roberton, M. A. (2002). The gender gap in student attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language: Implications for sport management education. Journal of Sport Management, 16(3), 190–208.
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.90.5.751.
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504.
PFlag National. (2013, April 18). President Obama Tells the Story of PFLAG [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=l6MB2Xaa00s.
Russell, G. M. (2011). Motives of heterosexual allies in collective action for equality. The Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 376–393. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01703.x.
Shaw, S. & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 483–509.
Shaw, S., Wolfe, R., & Frisby, W. (2011). A critical management studies approach to sport management education: Insights, challenges and opportunities. Sport Management Education Journal, 5(1), 1–13.
Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., Kampmeier, C., Spahlinger, P. (1998). Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 646–658. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.646.
Subasic, E., Schmitt, M.T., & Reynolds, K.J. (2011). Are we all in this together? Co-victimization, inclusive social identity, and collection action in solidarity with the disadvantaged. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 707–725. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02073.x.
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 1–20.
Utsey, S.O., Payne, Y.A., Jackson, E.S., & Jones, A.M. (2002). Race-related stress, quality of life indicators, and life satisfaction among elderly African Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(3), 224–233. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.8.3.224.
Valian, V. (1996). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Welty Peachey, J., Cohen, A., Borland, J., & Lyras, A. (2013). Building social capital: Examining the impact of Street Soccer USA on its volunteers. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(1), 20–37. doi:10.1177/1012690211432068.
Wiesel, E. (2008). The night trilogy: Night, Dawn, Day. New York: Hill and Wang.
Zakus, D., Malloy, D.C., & Edwards, A. (2007). Critical and ethical thinking in sport management: Philosophical rationales and examples of methods. Sport Management Review, 10(2), 133–158. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(07)70008-6.
Zeigler, E.F. (2007). Sport management must show social concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 297–318.
Zipp, J.F. (2011). Sport and sexuality: Athletic participation by sexual minority and sexual majority adolescents in the US. Sex Roles, 64(1), 19–31. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9865-4.
---
|
George B. Cunningham wishes to thank E. Nicole Melton and Janet S. Fink for their constructive feedback with earlier versions of this manuscript.
|
n/a
|
What to Study? That Is a Question: A Conscious Thought Analysis
|
James Jianhui Zhang University of Georgia
|
2014
|
This lecture was intended to continue the discussions on why and how to establish a distinctive sport management discipline that was initiated by previous Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award recipients. Through applying the dual process theory (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), it was intended to explore the differences between tangible and intangible variables, how they have been studied as distinct perspectives, and how they can be integrated through two application examples, one on service quality of sport event operations and the other on market demand for sport events. Hopefully, this lecture would help reenergize the discussions and inquiries on this important matter. These illustrations are certainly debatable and subject to further empirical examinations.
I am extremely honored to receive the 2014 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award. I would like to pay my utmost tribute to Dr. Earle F. Zeigler, whose extraordinary wisdom, teaching, scholarship, leadership, professionalism, and overall contribution to the establishment and advancement of sport management as a discipline of study are the highest standard of excellence in our profession. Since its inception in 1989, 25 scholars have received the prestigious Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award. I am humbled to join this group of outstanding scholars, who are my role models that I have immensely admired and learned from. This is a rare and distinguished honor, and I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to the NASSM Award Committee and the NASSM Executive Council for selecting me for this award.
I would like to dedicate this great honor to Professor Yu Ma, the founding father of the academic discipline of sport management in China. Without his guidance, support, and love, I would never have had an opportunity to come to study in North America. A number of professors have been instrumental to my education, learning, and development, including but not limited to Drs. Barbara E. Jensen, Betty L. Mann, and Kenneth A. Wall of Springfield College, and Drs. Andrew S. Jackson, Dale G. Pease, and Dennis W. Smith at the University of Houston. I have been very fortunate to work and collaborate with many wonderful colleagues and students at the University of Houston, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, and other institutions; I want to express my earnest gratitude to them. Over 27 years ago, I came from China to study in the United States; since then, over the span of almost three decades, there has not been a day that I would forget, as an Asian, my obligations to contribute to the development of sport management studies in Asia as I was told to do by Professor Ma 30 years ago. My sincere appreciation goes to Shanghai University of Sport for recently naming me as an Honorary Dean of its College of Sport Economics and Management, which would be a symbolic platform for me to provide services to China and other parts of Asia. Finally, I want to thank my family (my wife, Julia; son, James; and daughter, Stephanie) for their unconditional support, and my parents (Hongmao Zhang and Rongju Liu) for unselfishly sending their eldest son far away from China. I often wish I was more available to care for them.
In this lecture, I will first discuss the necessity and merits of forming a distinctive sport management discipline. Then, through applying the dual process theory (DPT; Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006) that explains a social phenomenon from divergent paradigms of conscious and unconscious reasoning, I would like to expand the discussion on how to integrate the two perspectives, apply them in various sport industry settings, and produce knowledge that is sport industry specific. The discussion is concluded by recommending the adoption of the DPT to progressively advance sport management as a distinctive discipline of study.
Reviewing the previous Earle F. Zeigler Lectures, from 1989 to 2013, it is apparent that each addressed a critical issue(s) at the time the particular lecture was delivered. These lectures focused on research, teaching, programming, and/or strategizing in regards to the advancement of sport management as an academic field of study. Undoubtedly, the wisdom and insights shared in these lectures have significantly contributed to the rapid growth and transformation of the sport management discipline as evidenced in the rising number of academic programs in North America; growing number of well-trained scholars with specialized knowledge, skills, and competence; increasing student enrollments, perceived relevance and significance of this academic field to the sport industry and society at large; and the global influences on the academic development of sport management studies. I vividly remember presenting at the 1995 NASSM conference held in Athens, Georgia. There was a rather small number of research presentations on sport marketing and sport consumer behavior. I have noticed that in more recent conferences, typically over $60\%$ of about 300 presentations are focused on sport marketing and/or sport consumer behavior studies. This highlights an increased attention on the business nature of the sport industry and also a continuing trend of refining the empirical inquiry process from macro-investigations to microanalyses.
The concerted research efforts in sport management have advanced scholarly inquires in terms of both quality and quantity. Many theories that originated in mainstream business administration or other areas of social sciences are introduced to and tested in sport management settings, verifying a viable process of knowledge production for sport management (Chelladurai, 1992; Doherty, 2012; Slack, 1996). Taking into consideration the unique characteristics of the sport industry (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2014; Pitts & Stotlar, 2012) and endeavoring for establishing a distinctive sport management discipline (Chalip, 2006), theories, assertions, and/or best practices that are specific to the sport management discipline are proposed, tested, and even formed. The numbers of research outlets in terms of scholarly journals and conferences are substantially greater today than in 1989, when Dr. Earle F. Zeigler delivered the inaugural lecture that is named after him (Zeigler, 1992). For instance, the Journal of Sport Management has recently grown from four issues per year, with 64 pages in each issue, to six annual issues with 128 pages in each. In today’s published studies, it is most common to see investigators adopt theories and research findings derived from mainstream business administration and sociopsychological studies as research frameworks and test their viability in a specified or nonspecified area of the sport industry. With the availability of computer software, studies are becoming increasingly advanced and complicated in statistical analyses. Overall, this is a wonderful phenomenon. Nevertheless, although the pace of scholarly progress in sport management has been impressive, the extent to which many of our research efforts are aiding sport management toward becoming a distinct academic discipline is somewhat questionable. Chalip (2006) emphasized that “if sport management is to be anything more than the mere application of general management principles to the sport context, then there must be something about sport that renders distinctive concerns, foci, or procedures when sport is managed” (p. 3). Presumably, many academicians would agree that scholarly inquiry is essential for discovering and developing new knowledge that is unique to sport management; yet it is of great debate among scholars on what to study and how to study, which in my opinion, would be key questions to address to accomplish the objective of developing discipline-specific knowledge. Complexity in research designs and statistical analyses is overall a good thing; yet directly adopting the measures derived in general business administration or other social sciences with no or minimal modification or revision may not adequately capture the unique features of a sport management setting. Relating a set of sociopsychological variables directly to behavioral variables may not lead to actionable interpretations. Having a set of sociopsychological variables as exogenous variables and relating them to one or more sets of sociopsychological variables as mediating variables before relating them to behavior variables may appear fancy and overwhelming, but the derived research findings may lack practical usefulness. Without question, these types of studies indeed add more understanding of human psychological processes. What are missing would be those variables that represent the unique functions and processes of one or more sport industry settings, and those variables that are tangible, actionable, modifiable, and directly interpretable to the sport industry or a sport industry setting.
A number of previous Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award recipients have discussed various challenges that may hamper the survival and improvement of sport management as a respected discipline of study, although each of them addressed different critical issues at the time of the lecture (e.g., Chelladurai, 1992; Cuneen, 2004; Frisby, 2005; Mahony, 2008; Pitts, 2001; Zeigler, 1992). I share and concur with many of their insights. I have been apprehensive about the long-term viability of sport management academic programs in leading Comprehensive Doctoral Institutions (i.e., referred as Research I institutions in the past; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2014). Higher education institutions of different classifications play different roles in teaching, learning, discovery, and community service. In order for sport management to be a highly respected academic area of study, instead of being a lower priority or near the bottom in the pecking order (Chalip, 2006; Mahony, 2008), sport management programs need to live and flourish in all types of higher education institutions, including those research-intensive institutions, similar to traditional areas of study such as business administration, liberal arts, law, education, engineering, and health science. A particular issue for research universities is that they have high expectations for external funding through contracts and grants, which is rather challenging for most sport management scholars. When compared with some other academic disciplines, sport management faculty members in research universities oftentimes find themselves in a much more tenuous position (Bruening, Fuller, & Evanovich, 2010). Given the relative youth, and the applied nature, of sport management as an academic discipline, there is little external funding available in this area of study (Mahony, 2008). Some programs have thrived on their funding success, some have been hurt by the demands within institutions, and even others can be immune to the pressure (Zhang, 2012). How can individual sport management faculty members play a role in acquiring grant dollars to strengthen their research programs and support students hired through funded projects (Bruening et al., 2010)? Sport management programs are quite popular with students and show no signs of letting up; however, the pressing reality is that research universities need more than tuition dollars to survive and thrive. Without prospects for external funding, sport management programs and their faculty members will likely face tenacious challenges in receiving institutional support and respect, striving for greater achievement, advancing individual faculty careers, and ultimately thriving in the university community (Mahony, 2008). With a naïve attempt to help sustain a sport management program(s), over the years I have made great efforts to obtain and retain contracts and grants from both governmental agencies and private organizations. I have had both successful and failing experiences, and have learned many lessons; of them, what to study and how to study are very pertinent to the success of grant proposals and renewals. Certainly, there are other critical factors, such as understanding the role of sports as a societal institution and its potential functions to various sectors of the society, which are not directly related to the theme of this lecture although I would be delighted to share with any individual who may be interested. Generally speaking, when an individual or a group of individuals understands the job nature, work environment, and specific features of an agency or organization, is insightful of specific challenging issues in a professional setting, speaks ‘their’ language, studies and operates on those variables that are tangible, actionable, and modifiable, and maintains a good balance between complexity and simplicity, the individual or group is more likely to be granted an opportunity. This illustration also points to the significance of being relevant, tangible, and sport-industry specific in an effort to meet the demands of sport businesses and also university administration.
In the following sections, I would like to explore the differences between tangible and intangible variables, how they have been studied as distinct perspectives, and how they can be integrated (so that they can be theoretical, complicated, fancy, and also practical) through two application examples, one on service quality of sport event operations and the other on market demand for sport events. These illustrations are merely my insights; certainly, they are debatable and subject to further empirical examinations.
Dijksterhuis and Nordgren (2006) developed the DPT, which explains how a phenomenon can occur in two different ways, or as a result of two different processes.
Often, the two processes consist of an implicit (automatic), intangible, and unconscious process and an explicit (controlled), tangible, and conscious process. The implicit process usually takes a long time to change with the forming of new habits or ways of doing things; conversely, explicit processes and actions may change with persuasion or functional improvement. Based on the DPT model of decision making, there are two modes of thought: conscious and unconscious. Unconscious thought is defined as object- or task-relevant thought processes that take place while the person’s attention is focused on something else. Conscious thought requires attention and is defined as object- or task-relevant thought processes that occur when the person is focused on that task or object.
My first example is on the measurement of service quality of sport operations. Shilbury (2012) remarked that competition is the heart and soul of sports. According to Gray (1996), Mullin et al. (2014), and Murray and Howat (2002), sport competitions are the core product function of a sport team. During a game event, the coaching staff, players, and referees are primarily responsible for producing this core product, whereas a team’s management usually has little to no involvement in this process. Instead, the team’s administrative group actually works on activities related to game operations, such as ticket service, physical and functional quality of the arena/ stadium, and intermission amenity activities. The quality of these support programs often affects the overall operational effectiveness of a sport event, entertainment value, and spectator’s experience of the game event, and even future attendance of spectators. In many ways, the support programs of a sport game are a form of customer service in a business activity. Edvardsson, Gustavsson, and Riddle (1989) and Grönroos (1984) postulated two components of customer service quality: technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality is concerned with what the customer is actually receiving from the service, such as employee knowledge, facility, equipment, and program. Functional quality is concerned with the way in which the service is delivered and thus involves the interaction between the customer and the service delivery, such as courtesy and friendliness of the employee, and efficiency of service. These two dimensions together influence the corporate image of an organization.
According to Zhang et al. (2004, 2007), the impetuous for research on sport service quality stemmed from trying to understand general consumer displeasure with sport services. Another reason for the interest in service quality was the mounting evidence showing that providing superior service produces a competitive advantage. Sport managers thus became increasingly more interested in improving the quality of services provided to their customers. This trend has resulted in a great number of studies related to service quality and satisfaction. As a matter of fact, a majority of studies on sport service quality have adopted Oliver’s (1980) expectancy disconfirmation theory, which suggests that feelings of satisfaction result when consumers compare their perceptions of a product’s performance to their expectations. If the perceived performance is greater than the initial expectations, initial expectations should be satisfied. On the contrary, if the perceived performance is less than expected, dissatisfaction will likely occur. Following this concept, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry’s (1988) Service Quality Scale (SERVQUAL) has been frequently adopted, either directly or with modification, claiming it as a generic scale for various industries. The SERVQUAL consists of 22 very general measurement questions in five dimensions, including Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy. Although the tangibles factor is supposed to assess the physical properties (technical) and the other factors refer to the intangible service aspects (functional), the actual items for the tangibles factor are rather general and nonspecific. When analyzed by the DPT (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), these factors and their contents would be labeled as being implicit, intangible, general, and to a great extent, superficial. Many scholars in sport management are familiar with this scale and would agree with this description.
While discussions on the validity of adopting the expectation and perception scheme are beyond the intended scope of this presentation, SERVEQUAL is a very general assessment tool and information derived from administering the scale does not provide any direction for specific service areas within a sport organization. For instance, if a sport event is perceived with low reliability by consumers, the score does not inform what area needs improvement and how such improvements can be made. Even Parasuraman et al. (1988) indicated that the SERVEQUAL requires modification and adaptation when applied to various organizational contexts, given that it was developed to be generic across a broad spectrum of services. Murray and Howat (2002) and Zhang et al. (2007) advocated for sport industryspecific, event-specific, and function-specific dimensions of service quality due to the differences among various service environments of the sport industry. After all, the ultimate goals of studying service quality are to identity its relevance and improve its production and delivery.
Zhang et al. (2004) developed the Spectator Satisfaction Scale (SSS) via a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The initial scale was formulated by identifying 27 organizational activities through observations, interviews, and a comprehensive review of literature. Five experts participated in the test of content validity. A random sample of NBA spectators was surveyed. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA), multiple regression analyses, and alpha coefficients indicated good measurement characteristics for the SSS in terms of construct and predictive validity, and internal consistency reliability. The final version of the scale included 18 items under four factors: Satisfaction with Ticket Service, Satisfaction with Amenities of Game, Satisfaction with Audio
Visuals, and Satisfaction with Accessibility Condition. The factors were found to be positively predictive of game attendance and ticket consumption level. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study, conducted by Zhang, Lam, Connaughton, Bennett, and Smith (2005), on professional hockey spectators has provided supporting evidence to its construct validity.
To evaluate customer satisfaction toward service quality of health-fitness clubs, Lam, Zhang, and Jensen (2005) developed the Service Quality Assessment Scale (SQAS) by carrying out both inductive and deductive reasoning processes. The scale development was carried out in four stages: (a) formulation of the preliminary scale via a qualitative study, (b) a pilot study, (c) initial test administration and EFA, and (d) a follow-up test administration and CFA. Through a review of literature, field observations, interviews, and the use of the Delphi technique, a preliminary scale with 46 items was formulated. In the pilot study, the preliminary scale was administered to a sample of health-fitness club members $(N=234)$ ). Conducting an EFA with alpha extraction and promax rotation, the revised scale contained six factors and 42 items (Staff, Program, Locker Room, Physical Facility, Workout Facility, and Child Care). The revised scale was administered to members of 10 health-fitness clubs $N=$ 1,202). The data set was split into halves: one for EFA and the other for CFA. The same six factors emerged in the EFA. The fit indexes from the CFA indicated that the model was permissible. All the factors had acceptable alpha and composite reliability coefficients. The model was then tested for invariance across gender; nine items were eliminated due to a lack of invariance for factor loadings or tau coefficients. The 31-item scale under 6 factors displayed sound psychometric properties and invariance for factor loadings and tau coefficients, and can be used to evaluate service quality issues in various health-fitness club settings.
The moral of these illustrations includes the following: (a) to establish a distinct sport management discipline, knowledge needs to be developed in this discipline, at least some part of it; (b) inductive reasoning and qualitative studies are necessary and a key part of the inquiry process to establish knowledge foundations within the sport management discipline; (c) building and rebuilding measurement models with context-specific elements are tantamount to define or redefine a concept with ingredients that are specific and tangible to a sport industry setting; (d) due to various settings in the sport industry, it would be best to first work on a specific area(s) within the sport industry to capture its unique characteristics and some generalizability across the discipline can be formed after substantial ground work is done; (e) theories from mainstream business or social sciences continue to be very useful if the uniqueness of a sport setting is taken into consideration; and (f) application of advanced statistics are very good when used appropriately to help define a concept that is based on strong conceptual and content analysis. After all, conducting marketing analyses, including service quality studies, are for managerial decisions and actions. In fact, after the actual measurement is established with context-specific components, many existing theories in business administration or other social sciences, such as Oliver’s (1980) model, may be applied to examine the interconcept relations or effects.
My second example focuses on studying the influence of consumer needs and wants on their consumption behavior. Marketing can be explained as understanding, monitoring, and satisfying the changing needs and wants of consumers by forming and reforming the marketing mix (i.e., $4\mathrm{~P~}$ ’s plus), whereas the study of consumer behavior is a microperspective of marketing research to identify those reasons that cause, channel, and sustain consumption behavior (Kotler & Armstrong, 2013). Yiannakis (1989) remarked that one of the critical concerns in sport marketing is to “. . . monitor consumer satisfaction/ dissatisfaction, needs, wants, expectations, and changes in preference over time” (p. 104) in an effort to efficiently identify contingent variables that may relate to the development of strategic marketing plans.
Needs may be of human nature or formed through social facilitations (Maslow, 1954). Needs are oftentimes innate, unconscious, latent, nonspecific, and of uncertainty of satisfier; frequently, they contribute to the formation of fundamental motivations for human behavior. Based on the DPT model (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), human needs would generally be characteristic of the unconscious mode. Braunstein, Zhang, Trail, and Gibson (2005) and Byon, Zhang, and Baker (2013) suggested that the sport spectator would make an important contribution to the success of sporting events primarily through motivational and financial support. According to Sloan (1989) and Wann, Melnick, Russell, and Pease (2001), spectators are self-pushed and socially motivated to attend sport events as social outings to fulfill their personal and social needs.
According to Sloan (1989) and Zillmann and Paulus (1993), there are five theoretical categories that can be used to explain the social motivations of sport fans: (a) salubrious effect theories (recreation theory and diversion theory), (b) stress and stimulation seeking theories, (c) catharsis and aggression theories (catharsis theory, frustration-aggression theory, and social learning theory), (d) entertainment theories, and (e) achievement seeking theories. Salubrious effect theories suggest that spectators are attracted to a game for its pleasure and benefits of physical and mental well-being. By attending sport events, spectators can relieve their fatigue and boredom and become recharged. Sport attendance can also be used as an escape from work and other tediums of life. Based on stress and stimulation seeking theories, sport games are seen as stressors. Spectators are attracted to a game for the stressful, risky, arousing, and stimulating experiences in socially acceptable ways. Positive stress and arousal allows for the expenditure of excess energy by being involved with the crowd. Catharsis and aggression theories propose that spectators are attracted to a game for its violence and aggressive actions. Some believe that the aggression levels of spectators will be reduced by watching the acts of aggression of others (i.e., athletes), while others believe aggression levels are increased. According to entertainment theories, spectators are attracted to a game to seek pleasure, sensation, satisfaction, and happiness. The aesthetic application of skills in movement makes sport an art form for spectators. Achievement seeking theories emphasize that spectators are attracted to a team to identify with the achievement of others, share success, gain knowledge, and satisfy their own needs. Of the five social motivation theories of spectatorship, achievement-seeking theories have been predominantly studied in relationship to spectator attendance (Wann et al., 2001).
Using Sloan’s (1989) theoretical framework, Pease and Zhang (2001) developed the Spectator Motivation Scale (SMS) with 35 items under four factors: Fan Identification, Team Image, Salubrious Attraction, and Entertainment Value. Similarly, a number of other scales have been developed in recent years to measure social motivations of spectators, such as the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (Trail & James, 2001), Sport Fan Motivation Scale (Wann, 1995), and Sport Interest Inventory (Funk, Mahony, Nakazawa, & Hirakawa, 2001). These scales were usually developed for use with spectators of intercollegiate athletic competitions. To a great extent, the resolved factors in these scales were found to be predictive of consumer behaviors. James et al. (2005) and James, Trail, Wann, Funk, and Zhang (2006) recognized that these scales included similar factors and items in some situations, yet dissimilar factors and items in other situations. In an effort to enhance the consistency when studying and communicating about spectator motivations, it is necessary to formulate a scale that includes a core set of factors with consistency in the labeling of factors and wording of items. Through a comprehensive investigation that involved a test of content validity and confirmatory factor analyses, these researchers collectively identified the Big-5 factors: Selfesteem, Aesthetics, Drama, Escape, and Social Interaction. These factors were consistent with Sloan’s (1989) theoretical framework.
Due to the nature of studying social needs of spectators, none of the sociomotivational factors can be specifically related to the tangible aspects of a sport organization’s management, functions, marketing, or operations. The gap between applying theories originated from the social sciences to the actual functions of a sport organization demands researchers to look further into more tangible variables, such as consumer wants, of which sport consumers, particularly those of valuable repeat consumers, are more conscious as prescribed by the DPT model (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006). Unlike human needs, consumer wants are comparatively more specific, conscious, mindful, purposeful, articulate, tangible, and manifest. Wants can often be learned and nurtured from past experiences, educational programs, and exposure to promotional schemes. Consumer wants are contingent on specific situations and product categories. Usually, consumers are more certain of satisfiers for their wants; anecdotally, it is based on their wants that repetitive consumers put demands on products and services.
Sport game events are the core product function of a sport organization and even the sport industry (Mullin et al., 2014). Market demand relates to consumer expectations toward the attributes of the core product (Zhang, Lam, & Connaughton, 2003). Essentially, market demand is a cluster of pull factors associated with the game that an organization can offer to its new and returning spectators. It is comprised of a multitude of cognitive-oriented variables that may predict sport consumption behavior (Braunstein et al., 2005; Byon et al., 2013; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Schofield, 1983). These pull factors are comparatively more tangible, more directly associated with the core product operations, and more interpretable for management implications when compared with aforementioned push factors; after all, marketing can only be achieved through tangible management and operational activities. According to Brown, Rascher, Nagel, and McEvoy (2010) and Fort (2011), market demand is an economic concept and, traditionally, it deals with such critical questions as “how many are there?” “how much to charge?” “who are they?” “where are they?” and “where are they from?” Braunstein et al. (2005) and Byon et al. (2013) explained that more recent inquires have focused on such questions as “why are they here?” “what do they want?” and “what are they looking for?”
Zhang, Pease, Hui, and Michaud (1995) developed the Spectator Decision Making Inventory (SDMI) to measure the variables that work to affect attendance at men’s professional basketball games. Over 800 spectators from six NBA regular-season games responded to a preliminary scale that was developed through a review of literature, test of content validity, and a pilot study. Conducting an EFA, multiple regression analysis, and alpha reliability, a simple factor structure was reached (Thurstone, 1947). Four factors with 14 items were resolved (Game Promotion, Home Team, Opposing Team, and Schedule Convenience). Zhang, Lam, Bennett, and Connaughton (2003) later conducted a CFA study by administering the SDMI to a sample of NBA spectators. Through maximum likelihood estimation, the four-factor structure provided a good fit to the data. The SDMI factors were found to be predictive of sport event consumption variables, indicating when a sport consumer holds a strong perception about the attributes of a game’s core product, the formed beliefs and attitude may lead to subsequent consumption behavior. Because the market environment of Major League Baseball’s (MLB) Spring Training (ST) has a number of unique characteristics— including the laid-back atmosphere at the games, weather, greater accessibility to athletes, and more affordability when compared with regular season games—the game event is a unique setting that is somewhat different from the regular season games. To effectively study and market spring training games, Braunstein et al. (2005) developed the Spectator Decision Making Inventory–Spring Training (SDMI–ST) with 29 items under eight factors: Home Team, Opposing Team, Game Promotion, Economic Consideration, Schedule Convenience, Vacation Activity, Nostalgic Sentiment, and Love Baseball. Although the scale needs further development, the findings provide a framework for ST game consumption. MLB teams, practitioners, and academicians may adopt the scale to conduct research that assesses the effect of market demand factors on spring training consumers.
Following the concept of the Yale Attitude Change Model (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Zimbardo, Ebbesen, & Maslach, 1977), which explains that human attitudes (the affective component) are usually influenced or changed by altering the opinions or beliefs of people (the cognitive or knowledge component) and, in turn, can be a powerful driving force that impacts consumer behavior (Fazio, Powell, & Williams, 1989), Kim, Zhang, Jackson, Connaughton, and Kim (2013) modified and revised the Scale of Market Demand for Taekwondo Schools (SMD-TKD; Kim, Zhang, & Ko, 2009). A questionnaire was developed that consisted of the revised SMD-TKD scale with seven factors (Personal Improvement Activities, Physical Environment Quality, Instruction Staff Quality, Program Activities and Offerings, Cultural Learning, Locker Room Provision, and Economic Condition Consideration), member satisfaction and member commitment variables, and demographic variables. Research participants were Taekwondo school participants who resided in the U.S. and voluntarily participated in the survey study. Conducting confirmatory factor and structural equation model analyses, the revised SMD-TKD with seven factors and 31 items was found to have good validity and reliability characteristics. After confirming that the general measurement model was adequate, the second step was to assess the structural model examining the relationships of the market demand factors to the member satisfaction and the member commitment factors. Testing the proposed structural model revealed good fit of the model to the data. Regarding the significance of the path coefficients, an amalgamation of the market demand factors had positive effects on member satisfaction and member commitment. In addition, member satisfaction had a positive influence on member commitment. The market demand factors directly and indirectly affected member commitment and all direct and indirect paths were statistically $(p<.05)$ significant. The indirect effect was substantially larger than the magnitude of the direct effect. These indicated that adding one mediating construct (i.e., member satisfaction) to the direct effect enhanced the predictive power of the market demand factors on member commitment. Overall, a total of $67\%$ of the variance in member commitment was explained by the market demand and member satisfaction factors.
Byon et al. (2013) examined the structural relationship of market demand factors and game support programs to the consumption of professional team sport games while considering the mediating influence of perceived value. This study simultaneously incorporated market demand (core service) and game support (peripheral service) factors into one study and examined their direct and indirect relationships with game consumption behaviors. Participants responded to a survey at various metropolitan areas. Adopting a two-step structural equation modeling (SEM) approach, the proposed measurement model and the structural model were found to have good psychometric properties in terms of validity and reliability. In the structural relationship analyses, Home Team, Opposing Team, Game Promotion, Game Amenities, Venue Quality, and Perceived Value were found to be predictive of behavioral intentions. Venue Quality was the only factor that had an indirect relationship with behavioral intentions through perceived value.
If the DPT represents two sides of a phenomenon, namely, both the unconscious and conscious processes (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), the two sides are likely to be mutually influential, particularly from unconsciousness to consciousness. Based on this assumption, Min (2014a) examined the interrelationship between what is needed to satisfy consumers’ internal needs and what women’s professional sports can offer to satisfy those needs. The significance of considering the interaction between the push and pull factors has been stressed by studies published in mainstream marketing and tourism (e.g., Baloglu & Uysal, 1996; Kirkwood, 2009) although related information is lacking in the field of sports marketing. Min’s study was aimed to fill this void by empirically assessing the interactions between push and pull factors. Spectators attending the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) games responded to a survey that measured push and pull factors (i.e., sociomotivation and market demand constructs) by adopting the scales and subscales developed by Byon et al. (2013), Funk et al. (2001), and James et al. (2005, 2006). Canonical correlation analyses revealed that the push factors were significantly related to the pull factors, with approximately $25\%$ variance explained. In a subsequent study, Min (2014b) found the presence of structural relationships among sociomotivation, market demand, consumer satisfaction, and consumption of WNBA game events, indicating that consumer social needs (as evidenced by sociomotivation) can be an antecedent(s) to one’s expectations toward the core product features of sport game events and their impact on consumer satisfaction and consumption behavior.
In a larger conceptual scheme, Keller (1993) developed a customer-based brand equity theory. Customerbased brand equity occurs when the customer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with the brand and holds some strong, favorable, and unique brand associations in memory. Erdem and Swait (2004) considered that brand loyalty is a consequence of consistent and repeated perceptions of brand quality. Keller (1993) further defined brand benefits with three dimensions: (a) functional benefit, (b) symbolic benefit, and (c) experiential benefit. By adapting Keller’s conceptualization of brand association, Gladden and Funk (2001, 2002) developed the Team
Association Model (TAM) to measure brand association of sport teams. A total of 13 brand association dimensions were identified: (a) product-related attributes (i.e., success, star player, head coach, team management), (b) non-product-related attributes (i.e., logo, stadium, tradition, and product delivery), (c) symbolic benefit (i.e., fan identification and peer group acceptance), and (d) experiential benefit (i.e., escape, nostalgia, and pride in place). In fact, both of the unconscious and conscious process, as illustrated in the previously mentioned push and pull factors, fall into the general concept of brand association of sport teams, further supporting the relevance and distinctiveness of studying the two perspectives.
The moral of these illustrations include the following: (a) whether it is an independent, exogenous, mediating, or moderating variable/construct or a set of variables/constructs, one or more of them need(s) to be tangible in the context of sport operations or functions; (b) as conscious thought is object- or task-relevant thought processes (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), studying variables tangible to a sport industry setting can be specific to the object or task in that setting, which would require repetitive investigations in various situations to generalize the findings into theories; (c) traditional sociopsychological theories, such as the Yale Attitude Change Model (Hovland et al., 1953; Zimbardo et al., 1977), can be adopted in conjunction with studying the tangible variables to investigate the mixture of conscious and unconscious decision-making processes of consumers; (d) although many market demand constructs that are tangible to a sport event setting have been found to be predictive of consumer behaviors, incorporating logical mediating constructs, such as consumer satisfaction and perceived value, would enhance the total variance explained and the overall depiction of consumer transitions from perceptions and beliefs to feelings and, in turn, to behavior; (e) where possible, both core product features and the quality of event operations should be studied from both technical and functional perspectives although a combined study should be based on in-depth understanding of each specific concept and aspect; (f) even though the transitional process from unconsciousness to consciousness is rather complicated, one’s consciousness does partially explain his or her unconsciousness, as evidenced in studying the relationship between sociomotivation and market demand, demonstrating both the congruence and discrepancy between the two approaches and the necessity of examining both perspectives; and (g) unconsciousness is an antecedent to the conscious decision-making process, and its fulfillment can be accomplished through consciously operating on tangible managerial functions and activities that are doable, actionable, and controlled by sport managers and staff members.
According to the DPT (Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006), there are six principles that relate to unconscious and conscious thought, including the unconscious thought principle, the capacity principle, the bottom-up-versustop-down principle, the weighting principle, the rule principle, and the convergence-versus-divergence principle. The unconsciousness thought process can be characterized as being of divergent and indirect thought, a greater capacity, a more bottom-up process, likelihood to assign appropriate weights to decisions criteria, and lacking capacity to follow one certain rule; conversely, the consciousness thought process can be described as having a smaller capacity and a top-down focus, placing inappropriate weights on decision criteria, being able to follow one specific rule, and being more focused and convergent. Although being of a smaller capacity, adopting the conscious thought approach may actually have the following advantages: (a) generation of research findings that are tangible, interpretable, and actionable; (b) generation of a body of knowledge that is embedded in and representative of the sport industry; (c) provision of solutions for concrete issues and relating research findings to managerial engagements, and (d) establishment of a convincing request when attempting to obtain funded projects from sport and nonsport organizations to address their issues and challenges.
For many years, sport management scholars and professionals have adopted theories originated in business administration studies or other social sciences to address issues in the sport industry. While some would use the theories from general perspectives as they would treat issues the same as in any other discipline or industry, others would take an additional step by incorporating more sport industry–specific elements into their measures formulated and models tested. While these practices have certainly helped advance the inquiries and understanding of the sport industry, adoption of the DPT in sport management studies can further the exploration process by systematically examining the transitional process from those unconscious, intangible, and generic concepts and elements to those conscious, tangible, and specific concepts and elements. Encompassing the dual perspectives would help ensure that components specifically pertinent to one or more sport settings are a part of the designed studies. Optimistically, new theories explaining phenomena and their connections that are unique to various settings of the sport industry will ultimately evolve from frequent applications of the DPT principles and progressive increments of having tangible and sport industry–specific elements in research investigations conducted by sport management scholars.
In closing, this lecture was intended to continue the discussions on why and how to establish a distinct sport management discipline that were initiated by previous Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award recipients (e.g., Chalip, 2006). Hopefully, this lecture would help reenergize the debates and inquiries on this important matter. Although the lecture was purported as a philosophical discussion, the adopted examples were limited to research topic areas that I had investigated; their relevance to other topic areas are subject to further examination. Certainly, all of these ideas are subject to debate, criticism, and disagreement, and I am open to such and would appreciate hearing from you.
|
Baloglu, S., & Uysal, M. (1996). Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8, 32–38. doi:10.1108/09596119610115989
Braunstein, J.R., Zhang, J.J., Trail, G.T., & Gibson, H.J. (2005). Dimensions of market demand associated with Major League Baseball Spring Training: Development of a scale. Sport Management Review, 8(3), 271–296. doi:10.1016/ S1441-3523(05)70042-5
Brown, M.T., Rascher, D.A., Nagel, M.S., & McEvoy, C.D. (2010). Financial management in the sport industry. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Byon, K.K., Zhang, J.J., & Baker, T.A. (2013). Impact of market demand and game support programs on consumption levels of professional team sport spectators as mediated by perceived value. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(2), 232–263. doi:10.1080/16184742.2013.767278
Bruening, J.E., Fuller, R.D., & Evanovich, J.M. (2010, June). Opening the doors to grant funding: The role of sport management scholars in cross-disciplinary and community partnerships. Paper presented at the 2010 North American Society for Sport Management Conference, Tampa, FL.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2014). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://classifications. carnegiefoundation.org/
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 215–219.
Cuneen, J. (2004). Managing program excellence during our transition from potential to merit. Journal of Sport Management, 18, 1–12.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L.F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–109. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00007.x
Doherty, A. (2012). “It takes a village”: Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1–10.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and brand choice. The Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 191–198. doi:10.1086/383434
Edvardsson, B., Gustavsson, B.O., & Riddle, D.J. (1989). An expanded model of the service encounter, with emphasis on cultural context (Research Report No. 89-4). Sweden: University of Karlstad, Services Research Center.
Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C., & Williams, C.J. (1989). The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 280–288. doi:10.1086/209214
Fort, R.D. (2011). Sport economics (3rd ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1–12.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., Nakazawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2001). Development of the sport interest inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer motives at team sporting events. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3, 291–316.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport: Examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3(1), 67–95.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16(1), 54–81.
Gray, D.P. (1996). Sport marketing: A strategic approach. In B.L. Parkhouse (Ed.), The management of sport: Its foundation and application (2nd ed., pp. 249–289). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000004784
Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 15–32.
Hovland, C., Janis, I.L., & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
James, J.D., Trail, G.T., Wann, D.L., Funk, D.C., Zhang, J.J., Mahony, D.F., & Gladden, J. (2005, November). Why do people follow sport? Working toward consensus on a scale to understand fan motivations. Paper presented at 2005 Sport Marketing Association Annual Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
James, J.D., Trail, G.T., Wann, D.L., Funk, D.C., & Zhang, J.J. (2006, June). Bringing parsimony to the study of sport consumer motivations: Development of The Big 5. Paper presented at 2006 North American Society for Sport Management Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO.
Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Kim, M.K., Zhang, J.J., Jackson, E.N., Connaughton, D.P., & Kim, M. (2013). Modification and revision of the Scale of Market Demand for Taekwondo. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 187–207. doi:10.108 0/1091367X.2013.805136
Kim, M.K., Zhang, J.J., & Ko, Y.J. (2009). Dimensions of market demand associated with Taekwondo schools in North America: Development of a scale. Sport Management Review, 12, 149–166. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2009.01.003
Kirkwood, J. (2009). Motivational factors in a push-pull theory of entrepreneurship. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24, 346–364. doi:10.1108/17542410910968805
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2013). Principles of marketing (15th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lam, E.T.C., Zhang, J.J., & Jensen, B.E. (2005). Dimensions of membership satisfaction toward service quality of health-fitness clubs. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9(2), 79–111. doi:10.1207/ s15327841mpee0902_2
Mahony, D.F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Min, S.D. (2014a). Push and pull factors associated with the consumption of women’s professional basketball games: A canonical correlation analysis. Unpublished doctoral mini-dissertation. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Min, S.D. (2014b). Examining the structural relationships among motivation, market demand, overall satisfaction, and consumption of WNBA game events. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2014). Sport marketing (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Murray, D., & Howat, G. (2002). The relationships among service quality, value, satisfaction, and future intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure center. Sport Management Review, 5, 25–43. doi:10.1016/S1441- 3523(02)70060-0
Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469. doi:10.2307/3150499
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Pease, D.G., & Zhang, J.J. (2001). Socio-motivational factors affecting spectator attendance at professional basketball games. International Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 31–59.
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1–9.
Pitts, B.G., & Stotlar, D.K. (2012). Fundamentals of sport marketing (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Schofield, J.A. (1983). Performance and attendance at professional team sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6(4), 196–206.
Shilbury, D. (2012). Competition: The heart and soul of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1–10.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97–105.
Sloan, L.R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp. 175–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thurstone, L.L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Trail, G.T., & James, J.D. (2001). The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption: A comparison of psychometric properties with other sport motivation scales. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.
Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19, 377–396. doi:10.1177/019372395019004004
Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G. (2001). Sports fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.
Yiannakis, A. (1989). Some contributions of sport sociology to the marketing of sport and leisure organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 103–115.
Zeigler, E.F. (1992). Using the rays from history’s shining lantern as we face an uncertain future. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 206–214.
Zhang, J.J. (2012, August). Branding a sport product through satisfying multidimensional perspectives of market demand. Paper presented at the 8th Asian Association for Sport Management Conference, Changchun, China.
Zhang, J.J., Connaughton, D.P., Byrd, C.E., Cianfrone, B.A., Byon, K.W., & Kim, D.H. (2007). Formulating a questionnaire for marketing studies of professional basketball game attendance: A review of literature. In J. James (Ed.), Sport marketing in the new millennium (pp. 193–212). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Zhang, J.J., Lam, E.T.C., Bennett, G., & Connaughton, D.P. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Spectator Decision Making Inventory (SDMI). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7(2), 57–70. doi:10.1207/ S15327841MPEE0702_1
Zhang, J.J., Lam, E.T.C., & Connaughton, D.C. (2003). General market demand variables associated with professional sport consumption. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 5(1), 33–55.
Zhang, J.J., Lam, E.T.C., Connaughton, D.P., Bennett, G., & Smith, D.W. (2005). Development of a scale measuring spectator satisfaction toward support programs of minor league hockey games. International Journal of Sport Management, 6(1), 47–70.
Zhang, J.J., Pease, D.G., Hui, S.C., & Michaud, T.J. (1995). Variables affecting the spectator decision to attend NBA games. Sports Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), 29–39.
Zhang, J.J., Pease, D.G., Smith, D.W., Wall, K.A., Saffici, C.L., Pennington-Gray, L., & Connaughton, D.P. (2004). Spectator satisfaction with the support programs of professional basketball games. In B. Pitts (Ed.), Sharing best practices in sport marketing (pp. 207–229). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Zillmann, D., & Paulus, P.B. (1993). Spectators: reactions to sports events and effect on athletic performance. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 600–619). New York: McMillan.
Zimbardo, P.G., Ebbesen, E.B., & Maslach, C. (1977). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior: An introduction to method, theory and applications of social control and personal power (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Hiding in Plain Sight: The Embedded Nature of Sexism in Sport
|
Janet S. Fink University of Massachusetts Amherst
|
2015
|
In this article, from the 2015 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award presented in Ottawa, Canada, I hope to create greater awareness of how sexism remains uncontested in sport. I highlight the persistence of sexism in sport and note the form of sexism is different from that found in other industries. I also argue that sexism is treated quite differently than other types of discrimination in sport and provide examples of its impact. I suggest that adapting Shaw and Frisby’s (2006) alternative frame of gender equity is necessary for real change to occur and call on all NASSM members as researchers, teachers, or participants to take action to eradicate sexism in sport.
Keywords: discrimination, female, social change
It is an honor to be selected as the Earle F. Zeigler Award recipient. Given the esteem I have for the past recipients, and the knowledge that there are many deserving NASSM members, it is a true privilege to receive the award. Further, Dr. Zeigler’s breadth of scholarly and professional accomplishments, combined with his strong values and compassionate disposition, make the award very special indeed.
Each year I have attended the Zeigler lecture, I have thought about what an incredibly daunting situation it must be for the award winner. First, there is pressure to deliver a speech worthy of the award’s namesake, Earle F. Zeigler. Further, at this point, 25 Zeigler lectures have been delivered through the years by the most preeminent scholars in the field. Finally, the award winner has to give this speech on the last night of the conference to an audience who has spent the previous couple of hours drinking and dining (more than a couple if they have attended the Canadian pre-party)—add all of those elements together and it makes for a rather intimidating situation.
Given these circumstances, I thought it would be best to cover a subject about which I am passionate. Those of you who know me realize I can be fairly passionate about numerous topics in our field, like the importance of service to our profession, or the overuse of structural equation modeling in our literature, and of course, Ohio State sports. But there is one topic for which I am passionate that I believe to be sufficiently salient, pervasive, and detrimental to the sport world, and many of those working in it, to warrant discussion. Tonight I am going to speak about sexism in sport. I realize that the mere mention of the word sexism may send some folks into resistance mode and thus it makes for a risky presentation topic. So before we really get started, I want to be clear on two things: First, I am a reluctant critic of sport, and second, I believe sexism is detrimental to all of us, not just women.
I am a reluctant critic because I absolutely love sport. Sport has brought me many of the best things in my life. Sport brought me closer to my dad as we would spend hours in the evening shooting hoops or throwing the softball—it was he who took me to my first Ohio State football game, and I was his counterpart when he attended his last. Participating in sport instilled in me a sense of self-confidence and ambition and allowed a shy, awkward, different kid a space to fit in and feel comfortable. I met my best friend through sport my first year in college when we were admitted into the physical education program. Sport brought me a profession I love. And, of course, I would not have met Carol if not for my love of sport. Sport is an indelible part of me, and thus, I much prefer to see the good in it.
Sexism is not just a women’s issue—it is harmful to everyone. Because of sexism, boys learn early that the worst thing they can do is “act like a girl”—therefore, any expressions of emotion or other stereotypical feminine traits are unacceptable for boys and men (Vagianos, 2014). Boys and men who veer from the socially accepted norms of masculinity often face ridicule and exclusion in both their work and social lives (Messner, 1992). Indeed, the constant pressure to “act like a man” must be incredibly stifling.
Kane (2011) called sport “one of the most powerful economic, social, and political institutions on the planet” (para. 4). That is why I have chosen to talk about this topic. I am certain all of us recognize sport’s transformative power. Conversely, if sexism in sport remains uncontested, the reinforcement of this permeating “-ism” will remain unrestrained on perhaps the world’s most ubiquitous platform.
Sexism is defined as “prejudice or discrimination based on sex; usually, discrimination against women” and the “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2015). Although I speak about sexism here as a universal experience based on gendered expectations, sexism will be experienced differently contingent on individuals’ other characteristics. Race, nationality, social class, sexual orientation, and the like will intersect with one’s sex to modify individuals’ life experiences. Any combination of these marginalized identities, or intersectionality, will create a double, or multiple, jeopardy effect resulting in vast systemic differences in opportunities and encounters that are impossible to tease apart (Crenshaw, 1989; King, 1988).
Obviously, sport is not the only institution in which sexism exists. However, the form it takes in sport is different from those in most other organizational settings that now seem to battle more contemporary or subtle forms of sexism (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2014). Recently, Basford et al. claimed, “Although blatant expressions of sexism in the American workforce appear on the decline, many researchers note that discrimination is not disappearing but is instead becoming more subtle and ambiguous” (p. 1). For example, recent literature outside of sport points to concepts such as benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996), modern sexism (Swim & Cohen, 1997), gender microaggressions (Basford et al., 2014), and selective incivility (Cortina, Kabat-Farr, Leskinen, Huerta, & Magley, 2013). While each is a slightly different concept, the common theme among them is that they are less explicit. For example, women may be chosen for stereotypical tasks or assignments, such as note taking or organizing the office parties, or be offered assistance from men when undertaking traditional male tasks. Employees in most work environments seem to understand that blatant sexism is unacceptable and no longer tolerated. And yet, as I will discuss in a few minutes, overt sexism in sport is still quite common and often uncontested. Sexism in sport has more of a Mad Men episode feel, something that should make us roll our eyes and think, I can’t believe this is happening in this day and age.
But that is what is so interesting about sexism in sport. It is commonly overt yet simultaneously unnoticed. It hides in plain sight. It is so entwined in the fabric of sport that most do not even discern it. Of course, many sport management researchers have discussed concepts similar to this using different paradigms and theoretical constructs. I do not have time for a full review, but let me provide a few examples. Shaw and Slack (2002), Shaw and Hoeber (2003), Shaw and Frisby (2006), and Hoeber (2007, 2008) used the concept of dominant discourses of masculinities and femininities that are “the taken for granted meanings of what it is to be a man or woman in society” (p. 351). Parks and Robertson (2004) described “an uncritical acquiescence to male hegemony” (p. 234). Claringbould and Knoppers (2012) used the idea of liminality, which is “a practice of doing gender that individuals engage in without questioning underlying assumptions” (p. 405). Burton, Grappendorf, and Henderson (2011) used social role theory and role congruity theory, each of which proposes society has strongly embedded stereotypical beliefs about how men and women should behave. Cunningham (2008) and Walker and Sartore-Baldwin (2013) noted that gender inequity in sport has become institutionalized—it has become a norm so entrenched it is barely recognized and even more rarely challenged. These are just a few examples, but they all speak to taken-for-granted gender ideals that occur within sport, and sexism is the foundation for each.
In sport, overt sexist acts are ignored, giggled about, or accepted when similar racist, homophobic, or any other type of discriminatory acts are typically condemned. Let me be very clear, I am not trying to pit one “-ism” against another, all discrimination is reprehensible. Further, certainly racism, homophobia, and many other types of discrimination are still pervasive in sport settings. But I want to make the point that we treat sexism differently than other discriminatory attitudes and behaviors in sport. As you consider the following examples, I want you to think about what the outcomes would have been had the comments been based on demographic characteristics other than gender.
There are plenty of recent examples from which to choose, but to keep this talk within my self-imposed time limit, I will relay only a few that have occurred in the past year. In each of these examples, men are the perpetrators, but we must realize that both men and women hold sexist beliefs, perhaps particularly so relative to women’s place in sport. Further, I have not included the everyday idioms uttered in sport, such as “you throw like a girl” or disparaging the play of boys and men by calling them girls or ladies. These are so commonplace they are rarely reported, but no less consequential.
• In July of last year Kirk Minihane of Boston radio station WEEI attacked Fox Sports Sideline reporter Erin Andrews on air after she failed to follow up a line of questioning with a pitcher at the All Star game. After replaying the interview, he ridiculed her on air:
What a bitch, Minihane said. I hate her. What a gutless bitch. Seriously, go away. Drop dead. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with her?
Later in the day, he issued a written apology after which station executives said he would not receive any punishment. However, the station’s parent company suspended him for a week when Fox (Andrew’s employer) pulled all advertising from the station (Finn, 2014, para. 23).
• Also in July of last year, Formula 1 racecar driver Sergio Perez indicated he would not want a female teammate and that women were “better to stay in the kitchen” (BBC, 2014, para. 1).
• On March 26th of this year, two sports talk radio hosts in Chicago, Matt Spiegel and Dan Bernstein, engaged in a Twitter exchange about SportsNet Central host Aiyana Cristal. After Spiegel questioned Cristal’s broadcasting abilities, Bernstein responded with the following tweet: “I have no rooting interest in her work, but enjoy her giant boobs.” He received no disciplinary action after issuing an apology the next day (Thompson, 2015, para. 5).
• In May of this year, James Dolan, CEO of Madison Square Garden and owner of the NBA’s New York Knicks and WNBA’s New York Liberty, appointed Isiah Thomas as president of the Liberty. Never mind that in 2007, when Thomas was the coach of the Knicks, he was found guilty of sexual harassment of a female team executive, Anucha Saunders Brown. The organization was ordered to pay $\$11.6$ million because a jury found Thomas guilty of creating a hostile work environment then firing Ms. Brown for complaining about it. When asked about the suitability of Thomas given his past, a Madison Square Garden spokesperson said, “We did not believe the allegations then, and we don’t believe them now” (Berman, 2015a, para. 12).
• In March of this year, Manchester United fans chanted, “Get your tits out for the lads” over and over again as Chelsea’s club doctor Eva Carneiro walked past. In fact, they chanted even more obscene things that I will not mention. No stewards intervened to make them stop, nor did any other fans. No punishment was ever given although footage of the perpetrators exists (Gibson, 2015, para. 5).
It is shocking the offenders in these examples were so comfortable publically expressing such views. These comments were not uttered between buddies in a bar, they were voiced via Twitter, radio, television, and in public venues, so obviously they were quite comfortable expressing these thoughts. And these are not isolated incidents. What does that say about sexism in sport? It suggests such attitudes are still second nature and, deemed by many, an acceptable aspect of the sport landscape.
Just one more example. This one is not as recent but demonstrates well the notion of sexism as an institutionalized norm in sport. In 2012, Jason King wrote a piece in ESPN on Andrea Hudy, the first female strength coach for a men’s Division I intercollegiate basketball team. In it, Bill Self (head coach of the Kansas men’s basketball team) is quoted as saying, “I didn’t want to hire her . . . Lew [Perkins, then athletic director at Kansas] would say ‘if you just meet her once, you going to love her.’ But I kept saying, I don’t want to hire a woman to be a men’s strength coach, who does that?” (King, 2012, para. 4). (The article was, overall, a very positive piece on Hudy’s success at Kansas.)
Again, substitute any other demographic characteristic with “woman” in this statement, and you would have to admit, there would be a great deal of uproar. However, in the story, the reporter did not highlight or question Self’s discriminatory attitude at all. In fact, I doubt the reporter even registered this as discriminatory. That is because in sport, it is “normal” to think that women are not suitable for certain jobs solely due to their gender when, in fact, gender has nothing to do with their capacity for success. Instead, it is our unchecked attitudes about gender that continue to negatively impact girls’ and women’s experiences in sport. If such overt sexism remains uncontested, how can we possibly begin to tackle the more nuanced forms of sexism mentioned earlier?
Indeed, this unimpeded sexism plays a role in many of the issues for girls and women in sport, from the lack of women in leadership positions, to the qualitative and quantitative differences in media coverage, to negative working conditions, to the dearth of corporate sponsorship for women’s sports. Again, let me provide just a few examples of sport management research that confirm this. Consider the leadership issue: Like Bill Self’s attitude relative to women serving as men’s strength and conditioning coaches, male basketball coaches in Walker and Sartore-Baldwin’s research (2013) were incredulous at the notion of a woman serving as head coach for a men’s intercollegiate basketball team and admitted that most coaches would not even consider it. Aicher and Sagas (2010) found that sexism influenced beliefs about male and female coaches. Those with higher scores on sexism held more stereotypical beliefs relative to masculinity and leadership roles. Further, higher sexism scores predicted preference for a male head coach over a female head coach. Similarly, Burton, Grappendorf, and Henderson (2011) found that male and female athletic administrators rated male and female candidates comparably in potential and likely success, yet the female candidate was significantly less likely to be offered the athletic director position. They argued this demonstrated, “the continued assumptions held by those in athletic administration positions that gender-related attributions are required for certain jobs” limit women’s chances at leadership positions in intercollegiate athletics (p. 42). While there are other variables that impact the dearth of women in sport leadership positions such research demonstrates that sexism radiates a forceful effect on this phenomena.
Now let us consider sponsorship. Shaw and Amis (2001) established that sexist beliefs among managers contributed to the lack of corporate sponsorship for women’s sports. As they explained, “As both sport and organizations continue to be dominated by masculine ideologies, beliefs, rituals and power networks, it is hardly surprising that those decisions taken to sponsor sport reflect such values” (p. 223). That research was published in 2001. More than 10 years later, it was reported that only $0.5\%$ of all corporate sponsorship dollars in the United Kingdom went to elite women’s sport in the year before the London Olympics (Gibson, 2011). Even given the disparity in funding, female athletes of Great Britain won more than $35\%$ of the country’s medals, so the lack of sponsorship is not due to the women’s lack of success (BBC, 2012).
And finally let us consider working conditions. A recent survey commissioned by the Women in Football (soccer to some of us) group questioned 661 females working in football as coaches, officials, and administrators. More than two-thirds of the women reported they experienced sexism in the job; of those, more than one-third had witnessed women being told they could not do their job because of their gender. More than half worried that their appearance was judged before their ability to do their job. One respondent wrote, “You can’t report every time someone says something derogatory as it’s so commonplace” (Gibson, 2014, para. 8). Hostile sexism has grave consequences in employment settings. It has been linked with lower levels of work satisfaction and less organizational commitment (Morrow, McElroy, & Phillips, 1994). Women who experience it are more likely to withdraw from their work either temporarily (e.g., absenteeism, tardiness) or permanently via turnover (Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997) and they experience greater stress, depression, and reduced health and well-being (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, 1997). Interestingly, even employees who witness sexism toward a colleague experience lower job satisfaction and commitment and greater turnover intentions (Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2006). And, of course, all of this impacts organizational effectiveness.
While I do care about the organizational impacts, I am more concerned with the larger issue. If we continue to allow blatant sexism to remain unimpeded in sport, what messages do we send?: It is okay to treat girls and women unfairly, or girls and women are naturally inferior and therefore unimportant. As McDonagh and Pappano (2008) emphatically state, “Sports matter” (p. 1). Sport is so entwined with all aspects of our culture that allowing such attitudes and behaviors to prevail does not merely impact our lives within sport, but also perpetuates “stereotypical gender roles that limit women’s social, economic, and political opportunities” beyond sport as well (p. 4).
Thankfully, this reality cuts both ways. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, sport can be an incredible transformational platform. If we can eradicate the hostile sexism encountered in sport, it could have a profound influence on society’s views of women across the cultural spectrum. Interestingly, Glick’s (2013) work on benevolent sexism, which is described as “subjectively positive attitudes that simultaneously idealize but subordinate women as men’s dependents” (para. 3), shows a strong correlation with hostile sexism; the two correlate at .90 across national samples. Thus, if we battle hostile sexism, we will also undermine benevolent sexism, which is much more difficult for employees to recognize. Indeed, in environments in which hostile sexism is low, women are more likely to reject benevolent sexism (Glick et al., 2000).
So how do we combat sexism in sport? Williams (2014) recently commented that too much of the social science literature on gender bias is “still devoted to ‘admiring the problem’” rather than proposing and testing solutions. I certainly found that to be true in my research for this article. Given the evidence, it was fairly easy to make the case that sexism in sport is a problem with substantial consequences. Proposing remedies, however, is not.
Popular literature advocates for women to lean in (Sandberg, 2013) and men to lean out (Bailyn, 2014). Literature outside of sport proposes a variety of mechanisms to reduce stereotypes and discrimination, such as cooperative learning, the contact hypothesis, diversity training, and moral education (Paluk & Green, 2009). I was not trained as a critical theorist so I am initially attracted to, and comfortable with, these more tidy postpositivist research recommendations and no doubt they possess merit. However, as researchers, we have been documenting the problem, explaining the problem, and to a much lesser extent proposing solutions for several decades since Title IX, yet progress has been slow (Knoppers, 2015).
Sexism in sport is not tidy, it is a downright messy matter. The ideals of meritocracy and fair play embedded in sport make it difficult for people to believe that it provides advantages for some groups over others, and yet negative evaluations of women’s abilities in sport are implicit to an extent unrivaled in nearly every other social institution (Fink, 2008). Condoleezza Rice served as provost at Stanford, was Secretary of State, and was the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor, and yet many questioned her ability to serve on the college football playoff committee (Dinich, 2014). That’s messy.
So messy that our usual way of looking at things must be interrupted. Shaw and Frisby (2006) argued for this over a decade ago when they described an alternative approach to gender equity. They encouraged us to work with members of sport organizations to critique takenfor-granted organizational practices, conceive alternative concepts of work and social relations within work, and then experiment to determine how these alternative narratives can be useful to organizational members. Cunningham (2008) noted the importance of this alternative approach in his model for gender diversity in sport and argued that without it, “the stamping out of gender inequality is unlikely to materialize” (p. 142).
Shaw and Frisby (2006) explained that, while phases of this approach are viewed as fairly radical, the resulting experimental changes developed in the third phase are typically not revolutionary, but instead are usually small discoveries and changes that positively alter the work environment. For example, Bruening and Dixon (2007) worked with mothers who are also Division I head coaches and discovered a variety of multilevel approaches that served to alleviate their work–life conflict. The structural supports they noted, such as flexibility with work hours, are not especially radical but were critical in creating a more manageable work environment for these women. Recently, “Kick It Out,” an organization designed to promote equality and inclusion in soccer, worked with fans and discovered they were hesitant to report discriminatory abuse for fear of retaliation. As a result, the organization created an app in which fans can, in real time, anonymously report discriminatory chants or behavior and security can reach the perpetrators quickly (Kick It Out, 2015). Again, not incredibly radical, but it could be quite effective in changing game day culture.
Shaw and Frisby’s fourth frame is based on poststructural feminist theory and thus requires specific research methods. I realize that many of you doing research in this area will come at it from different paradigms. Still, to develop viable solutions, we must work with those in sport organizations to critique tacit gendered organizational processes. And in doing so, we must begin to move away from merely “admiring the problem” and toward the discovery of changes that positively transform sport organizations.
For those with different research agendas, such critique and suggested transformation can be used in teaching practices (Shaw, Wolfe, & Frisby, 2011). As Hums (2010) implored, “We need to teach our students to be the voices that challenge” (p. 8) and to accomplish that, we must challenge our students. We should not limit our critical discussions of gender and sport to specific classes (i.e., diversity, sociology)—instead, such critical reflection can be infused throughout the curriculum to examine how gender ideals impact sport marketing, management, law, and other areas of study. If our students are the future of the sport world, there may be no greater investment. Maya Moore, a WNBA professional basketball player and former University of Connecticut student-athlete, recently wrote an incredibly thoughtful and poignant piece in the Players Tribune about the invisibility of women’s professional basketball players and how to contest such invisibility (Moore, 2015). To be sure, Maya came to the University of Connecticut as a highly mature, intelligent, and thoughtful young woman. But I would like to believe there is a fingerprint of her sport management coursework underlying that thoughtful piece.
Interestingly, I have noticed some definite positive momentum in the battle against sexism in sport. Proctor and Gamble aired an advertisement during the Super Bowl for their “Like a Girl” campaign that questions what it means to run, throw, or do any activity “like a girl.” The advertisement was so popular, it ranked first in Super Bowl digital advertisement campaigns (Berman, 2015b) and second only to the Budweiser “Lost Dog” campaign for television rakings (USA Today Ad Meter, 2015)—it is tough to beat a puppy commercial! Similarly, Olympic champion swimmer Missy Franklin recently made headlines when she claimed that she was not interested in appearing in promotions that sexualized athletes (Auerbach, 2015). And, just a few weeks ago, EA Sports announced that its FIFA 16 version will be the first to feature women’s teams (Patterson, 2015). Again, these are just a few recent examples, but they illustrate my belief that there is reason to be optimistic about changing gender ideals in sport.
My goal with this article has been to create greater awareness of how sexism remains uncontested in sport. With such awareness, instead of “doing gender,” I’m hoping we can “undo gender” (Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012). But that requires more than awareness, it takes action. In Cunningham’s (2014) Zeigler address, he appealed, “justice and equality in sport will only be realized through our collective actions—not our silence” (p. 3). Indeed, as sport managers, we must be willing to denounce the status quo relative to sexism in sport. Our involvement with sport as teachers and researchers, or even personally as participants and fans, presents a plethora of opportunities to personally effect change. I encourage you to do your part no matter how small the action. Consider 12-year-old McKenna Peterson. She wrote a letter to Dicks Sporting Goods after the company failed to have a single female athlete in their 2014 basketball catalog. After her father tweeted the letter, she received such tremendous support that the CEO posted a response acknowledging the blunder and promised that next year’s magazine would include more female athletes (Bissell, 2014). Like McKenna, you can make a difference.
|
Aicher, T.J., & Sagas, M. (2010). Are head coaches in intercollegiate athletics perceived as masculine? An evaluation of gender stereotypes and the effect of sexism on intercollegiate coaches. Gender Issues, 27, 165–174. doi:10.1007/ s12147-010-9092- $\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot\mathbf{X}$
Auerbach, N. (2015, May 25). Olympic gold medalist Missy Franklin speaks on the sexualization of female athletes. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.ftw.usatoday.com
Bailyn, L. (2014, May 6). For women to thrive, men should lean out: Column. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www. usatoday.com
Basford, T.E., Offermann, L.R., & Behrend, T.S. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggression in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 340–349. doi:10.1177/0361684313511420
BBC. (2012, August 11). Team GB’s London 2012 medal role of honour. British Broadcasting Company. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com
BBC. (2014, July 5). Susie Wolff: Sergio Perez apologizes over sexist remark. British Broadcasting Company. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com
Berman, J. (2015a, February 2). Why that ‘Like a Girl’ Super Bowl ad was so groundbreaking. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Berman, M. (2015b, May 5). James Dolan gives Isiah Thomas yet another chance. New York Post. Retrieved from http:// www.nypost.com
Bissell, J. (2014, October 14). Dick’s CEO apologizes to girl who blasted catalog. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com
Bruening, J.E., & Dixon, M.A. (2007). Work-family conflict in coaching II: Managing role conflict. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 471–496.
Burton, L.J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 36–45.
Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2012). Paradoxical practices of gender in sport related organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 404–416.
Cortina, L.M., Kabat-Farr, D., Leskinen, E.A., Huerta, M., & Magley, V.J. (2013). Selective incivility as modern discrimination in organizations: Evidence and impact. Journal of Management, 39, 1579–1605. doi:10.1177/0149206311418835
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139–167.
Cunningham, G.B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58, 136–145. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9312-3
Cunningham, G.B. (2014). Interdependence, mutuality, and collective action in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm.2013-0152
Dinich, H. (2014, October 27). Tommy Bowden: Condoleezza Rice not qualified for selection committee. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.espn.go.com
Fink, J.S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding comments. Sex Roles, 58, 146–147. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9364-4
Finn, C. (2014, July 25). Fox pulls all advertising on WEEI, Entercom. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www. bostonglobe.com
Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L., Gelfand, M.J., & Magley, V.J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578
Gibson, O. (2011, November 4). Women’s sport attracts $0.5\%$ of all sponsorship. The Guardian. Retrieved from http:// www.theguardian.com
Gibson, O. (2015, March 5). Sexist chanting at Chelsea’s Eva Carneiro cannot be swept under the carpet. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com
Gibson, O. (2014, March 7). Survey of women working in football finds sexism is rife in the game. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com
Glick, P. (2013). Backlash and the double bind. Gender and work: Challenging conventional wisdom (pp. 4–10). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, President and Fellow of Harvard College. Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory. Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., Fiske, S.T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., . . . López W.L (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps between the meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport organization. Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 259–280. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00342.x
Hoeber, L. (2008). Gender equity for athletes: Multiple understandings of an organizational value. Sex Roles, 58, 58–71. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9320-3
Hums, M.A. (2010). The conscious and commerce of sport management. One teacher’s perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 1–9.
Kane, M.J. (2011, July 27). Sex sells sex, not women’s sports. So what does sell women’s sports? Retrieved from http:// www.thenation.com
Kick It Out. (2015). Kick it out. Tackling racism and discrimination. Get involved. Retrieved from http://www. kickitout.org
King, D.H. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness. The context of a black feminist ideology. Signs (Chicago, Ill.), 14, 42–72.
King, J. (2012, May 16). Andrea Hudy: KU’s secret weapon. ESPN. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com
Knoppers, A. (2015). Assessing the sociology of sport: On critical sport sociology and sport management. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 50, 496–501. doi:10.1177/1012690214538862
McDonagh, E., & Pappano, L. (2007). Playing with the boys. Why separate is not equal in sports. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Merriam Webster Dictionary. (2015). Retrieved from http:// www.merriam-webster.com
Messner, M. (1992). Power at play. Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L.M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107
Moore, M. (2015, April 30). (In)Visibility. The Players Tribune. Retrieved from http:///www.theplayerstribune.com
Morrow, P.C., McElroy, J.C., & Phillips, C.M. (1994). Sexual harassment behaviors andwork-related perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 295–309. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1994.1037
Paluck, E.L., & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. doi:10.1146/ annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
Parks, J., & Robertson, M.A. (2004). Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on attitudes toward sexist language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 233–239. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00140.x
Patterson, M. (2015, May 28). ‘FIFA $16^{\cdot}$ will feature women’s national teams for 1st time in history of game. Bleacher Report. Retrieved from http://www.bleacherreport.com
Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York, NY: Knopf.
Schneider, K.T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1997). Jobrelated and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.401
Shaw, S., & Amis, J. (2001). Image and investment. Sponsorship and women’s sport. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 219–246.
Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 483–509.
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–337.
Shaw, S., & Slack, T. (2002). ‘It’s been like that for donkey’s years’: The construction of gender relations and the cultures of sport organizations. Culture, Sport, Society, 5, 86–106. doi:10.1080/713999851
Shaw, S., Wolfe, R., & Frisby, W. (2011). A critical management studies approach to sport management education: Insights, challenges and opportunities. Sport Management Education Journal, 5, 1–14.
Swim, J.K., & Cohen, L.L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997. tb00103.x
Thompson, P. (2015, March 26). Dan Bernstein apologizes for sexist comment: ‘I’m an idiot’. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com
Today Ad Meter, U.S.A. (2015). 2015 Ad Meter results: All 61 Super Bowl XLIX ads, from best to worst. And the winner is . . . Budweiser’s “Lost Dog”! USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.admeter.usatoday.com
Vagianos, A. (2014, December 12). Laci Green reminds us that sexism hurts men too. Retrieved from http://www. huffingtonpost.com
Walker, N.A., & Sartore-Baldwin, M.L. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institutionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think? Journal of Sport Management, 27, 303–315.
Williams, J.C. (2014). Hacking tech’s diversity problem. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Not All Doctoral Programs Are Created Equally
|
Jeffrey D. James Florida State University
|
2017
|
The 2017 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award presented in Denver, CO, addressed doctoral training in Sport Management programs. A review of the doctoral-granting degree programs listed on the website of the North American Society for Sport Management was completed. The review addressed the following three points: (a) number of hours required to earn a doctoral degree; (b) number of credit hours required for research tools, methods, and/or inquiry courses; and (c) whether program requirements included philosophy of science and/or philosophy of inquiry courses. The range of required hours for degree completion was 45–80. The number of required hours for research tools, methods, and/or inquiry ranged from 9 to 26. Four programs included specific content on the philosophy of science and/or inquiry. Concerns regarding the breadth, and to some degree the depth, of training were presented. Suggestions for action at the local level were shared as part of the conclusion.
Keywords: mentoring, quality, students
It is an honor to receive the Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award and to have the opportunity to speak today. As I begin, I would like to say, “Thank you,” to the selection committee for their work in reviewing nominations and bestowing this honor on me. I have been blessed in many ways in my life, and this award is a special blessing because it indicates something I have done is notable, even if just for this moment in time. Thanks also to Dr. Daniel Wann for providing my introduction. The irony is not lost on me that the individual delivering my introduction is one who has made significant contributions to the field with his work on team identification and sport fan motives. I have heard Dr. Wann referred to as a pioneer in these areas. Dr. Wann, I am grateful for the work you have done, for our friendship, and for my introduction. Thanks also to all of you for coming to the presentation. I do appreciate your attendance.
about essentially whatever you would like to discuss, but the challenging part is having limited direction or instruction.
Preparing this talk is probably one of the more difficult projects I have undertaken. I would guess some who have preceded me as a Zeigler Lecture Award winner had a similar struggle. Delivering this lecture is both an opportunity and a challenge. It is an opportunity to talk
What I know about the award comes from my experience listening to previous lectures and from the information posted on the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) website. The NASSM website is where I started my preparations. I began by trying to learn more about the lecture from the information posted. Going to the website with the award information—https://www.nassm.com/Awards/Zeigler—an individual will find a description of the award; the qualifications for the award; and scrolling down the page, a person will find in the section titled, “Submission process,” there is a “NOTE” (see Figure 1). The text of the note is as follows:
A specially-featured distinguished scholarly lecture is delivered regularly at the NASSM conference by a Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award recipient. Subsequently, the lecture is printed in the Journal of Sport Management. Additional information regarding the Earle F. Zeigler Award can be found in the NASSM Operating Codes. (Zeigler Lecture Award, n.d.)
The sentence about additional information seemed promising. I clicked on the link for the NASSM Operating Codes, and at the time when I was preparing my presentation—Spring 2017—what I found was not much. I was routed to a site with the words, “Page not found” prominently displayed (see Figure 2). Through a diligent search of the NASSM website,
The Zeigler Award is the most prestigious NAsSM award and may only be bestowed on an individual once ove the course of his/her career.
The nominee shall meet the following qualifications.
1. Must be a NAsSM member in good standing that has not previously received the Award.
2. Must have a minimum of ten years of service as a teacher, supervisor, administrator, or combination of the above.
3. Must have made significant contributions to the field in terms of scholarship, research, leadership, and peer recognition of his/her contributions.
4. Must reflect those qualities demonstrated by Dr. Zeigler in the areas of student growth and develo leadership, service, scholarship, and collegiality.
5. Must have made a significant contribution to the field of sport management.
The deadline for the NASSM Earle F. Zeigler Lecture is July 15. Information required for award nomination includes:
·Date ·Name of Nominee ·Name of Nominator ·Signature of Nominator
Completed nomination forms are to be emailed to the Member at Large appointed by the NAssM President. The current appointee is:
Dr. John Miller Troy University johnm@troy.edu
Individualswho accept their nomination will be asked to submit a vita and a two-page narrative describing their qualifications for the award. These items must be submitted no later than August 1.
NOTE:Aspecially-featureddistinguishedscholarlylectureisdeliveredregularlyattheNASSMconferencebya Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award recipient. Subsequently, the lecture is printed in the Journal of Sport Management. Additional information regarding the Earle F. Zeigler Award can be found in the NASSM Operating Codes.
Figure 1 — Zeigler Lecture Award description.
Figure 2 — Link to NASSM operating codes.
however, I was able to find the operating codes. I am pleased to note that following the 2017 conference, the website was updated, and the access point to the operating codes on the Zeigler Award page should now direct an individual to a working link.
In my reading of the operating codes, I located the section pertaining to the Zeigler Lecture Award. In that section, I found the following information.
The recipient shall present a lecture at the Society’s Annual Banquet. The Committee Chairperson shall notify the award recipient that the recipient may select the individual to provide an introduction at the Society’s Annual Banquet. The banquet will proceed according to the protocol outlined in the attachment following this section. (NASSM Operating Codes, n.d., p. 44)
The 2017 Zeigler Award lecture was delivered on a Thursday morning as a keynote presentation, not as part of the annual banquet. An announcement was sent out in fall 2017 that the lecture was being moved from the Saturday evening banquet to a Thursday morning address. One of the reasons for doing so, based on the information provided, was so the Zeigler lecture could serve as an opportunity for the speaker to “set the tone for the conference.” My first reaction to that idea was, “No pressure there.” After reading about the day and time change for the talk, I really began wondering, “What am I going to talk about?” Little did I know there was more good news coming, but not any more direction. In one of his notes about the conference, President George Cunningham wrote, “Dr. Jeff James will deliver what will assuredly be an engaging Earle F. Zeigler
Award Lecture.” While I appreciated the kind words, I was again thinking, “No pressure there.”
It was a challenge to decide on a topic, and I took time to try and figure out how to proceed. To get some direction, I went back to the qualifications and started to think about why I may have been selected as this year’s award winner. Per the information posted on the NASSM website, to qualify for the award a nominee:
a. Must be a NASSM member in good standing who has not previously received the award.
b. Must have a minimum of 10 years of service as a teacher, supervisor, administrator, or combination of the above.
c. Must have made significant contributions to the field in terms of scholarship, research, leadership, and peer recognition of his or her contributions.
d. Must reflect those qualities demonstrated by Dr. Zeigler in the areas of student growth and development, leadership, service, scholarship, and collegiality.
e. Must have made a significant contribution to the field of Sport Management.
Thinking about the qualifications, I reflected on how I satisfied the various elements. I thought to myself, “I am a member in good standing and have plenty of time served as a teacher, supervisor, administrator, or combination of the three.” I am willing to guess those elements, while important, were not the deciding factors. That leaves reflecting qualities demonstrated by Dr. Zeigler, and my contributions. I was not going to try and compare myself to Dr. Zeigler, so I focused on the contribution element.
I reviewed what I wrote about contributions in my nomination materials. I believe my contributions fit broadly in three groupings. One grouping includes work associated with the Psychological Continuum Model (Funk & James, 2001, 2006). A second grouping includes work associated with the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (Trail & James, 2001). The third grouping includes work associated with mentoring of doctoral students. The work with doctoral students also reflects contributions to student mentoring and their growth and development.
Along with thinking about my prospective contributions, I took the obvious step of reviewing past Zeigler lectures. After going over the previous lectures that are available, it seems to me the lecture is typically one of two types. First, previous award winners seem to talk about an element of the speaker’s research or a prospective topic for which they encourage future research. Some examples of this type of talk include Dr. Fink’s presentation on the embedded nature of sexism in sport (Fink, 2016); Dr. Zhang’s discussion of, “What to Study?” (Zhang, 2015); Dr. Thibault’s presentation on the globalization of sport (Thibault, 2009); and going back a few years, Dr. Stotlar’s talk about vertical integration in sport (Stotlar, 2000).
The second type of lecture, some past winners have given, has been focused on the state of the field in some manner or discussion of directions in which the field should move. Some examples of the second type of lecture include Dr. Doherty’s talk on interdisciplinary research (Doherty, 2013); Dr. Danylchuk’s presentation on internationalizing ourselves (Danylchuk, 2011); Dr. Mahony’s discussion on working together for Sport Management’s future (Mahony, 2008); and Dr. Chalip’s talk on a distinctive Sport Management discipline (Chalip, 2006). With ideas from the various lectures filling my thoughts, I returned to the point about my contributions, and I focused on my third element, working with doctoral students. That led me to think about some questions, which helped frame my talk.
Over the years, the “second type” of Zeigler Award lectures has included calls and/or recommendations regarding the state of the field and future directions for the field. What struck me is the “calls” and recommendations keep coming. That led me to wonder, “Are we really making many changes or improving? Are the calls being answered?”
I recognize as any field matures and grows, there will be new opportunities and new directions, which may be followed. Which means we will always have opportunities to propose new directions and/or to consider the “state of the field.” So while I do wonder to some extent whether the calls from previous years have been answered, the question that I chose to focus on was, “What are we doing to prepare the future scholars to answer the calls and/or to face new opportunities?” Perhaps just as important, if not more important is the question, “Will we do better?”
I spent time thinking about doctoral training because whether people are working at a doctoral university, a master’s college or university, a baccalaureate college, or an associate’s college, a common factor is having a doctoral degree in order to take on a faculty member position. In an effort to try and answer the question, “What are we doing to prepare the future scholars?” I first thought about and reviewed what we have done and are trying to do at Florida State to prepare doctoral students. I provide information about the program at Florida State not to suggest others should replicate our efforts, but to have a starting point for discussion and program comparison. It also made sense to me to start with what I know best.
In 2008, the three degree programs at Florida State—bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral—were revised. The faculty members identified four Sport Management content areas that serve as the “pillars” on which our programming is based. The four pillars are Legal and Policy Studies, Media and Cultural Studies in Sport, Sport Management, and Sport Marketing. The content areas are the basis for our seminar series, which is a very important part of the doctoral program. In addition to Sport Management–based content courses, we made sure to include opportunities for students to complete course work in a core or base discipline (e.g., Marketing, Communication, Finance, Higher Education, Management) and also to complete elective work. Perhaps most importantly, we also expanded the breadth of training for scholarly activity.
Historically, students in the doctoral program at Florida State completed a traditional research methods course and, along the way, various statistics courses, with some students completing courses in qualitative research methods, which likely include training in use of various qualitative tools, such as observation, focus groups, and interviews. What was missing from the program of study was course work through which students were challenged to understand inquiry not only from a philosophy of science perspective, but also from the philosophy of inquiry. In other words, to challenge individuals to understand different paradigms and the particular ontological, epistemological, and axiological positions associated with each.
Through the process of revising the program of study, we retained what most would likely think of as a traditional research methods course. We added course work pertaining to the history, ethics, and politics of evidence and research; competing theoretical paradigms; and strategies of inquiry, particularly strategies associated with qualitative inquiry (e.g., ethnography, case study, observation, narrative inquiry, interviewing, focus groups, etc.). One of our primary intentions is to challenge an individual to understand what she or he believes, and why, and how such understanding directs one’s scholarly activity. We also identified course work inside the department and across the university students could complete in order to further develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities to engage in scholarly inquiry. The tools course work can be selected to allow a focus on quantitative, qualitative, or a mixed approach to inquiry. Of course, the application of a mixed approach depends on one’s philosophical “leanings.”
The revisions to the program of study pertaining to scholarly activity were not made with the intent to direct students to a particular paradigm. Instead, the revisions were made so that those completing the various courses would better understand why and how they are most likely to engage in scholarly activity. The breadth of training should also prepare individuals to engage and collaborate with colleagues in and beyond our field that may adhere to a different paradigm. An important goal is appreciating the value of differences and how our differences may help us collectively learn and grow, and ultimately answer the calls and recommendations for advancing a field of study.
There is nothing new or particularly novel in the goal of challenging individuals to engage in critical thinking, to broaden their understanding. The question though is within our respective programs, are we preparing individuals to be well-informed scholars, or are we doing something else, providing a more narrow range of learning and training? Recognizing that Dr. Frisby in her Zeigler Award lecture challenged us to engage in critical social science (Frisby, 2005), then 8 years later Dr. Doherty challenged us to embrace interdisciplinary research (Doherty, 2013), one could conclude that we are still working to answer the calls. Which brings me back to the question, “What are we doing to prepare future scholars?”
In addition to thinking about the curriculum at Florida State, I also reviewed other doctoral programs to gauge what is being done to prepare future scholars, at least from a program-level perspective. My review of programs did not include every possible doctoral-granting Sport Management program. Since the lecture was delivered at the NASSM annual conference, I reviewed programs identified through the association. On the NASSM website, one will find a listing of doctoral-granting Sport Management programs (see Table 1). The listing (at the time of this writing) includes 33 programs in the United States and six programs in Canada. My review involved going through the information provided by each program. I was interested in three particular questions.
a. What are the number of credit hours (post-master’s degree) required to earn a doctoral degree?
b. What are the number of credit hours required for research tools, methods, and/or inquiry courses?
Table 1 Doctoral Degree Programs in North America
<html><body><table><tr><td>Location</td><td>School</td></tr><tr><td>Alabama</td><td>Troy University</td></tr><tr><td>Alabama</td><td>UnitedStatesSportsAcademy</td></tr><tr><td>Arkansas</td><td>University of Arkansas, Fayetteville</td></tr><tr><td>Colorado</td><td>University of Northern Colorado</td></tr><tr><td>Connecticut</td><td>Universityof Connecticut</td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td>Florida State University</td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td>St. Thomas University</td></tr><tr><td>Florida</td><td>University of Florida</td></tr><tr><td>Georgia</td><td>Georgia State University</td></tr><tr><td>Georgia</td><td>University of Georgia</td></tr><tr><td>Illinois</td><td>ConcordiaUniversity Chicago</td></tr><tr><td>Illinois</td><td>University of Illinois</td></tr><tr><td>Indiana</td><td>Indiana University</td></tr><tr><td>Kansas</td><td>University of Kansas</td></tr><tr><td>Kentucky</td><td>University of Louisville</td></tr><tr><td>Louisiana</td><td>Louisiana State University</td></tr><tr><td>Massachusetts</td><td>University of Massachusetts</td></tr><tr><td>Michigan</td><td>University of Michigan</td></tr><tr><td>Minnesota</td><td>University of Minnesota</td></tr><tr><td>New Mexico</td><td>University of NewMexico</td></tr><tr><td>Ohio</td><td>TheOhioStateUniversity</td></tr><tr><td>Ontario</td><td>Brock University</td></tr><tr><td>Ontario</td><td>University of Ottawa</td></tr><tr><td>Ontario</td><td>University of Waterloo</td></tr><tr><td>Ontario</td><td>University of Windsor</td></tr><tr><td>Ontario</td><td>Western University</td></tr><tr><td>Oregon</td><td>Sports Management Worldwide</td></tr><tr><td>Pennsylvania</td><td>Penn State University</td></tr><tr><td>Pennsylvania</td><td>Temple University's School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management</td></tr><tr><td>Saskatchewan</td><td>University of Regina</td></tr><tr><td>South Carolina</td><td>University of South Carolina</td></tr><tr><td>Tennessee</td><td>University of Tennessee</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>Texas A&M University</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>Texas Woman's University</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>University of Houston</td></tr><tr><td>Texas</td><td>University of Texas</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>OldDominionUniversity</td></tr><tr><td>Virginia</td><td>Virginia Commonwealth University</td></tr><tr><td>Wisconsin</td><td>Marquette University Law School</td></tr></table></body></html>
Source: https://www.nassm.org/node/130; https://www.nassm.org/ node/133.
c. To what extent are students required to complete any philosophy of science and/or any philosophy of inquiry courses?
It is important to note that degree programs in North America, particularly in the United States, are structured by credit hours (also referred to in this writing as simply “hours”). I recognize that degree programs in other countries use other metrics and terms regarding degree completion. Since the focus of this work is on North American doctoral programs, the questions pertain to credit hours.
Why the three questions? The first question is a gauge of the breadth of training associated with a doctoral degree. Such information allows for a basic comparison across programs within Sport Management and potentially a comparison with other degree programs. Simply put, are different programs requiring a comparable amount of training? The second question was meant to focus on the amount of course work required that arguably is focused on scholarly training, which I am specifically thinking of as the “use” of tools and the learning about the nature of research and inquiry. A doctoral degree for all intents and purposes is intended—in my view—to prepare an individual to engage in scholarly work that includes instruction, but in this context, the focus is on training to engage in research.
The third question is an extension of the second question. As previously noted, one revision made to the doctoral program at Florida State was requiring students to complete courses pertaining to the history, ethics, and politics of evidence and research; competing theoretical paradigms; and strategies of inquiry, particularly strategies associated with qualitative inquiry. I was curious to know to what extent other programs may require students to complete comparable course work challenging an individual to understand what she or he believes, and why, and how such understanding directs her or his scholarly activity. For me, the third question is about the depth of education being provided.
As I read about programs and reviewed the information available, I chose to remove some programs from the analysis. In an effort to compare degree programs, I thought it was important that there be consistency in the type of doctoral degree. All but two of the degree programs listed on the NASSM website offer a doctorate of philosophy; one program offers a juris doctorate degree and another program offers a doctorate of education. The two non-PhD programs were excluded from the review. Reading through the course content available, I found seven programs did not actually include Sport Management content per se, or at least as far as I could determine. There were other foci, most commonly courses pertaining to Kinesiology or Health Studies. When I write, “no Sport Management content per se,” I very generally referred to the common professional component from the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation materials as a frame for Sport Management content. If programs did not include in their course listings or program of study requirements any of the content associated with the Commission on Sport Management Accreditation criteria, they were excluded from the review. Two programs included some but not all of the information of interest;
specifically, I could find no information about required or elective research-based courses. Finally, there were two programs for which I could not locate any information about degree requirements or particular course work on their respective websites. In sum, I learned about the doctoral programs from 26 North American universities. So what did I do and what did I learn?
To acquire the information needed to answer the three questions, information about the 26 doctoral degree programs was collected. The information was collected from each program’s specific website, program of study forms, advising guides, general bulletins, course listings and descriptions, and any files posted on the Internet that provided information about the respective doctoral degree programs. The information I sought included the number of hours (post-master’s degree) required for a doctoral degree; the number of hours required for research-based course work, which could include methods, tools, inquiry, or theory courses; and whether program requirements include philosophy of science and/or philosophy of inquiry courses. The decision to collect information from online resources was based on the availability of such information. In addition, upon sending random queries requesting information about a doctoral degree program, the e-mail responses included statements that program information was available online.
Total hours. The first question deals with the number of credit hours (post-master’s degree) required to earn a doctoral degree in Sport Management (in North America). I focused on hours completed post-master’s degree for a particular reason. Reading through the general information about graduate degrees on university websites, I consistently found a general statement about a 90-hr postbaccalaureate requirement for completion of a doctoral degree. The number of postbaccalaureate credit hours is a component of accreditation criteria. Within Sport Management, individuals entering a doctoral program most often do so after completing a master’s degree. Accordingly, the credit hours earned in a master’s degree are counted toward the postbaccalaureate requirement. For the review, I focused on the hours required post-master’s degree.
The number of credit hours required for doctoral degree completion across the programs reviewed is listed in Table 2. The number of required hours ranged from a low of 45 to a high of 80; the average number of hours required for degree completion is 61. Taking into consideration the 90-hr postbaccalaureate criteria and accounting for completion of a master’s degree ( $36\mathrm{hr}$ for the purpose of discussion), it is reasonable to expect students will complete $54\mathrm{~hr}$ to earn a doctoral degree. With an average of 61, it would seem the doctoral programs on average require an “expected” number of hours for degree completion.
Table 2 Doctoral Program Information
<html><body><table><tr><td colspan="4">Total Credit</td><td rowspan="2">Researchb Tools/Methods (Minimum Credit Hours)</td></tr><tr><td>Program</td><td>Hours for PhDa (Post-Master's Degree)</td><td>Dissertation Credit Hours</td><td>Coursework Credit Hours</td></tr><tr><td>University 01</td><td>64</td><td>16</td><td>48</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 02</td><td>63</td><td>15</td><td>48</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 03</td><td>67</td><td>9</td><td>58</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>University 04</td><td>80</td><td>24</td><td>56</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>University 05</td><td>60</td><td>12</td><td>48</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>University 06</td><td>67</td><td>25</td><td>42</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>University 07</td><td>66</td><td>6</td><td>60</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 08</td><td>80</td><td>20</td><td>60</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>University 09</td><td>49</td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>University 10</td><td>72</td><td>21</td><td>51</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 11</td><td>45</td><td>12</td><td>33</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>University 12</td><td>77</td><td>9</td><td>68</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>University 13</td><td>66</td><td>18</td><td>48</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 14</td><td>50</td><td>20</td><td>30</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 15</td><td>54</td><td>18</td><td>36</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>University 16</td><td>57</td><td>6</td><td>51</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>University 17</td><td>60</td><td>12</td><td>48</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 18</td><td>54</td><td>6</td><td>48</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>University 19</td><td>54</td><td>18</td><td>36</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>University 20</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>42</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>University 21</td><td></td><td>24</td><td>48</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>72</td><td></td><td>36</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>University 22</td><td>60</td><td>24 18</td><td>49</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>University 23</td><td>67 60</td><td>6</td><td>54</td><td>12 12</td></tr><tr><td>University 24</td><td>60</td><td>18</td><td>42</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>University 25</td><td>48</td><td>9</td><td>39</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>University 26 Average credit hours</td><td>61</td><td>15</td><td>46</td><td>14</td></tr></table></body></html>
aSum of dissertation and course work hours. bHours included in the course work total.
Thinking about the number of required hours led to a follow-up question, how many of the total hours are course work and how many are dissertation credit hours? When we factor out the number of dissertation hours, we learn how many actual course hours an individual completes to earn a doctoral degree. The number of required dissertation credit hours for each program reviewed is listed in Table 2. The number of credit hours ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 25; the average number of required hours is 15. It should be noted that the number of credit hours is not reflective of the actual hours (in real time) involved in completing a dissertation.
Based on the preceding information, it is possible to calculate the number of course work hours for each degree program (see Table 2). The number of credit hours of course work ranges from 24 to 68, with the average being $46\mathrm{hr}$ . Said another way, one requirement to earn a doctoral degree—depending on the program— is completion of eight classes on the low end to 22 classes on the high end. The number of classes was estimated based on each course being 3 credit hours. I recognize the number of credit hours may not be three for each course; my goal was not to “tease out” the credit-hour details for each course, rather to look across programs and offer some sense of what is required in the field to complete a doctoral degree.
The point here is not to gauge whether there is an “ideal” number of hours or number of courses that should be completed, rather to get a sense across our degree programs as to what is the breadth and depth of training being provided. Perhaps most importantly, to illustrate there is a substantial variation in requirements with some graduates potentially completing eight classes (along with the dissertation and other requirements) over a 3- to 4-year period, whereas others take as many as 22 classes over the same period. It is reasonable to conclude that there is substantial variation in the training and preparation of doctoral students across programs. After assessing the total hours for degree completion and the breakdown between course work and dissertation work, I attempted to ascertain the number of credit hours required in each program for research tools, methods, and/or inquiry courses.
Total hours for research tools/methods/inquiry. The number of hours required pertaining to research-based courses (e.g., research methods, statistics, qualitative research methods, etc.) are listed in Table 2. The number of required hours ranges from 9 to 26, with the average being $14~\mathrm{hr}$ . “Translating” the hours to number of classes, for some programs students may take no more than three research-based courses. At the other end of the range, students earning the doctoral degree may complete eight or more research-based courses. Again, the point is not to suggest some “ideal” number of courses, but to illustrate the variation in training that is occurring. Thinking about the number of hours required pertaining to research methods, tools, and/or inquiry courses, the third question was posed to assess in more detail the extent to which Sport Management doctoral students are learning more than just how to compute various statistics, and/or how to conduct interviews and focus. To what extent are students learning about the philosophy of science, the philosophy of inquiry, and being challenged to understand why and how they approach research, or the study of phenomena of interest?
Programs requiring philosophy of science/inquiry courses. A challenge in answering the third question was deciding what should be included in the assessment as a philosophy of science/inquiry course. The decision was made to err on the side of including more rather than less. Courses that included the term “philosophy” in the title were likely candidates, for example, Philosophy of Scientific Inquiry. Other titles that were “counted” included Principles of Scientific Inquiry, Naturalistic Inquiry, Qualitative Inquiry in Sport and Physical Culture. Course descriptions were read to gauge the content offered in an attempt to ensure courses with the particular content were included in the review, regardless of a particular title.
Among the 26 programs reviewed, four required some type of philosophy of science/inquiry course work. All programs reviewed required a (traditional) research methods course, and at least one (usually more) statistics course. Other frequent courses found include advanced research methods, qualitative research methods, along with an assortment of statistics courses. The point here is not that students lack knowledge of philosophy of science/inquiry content, though that may be the situation. The point is that a very small percentage of programs have included such content as a requirement in their degree program. Students may engage with such content through elective course work, as part of their required hours for research-based course work. It is reasonable to ask though, whether students will complete course work that is not required of them.
What does one take away from reading these “musings?” First, not all doctoral programs are created equally. Thinking about just the number of hours required for degree completion, there is a substantial difference in the training and preparation for a student completing $45~\mathrm{hr}$ to earn a degree compared with one completing $80\mathrm{hr}$ for ostensibly the same degree. There is arguably even a substantive difference when comparing the lower end number of hours (45) to the average for this review (61). There could be a discrepancy in breadth of knowledge; a person taking 61 or $80\mathrm{hr}$ can complete a broader range of course work. There could be a discrepancy in depth of knowledge; someone completing 61 or $80~\mathrm{hr}$ may be taking multiple courses pertaining to the same topic to build a knowledge base about which she or he truly becomes an expert.
The concern about training and preparation, about the breadth and depth of knowledge, is highlighted when dissertation credit hours are subtracted from the total hours. Based on the program reviews, a person could complete eight courses, along with dissertation credit hours, and meet the requirements for a doctoral degree in Sport Management. Another person with the same degree may have completed 22 courses along with the dissertation credit hours. Thinking about someone at each end of the range, there is no question the two individuals are not trained or prepared equally. I recognize that the “low-end” figures for each of the elements cited represent a “minimum.” It is possible that even in programs where students could graduate with as few as $45~\mathrm{hr}.$ , they are completing more than the minimum number of credit hours. This review does not include information as to how many credit hours students are actually completing. Since it is possible to earn a Sport Management doctoral degree with a relatively small number of credit hours though, it is reasonable to conclude some individuals are doing so.
A particular concern to highlight regarding the training and preparation of doctoral students is providing the knowledge and skills to engage in scholarly activity. A question to ask is whether students are learning more about “how to” and not enough about “why” and “what does this mean.” Working with the average number of credit hours listed in Table 2 (61), think about the “structure” of doctoral programs overall. Think about how these total credit hours are allocated. Degree programs generally include three components: (a) topical course work (which likely includes Sport Management content, discipline content, specialization content, and elective content); (b) research tools/methods course work (these hours include statistics courses, and more often than not “how to” courses, how to use various tools of research, and may include philosophy of science/ inquiry courses); and (c) the third component is dissertation credit hours.
Within the respective programs, the required credit hours are allocated, whether it may be 61 or another number, across the three components. From reviewing the 26 programs, my sense is that most do provide access to what I have termed topical content. How much content students may learn about is relative to the number of course hours required for the degree. Also, the number of dissertation credit hours required, while varied, may not be as much of a concern as the quality of the dissertation completed. Whether earning six or 20 credit hours, a primary consideration for a dissertation should be the quality of the work. In addition, it is reasonable to expect no matter what the total number of credit hours students will take as much (real) time as needed to complete the dissertation work. That leaves the research-based course work to consider.
In reviewing the various curricula, a recurring structure was observed in relation to research-based course work. Programs more often than not include the following requirements:
<html><body><table><tr><td>Researchmethods</td><td>3 credit hours</td></tr><tr><td>Statistics</td><td>9credithours</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitativeresearchmethods</td><td>3credithours</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>15 credit hours</td></tr></table></body></html>
The structure is consistent with the average credit hours (14) illustrated in Table 2. The most frequent number for required hours in research-based courses in Table 2 is 12. It is not known from the review what combination of courses students might complete, but it would not surprise to me to learn that someone completing only 12 credit hours in research-based courses focused on research methods (not qualitative research methods) and statistics.
Teaching courses such as research methods, statistics, and qualitative research methods is important. I believe there is good content in these courses, and they contribute to the training and development of future scholars. I am also convinced we can do better. The content in such courses have particular foci, which generally do not include philosophy of science and/or philosophy of inquiry. Any such content included is likely minimal rather than in-depth.
Think about courses you have completed and perhaps even taught. A research methods book likely has a least a section (though not typically a whole chapter) on the scientific method and brief overviews of some paradigms (e.g., positivism, postpositivism, constructivism). A research methods course is not intended to provide in-depth content pertaining to philosophy of science/inquiry, and if any such content is included, the scientific method would be prioritized. That is okay in my opinion because I think it is good to learn about the scientific method. It is also good though, to learn about other approaches to inquiry.
Think also about a qualitative research methods course. I agree with having individuals complete such a course. The content is likely focused though, on what I think of as “tools,” learning how to conduct observations, interviews, focus groups, and so on. The intent is not to teach the philosophy of inquiry. Nor does it necessary have to be so, but such content is important —in my opinion—and should be taught. Content pertaining to philosophy of science and philosophy of inquiry if not readily available within a Sport Management program or department, is certainly available within a university. Our challenge is connecting individuals with such content.
A question that should be answered is, “Are we only partially preparing the next group of scholars?” If we are not teaching, or at least connecting individuals with those who do teach, philosophy of science and philosophy of inquiry, we are in one sense teaching individuals how to use tools, but not teaching them—or at least not teaching them well—why they may use, or the reason for, the particular tools. It is important to challenge individuals to understand different paradigms and the particular ontological, epistemological, and axiological positions associated with each. It is important to challenge an individual to understand what she or he believes, and why, and how such understanding directs her or his scholarly activity. It is of particular importance that we teach students there are different paradigms and different approaches to learning and understanding, and to teach that the differences do not equate to one thought group being better or worse, or right or wrong. It is through navigating our differences, through learning to value the differences, that we advance the field.
Some Sport Management doctoral programs—four to be specific—include content on the philosophy of science and/or inquiry at least based on the posting of program curricula and/or course listings. It is possible that more programs are requiring some type of philosophy of science and/or inquiry course work. It may be they simply do not post a detailed program curriculum or course listings. It can be concluded from the review of 26 programs, however, that the majority of programs adhere to the basic 15-hr structure illustrated above for research tools and methods course work. It is likely—in my opinion—that even when more than $15\mathrm{hr}$ are completed, the additional hours are statistics courses.
The point here is not to teach fewer statistics courses or for that matter fewer of any research-based courses. A point to consider is whether we are properly grounding individuals in philosophy of science and philosophy of inquiry, so they understand why they may complete 9, 12, or more hours in statistics courses. Or why they may choose to focus on observation-based inquiry, focus groups, interviews, ethnography, autoethnography, or another phenomenological approach.
Returning to the question, “What do I take away?” I suggest the following. As an association we should give consideration to our expectations for doctoral training. Currently, there are no particular criteria for doctoral degrees regarding the total number of required credit hours (outside of a particular university’s parameters); the number of course work and dissertation credit hours;
or the allocation of credit hours to various types of content (e.g., topical, philosophy, discipline, elective, etc.). That is, however, a longer road to travel. It should be done, but if we are honest, we must acknowledge action at the association level will take a while to occur, if others even think the topic should be addressed. For those who are part of doctoral training programs, we can take more immediate action.
One simple task is to evaluate one’s program. Determine whether students in the program are being challenged to understand philosophy of science and philosophy of inquiry. If not, can such content be included in the program of study, perhaps as required elective content, or in the requirement for research competency. If such content is to be included, can such content be delivered through the program? If the faculty members in the program are not in a position to do so, find out if there are colleagues at a respective university who teach such content. The topics are not new; there are faculty members at every doctoral-granting institution who teach such content.
If students are engaging in philosophy content, continue what you do well and consider how you can improve on what you are doing. The quality of the training we are providing will determine the future of our field. We are either preparing individuals to be critical thinkers, to face the opportunities and challenges to come, or training people to use tools. We do need to know how to use tools. That type of training alone though is not sufficient. That type of training does not prepare individuals to address the challenges we face as a diverse field.
Sport Management is a diverse field, as we all know. If we are honest, we have a label that really has two meanings. On the one hand, “Sport Management” refers to a content area. On the other hand, the label refers to a diverse field of study that encompasses much more than management and related content. A simple review of any conference program reminds us of the breadth and depth of our field. We have work in sport marketing dealing with professional, intercollegiate, and community-level sport programs. We have work in sport management dealing with professional, intercollegiate, and community-level programs. We have work dealing with legal and policy studies in sport. We have work dealing with sport and social media. We have work dealing with sport for development at the international, national, and local level. Peers are working with sport in homeless populations and underserved populations in communities. And the list goes on.
We must have scholars with a breadth of knowledge and training that prepares them to do more than just use tools. Those involved in doctoral training must challenge the individuals who you work with and, in turn, expect to be challenged. A point that must not be forgotten is that those working with doctoral students are not training acolytes. We must challenge those we are working with to be more than we are, to do more than we have done. In so doing, they will be prepared to face the challenges and opportunities that will come and to advance Sport Management as a field of study.
Many thanks once again for being chosen this honor and for the opportunity to deliver this address.
|
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21. doi:10.1123/jsm.20.1.1
Danylchuk, K. (2011). Internationalizing ourselves: Realities, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 1–10. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.1.1
Doherty, A. (2013). “It takes a village:” Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1–10.
Fink, J.S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 30, 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm.2015-0278
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1–12. doi:10.1123/jsm.19.1.1
Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119–150. doi:10.1016/S1441- 3523(01)70072-1
Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189–217. doi:10.1123/jsm.20.2.189
Mahony, D.F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10. doi:10.1123/ jsm.22.1.1
NASSM Operating Codes. (n.d.). p. 44. Retrieved from https:// www.nassm.org/sites/default/files/NASSM%20Operating %20Codes%20%2805312017%29.pdf
Stotlar, D.K. (2000). Vertical integration in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm.14.1.1
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 1–20. doi:10. 1123/jsm.23.1.1
Trail, G.T., & James, J.D. (2001). The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption: Assessment of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.
Zeigler Lecture Award. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www. nassm.com/Awards/Zeigler
Zhang, J.J. (2015). What to study? That is a question: A conscious thought analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 1–10. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0163
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Spreading Research Uncomfortably Slow: Insight for Emerging Sport Management Scholars
|
Daniel C. Funk Temple University
|
2018
|
Self-reflection on knowledge generation in sport management is essential for continued growth and remains a prevailing topic for recipients of the Earle F. Zeigler Award. To date, two perspectives largely guide such evaluation: What makes a theoretical contribution and what constitutes new theory. The 2018 Earle F. Zeigler Address introduces a third perspective based on the concept of diffusion to explore three elements: article innovation, communication channel, and social system that contribute to producing and spreading new knowledge. This examination utilizes data and information collected from sport management articles, journal citations, a case study, editorial board membership characteristics, and my coauthor network and publishing experiences. Holistically, the evidence collected provides insight into how and why ideas could spread in sport management. Unfortunately, for new and emerging scholars, spreading ideas through academic journals will be uncomfortably slow and managing expectations important. However, by understanding the academic publishing ecosystem, scholars can improve chances for idea diffusion through selecting appropriate journal outlets, establishing interpersonal connections, creating weak and strong coauthor ties, and engaging in programmatic research. This address concludes with strategies to help navigate spreading research ideas by setting realistic goals, optimizing the coauthor network, and reinvesting in the original idea.
Keywords: communication, diffusion, networks
The ability to spread a new idea remains a key strategy for organizations and individuals. Whether in business to increase revenue, in politics to promote causes, or in health care to improve patient well-being, spreading a new idea is important for success. For new and emerging sport management scholars, success will not only depend on developing a new idea but also getting that idea seen and heard by other academics who will then use it in their research and teaching, as well as industry professionals putting it into practice. Whether the idea is a theory, concept, construct, or method, getting the idea to spread is likely more important than coming up with the original idea.
Publishing in academic journals remains a key metric with career and personal implications. The ability to disseminate a new idea has financial implications related to merit, promotion, and tenure. Spreading an idea has social implications related to increasing interpersonal connections and psychological implications of improved self-esteem. As employees with highly specialized expertise, we rely on journals to spread our intellectual property. Unfortunately, spreading an idea through academic journals is an uncomfortably slow process. The concept of diffusion provides an instructive perspective to assess this spread and provides insights for developing strategies.
Much of the work on diffusion originates from Evert Rogers’s efforts in communication. Rogers and others outline the process of how a new idea or product gains momentum over time and spreads through a specific population or social system (Bass, 1969; Rogers, 2003). This idea of diffusion has been used and studied across many fields including sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics, and marketing. At the core of diffusion is the role of human capital that helps explain why and when a certain percentage of people or organizations adopt a new idea. A graphic illustration of the innovation adoption life cycle utilizes the normal bell curve. In general, when new ideas are introduced, a small group of early innovators and early adopters initially adopt them. As the idea spreads to the early majority, it peaks at the top of the bell curve and begins to decline as late majority and laggards begin adopting the idea. Although instructive to understand innovation and technology life cycles, does the adoption curve reflect how ideas spread within academic journals?
One potential way to address this question is to examine the life cycle of journals citations for academic articles. Research on journal citations across dissimilar fields indicate that the number of article citations increase after publication, then plateaus, and then declines in a similar fashion as the adoption curve (Galiani & Gálvez, 2017; Galvez, 2017). Across all fields, the same generic shape emerges, with some differences in growth and decay rates by disciplines. Based on this perspective, sport management article citations are likely to follow similar general life cycle trends.
Theoretically, cumulative citations for a sport management article should follow the S-Curve pattern. The S Curve represents the relative speed as measured by length of time for a certain percentage of academics to adopt and cite the article in the own articles (see Figure 1). For example, once an article is published, it will be cited at first by a relatively small number of researchers in their own published research articles as illustrated by early adopters on the left side of Figure 1. This indicates slow and gradual initial adoption. If that article is going to be successful, then a rapid increase in the height of the S Curve occurs sending the curve sharply upward as noted by diffusion in the middle of the S Curve in Figure 1. At this stage, the article gains momentum as the majority of researchers working in a particular area begin citing the article in their own papers. The initial steeply rising part of the S Curve in which citations increase rapidly represents the “tipping point,” popularized in Malcolm Gladwell’s book. As article citations continue to increase, it reaches critical mass as late adopters begin to cite the article. This occurs at the top of the S Curve in Figure 1, when citations slow down and flatten out indicating the rate of citations is reaching the maximum, and once $100\%$ of all researchers who would likely cite the article have now done so indicating the article is self-sustaining.
Figure 1 — Sport management article citation diffusion.
The S Curve of cumulative article citations is useful to explore how scholars through academic journals spread ideas. A key assumption is that the idea will reach the tipping point indicating a majority of scholars in a particular area of research are now citing the article that introduced the original idea. However, this assumption ignores the reality that some ideas will never reach the tipping point, which would represent a relatively flat S Curve of citations. In addition, the length of time it takes to reach the tipping point varies indicating that some ideas could spread quicker, which would yield a relatively elevated S Curve.
According to Rogers (2003), three elements will influence diffusion or the shape of the S Curve. These elements are the innovation, the channel, and the social system. As ideas are rarely adopted instantaneously, a fourth element of time is also necessary. Time is often used to categorize adopters and as such, there is an inherent link with innovation, channel, and social system. Diffusion of innovation researchers assume that over time innovations will become adopted as they flow through communication channels and reach a larger number of social systems (Obstfeld, 2005). These three elements are instructive to explore how sport management ideas spread from an academic publishing perspective.
Innovation in sport management can represent knowledge published in an academic article perceived as new by other scholars. According to Rogers, key attributes of innovation such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability, and observability influence the rate of adoption. Within sport management articles, innovation attributes are embedded in continued discussion of theory development in terms of generating new insight into a sport management phenomenon (Chalip, 2006, Fink, 2016; Slack, 1996; Zhang, 2015). Such insight represents new knowledge driven by two perspectives: What makes a theoretical contribution and what constitutes a new theory (Sutton & Staw, 1995; Whetton, 1989). These two perspectives are similar to the Derivative and Sportfocused models Chalip (2006) highlighted and represent different pathways scholars can take to develop a new sport management idea.
The first perspective highlights how scholars apply theories and concepts from broader disciplines such as sociology, psychology, marketing, and economics into sport contexts. By following this derivative path, scholars can assess whether a general theory is valid in sport management. However, once applied or tested, how findings make a contribution back to the original theory or concept is rarely discussed and undetermined as noted by a panel of scholars in the area of sport consumer behavior (Funk, 2017).
The second perspective calls for scholars to develop sportspecific theories to examine the sport management context. Taking this sport-focused path enables scholars to create new midrange theories that are context specific and more limited in scope to sport management (Henderson, Presley, & Bialeschki, 2004). Unfortunately, this approach raises questions over whether sport management is a unique discipline and importantly what constitutes a new theory (Bacharach, 1989; Slack, 1996).
So which pathway to sport management article innovation should a new and emerging scholar take? Apply an existing theory from outside of sport management or develop a new sport-focused theory. From a diffusion perspective, an obvious response is the pathway that could lead to faster idea spread. Hence, applying an existing theory may actually be faster to spread a new idea if this approach leverages awareness and understanding of theories previously published in journals. In addition, getting other academics to adopt a new sport-specific theory may take longer, given it will take time to gain awareness and traction within and outside sport management. However, is this response accurate for diffusion of sport management articles?
Data were collected for a select number of articles using the web of science. The articles represent the eight most highly cited articles published in sport management journals over a 15-year period. Results are shown in Figure 2. The lines represent the cumulative total citations over 15 years after the article’s publication. In general, the data indicate that all eight articles follow a similar trajectory in terms of diffusion and consistent with the left side of the S Curve of cumulative adoption. Holistically, these articles receive relatively few citations in the first 7 years and appear to hit the tipping point between 8 and 10 years indicating the idea is spreading to a larger percentage of researchers who are citing the article.
Based on this data, the tipping point for sport management ideas appears to occur around 9 years. A few early adopters are citing these articles, then on average at around 9 years, article citations begin turning upward and spreading to most of the people who are going to adopt it. Hence, emerging scholars should expect a considerable lag time before an article starts being adopted by others or having this idea spread through imitation and word of mouth (Bass, 1969). Unfortunately, this chart does not show the reality of academic publishing when the publication cycle is considered. For example, when you factor in the time required to intellectually develop the idea and research design, collect and analyze data, develop the manuscript for submission, the journal review process, having the article accepted and accessible, and then having another researcher utilize the article and getting this article accepted and published, it could take a minimum of 13 years and likely longer until the article and idea hits its own tipping point. Equally important to consider is that these articles represent highly cited ideas in sport management and are unlikely to be representative of all articles. As a result, spreading an idea through academic journals will be uncomfortably slow.
Figure 2 — Cumulative citations of eight sport management articles.
For new and emerging scholars, these results are less than inspirational. However, it is important to manage expectations regarding how long it could take an idea to start gaining traction among scholars and cited in academic journals. Some good news is that alternative methods exist to transmit scholarly ideas beyond peer review channels. For example, Altmetrics consists of selfpublishing comments or explanations of a published article, semantic publishing or nanopublication of reduced content from an existing article, and open source sharing of data sets and designs (Priem, Taraborelli, Groth, & Neylon, 2010). Utilizing these techniques can increase the rate of idea spread by overcoming limitations related to citation counting of peer-reviewed scholarship. In addition, this evidence could be useful in terms of educating university promotion and tenure committees that evaluate faculty research impact. From a diffusion perspective, publishing an idea in an academic journal is just the beginning and whether or not the idea hits a tipping point should depend on article innovation type, the journal in which the article appears, and the author’s social system. Embedded within the results shown in Figure 2, there are positive aspects regarding innovation and channel.
Of particular relevance is that these eight articles represent one of two pathways previously discussed and appeared in four sport management–related journals. The articles designated by the gray line applied existing mainstream theory to examine a sport management phenomenon, whereas the articles designated in black developed a new sport theory, concept, or construct in sport management. Hence, from a diffusion perspective, the assumption that applying existing theory to sport management is quicker for spreading a new idea versus developing sport-specific theory appears unsupported. In addition, the rate of diffusion is not journal specific. Overall, it appears that understanding how and why ideas spread becomes equally if not more important than which pathway to innovation and journal channel is chosen.
These results introduce a third perspective to consider in our academy’s continued self-reflection of knowledge and theory development. Specifically, future discussion over whether sport management scholars make theoretical contributions back to parent disciplines (Inglis, 2007; Pitts, 2001) and whether sport is a unique discipline requiring sport-specific theories (Chalip, 2006; Slack, 1996) should include this knowledge diffusion perspective. Specifically, how, why, when, and where sport management knowledge is being adopted by scholars. This perspective also moves the discussion beyond article innovation attributes (i.e., derivative vs. sport specific) that influences rate of diffusion. As such, the next section includes an examination of elements related to the communication channel and social system to help scholars improve their chances of having an idea reach a tipping point.
The communication channel represents the manner in which an idea spreads from one individual to other individuals or organizations. There are different communication channels with different properties that influence rate of diffusion. Within these channels, two distinct classes are particularly relevant for new and emerging sport management scholars to consider; channels which include academic journals and interpersonal channels that include a scholar’s personal network (Burt, 1992; Rogers, 2003). Academic journals are the primary distribution channel for spreading ideas initially and creating awareness while personal networks become more important over time as scholars rely on opinions of colleagues to evaluate new ideas. Each of these channels are examined as well as a case study, and personal experiences.
Academic journals play a pivotal role in spreading an idea to other scholars. A key purpose of academic journals is identifying new knowledge and disseminating this knowledge (Serenko, Bontis, & Hull, 2011). In general, respected journals provide more distribution and importantly citations, which capture the way ideas are disseminated throughout scholarly ecosystems (Brouthers, Mudambi, & Reeb, 2012). Data presented in Figure 3 include a selected number of journals and the total number of times articles in each journal were cited from 2015 to 2017 as of June 1, 2018. The number of citations for three sport management journals are shaded in black. Hence, if you want to spread your idea through a sport management journal, selecting one that gives you the most distribution is advantageous. Over the last 3 years, the Journal of Sport Management (JSM) and Sport Management Review (SMR) received the most combined citations.
The graph also shows how the three sport management journals compare with related journals in terms of citations over the same period. These academic journals were chosen as I have published sport-related research in each and as such represent potential outlets for new and emerging sport management scholars. The data indicate that sport management journals are doing reasonably well compared with leisure and recreation titles, but other journals such as Journal of Business Research, Tourism Management, and European Journal of Marketing would provide considerably more distribution of an idea. Regardless of journal channel, to get distribution, an author must first get published.
A common perception among new and emerging scholars is that getting an article accepted is getting more difficult. However, is this perception supported by data? Figure 4 reports the number of articles published each year in four sport management journals from 2015 to 2017. These journals represent the official journal of academic scholarly associations. Overall, the data indicate the number of articles published each year for each journal is relatively stable with slight declines in JSM and SMR from 2016 to 2017.
This trend highlights a potential concern for scholars. If the number of new PhD graduates entering the sport management discipline with a desire to publish outpaces the number of existing scholars who retire, there will likely be more scholars competing for the same number of pages in each journal. In addition, if our sport management journals become attractive to scholars from other domains, then this will further increase competition for space. Based on this evidence, the perception that getting an article accepted is getting more challenging has some merit. Some potential solutions to this could be for journals to (a) increase the number of total pages allotted per issue given the shift toward digital publication, (b) reduce the length of articles being published allowing for more articles to appear in the same issue, and/or (c) expand the number issues published each year by a journal.
An advantageous approach to increase diffusion within publication channels is to publish the idea in multiple journals within and outside of sport management to increase diffusion. This strategy would consist of initially publishing the idea in sport management journals and then expanding the idea by publishing subsequent articles using this idea in related and mainstream disciplines (Galvez, 2017). A case study of one idea originating in a sport management journal is used as an example of how an idea spread through different journal outlets over time.
The article used for this case study is the PCM originally published in 2001 in the journal SMR. Broadly, the PCM is a stage-based continuum model that accounts for an individual’s attitude formation and change toward a sport object (Funk & James, 2001). The cumulative citations for this article since publication were shown in Figure 2. Additional data were collected on this article to examine diffusion within academic journals and is shown in Figure 5. As of June 1, 2018, the original 2001 PCM article has been cited in 138 unique journals covered by the Web of Science with 405 total journal citations and received 821 total citations based on Google Scholar. On average, the article is cited 48 times per year.
Figure 3 — Selected journal total citations 2015–2017.
Figure 4 — Number of articles published per year 2015–2017.
Figure 5 illustrates the diffusion of the PCM idea by scholars within different journals over time. The black line on the bottom indicates when the 2001 article was cited for the first time in a new journal. For example, in 2002, the article was cited in two different journals. In 2006, the article was cited in five new journals, and in 2015, 23 new journals included a citation of the article. The gray line shows the total number of journal citations in a given year. For example, 24 journals cited the article in 2008 and 50 journals cited the article in 2015. When the two lines are considered together, it provides insight into intrajournal diffusion as more authors of a particular journal are citing the original article. For example, in 2002, it was cited twice and once in the two new journals. In 2008, the PCM was cited 24 times, but only 11 of these were new journals. In 2013, the PCM was cited 37 times, with 13 of these being in new journals. Finally, in 2017, the PCM was cited 55 times, and 14 were new journals with first time citations. Although this graph provides the overall diffusion trend of the PCM idea within and among new journals, inspection of the actual journal titles citing the article and year provides additional insight on how the idea is spreading into different domains.
The shape of the cumulative citations in Figure 2 indicate the PCM reached the tipping point around year nine and the rate of diffusion is increasing. Based on the S Curve, journal innovators, early adopters, and now early majority adopters are citing the idea. This rate of diffusion can be used to organize journals into temporal periods and domains. The journals were grouped into three periods guided by the adoption curve percentages (innovators: $2.5\%$ , early adopters: $13.5\%$ , and early majority remaining articles). Based on journal purpose and scope, there would be approximately 445 potential journals in which researchers would likely use and cite the PCM. Figure 6 presents an illustration of the PCM diffusion among three groups of journal adopters.
The innovator group of journals consisted of nine journals from 2002 to 2005 that first cited the PCM. The initial journals were from sport management and closely related domains of leisure and event management. The early adopter journal group contained 59 journals from 2006 to 2013 that included first time citations. This group consisted of additional sport management and leisure journals, but in this period, broader journal domains appeared related to business and management, tourism and hospitality, psychology, sociology, communication, nonprofit, political science, and sport sciences. The final group of early majority adopter journals consisted of 70 new journals. Within this period, the majority of sport management and leisure journals had now cited the PCM as well as additional journals from previous domains within early adopters. However, new journals began emerging in wider fields related to health, exercise, and physical activity, education, sport medicine, applied sciences, social sciences, law, mathematics, and biology.
Overall, the spread of the PCM citations based on unique journal adoption and time indicate the idea is spreading to a wider audience. Some potential reasons for this could be the multidisciplinary nature of the PCM and efforts in publishing the idea by the original authors in journals outside the sport management discipline. Previous Zeigler addresses have noted the benefits of interdisciplinary research (Doherty, 2011) and the benefits of conducting and writing sport management content in ways that will be accepted for publication in other discipline journals (Inglis, 2007) and articulating how a research idea makes a contribution back to related and parent knowledge disciplines (Pitts, 2001).
Figure 5 — Unique and total journal adoption of 2001 psychological continuum model article.
Figure 6 — Journal diffusion of 2001 psychological continuum model citations.
A second aspect of this case study is idea diffusion beyond academic journal channels. The previous data utilized citations as a proxy for idea diffusion; however, this proxy is not flawless. Academic journals are not the only channel to spread an idea. For example, within academia, many scholars might be aware of the PCM from reading about it in journal articles, a textbook, or attending a conference presentation, but if the idea is not relevant to their research, they would be unlikely to cite the article.
Holistically, diffusion occurs when an idea has spread throughout the general population, which extends beyond the academic publishing ecosystem. There is evidence that the PCM has spread to students, professional organizations, and general public. The idea has been featured in prominent popular press including The New York Times, sport blogs, and nonsport blogs. The PCM has also been embraced by professional organizations including U.K. Coaching and the Australian Football League. The idea has also spread through education. For example, students can be reached by incorporating the idea into textbooks that are then used to supplement course instruction. A search for sport management textbooks that incorporate the PCM returned 17 books—more than three quarters of these textbooks were published 10 years after the initial introduction of the PCM. Hence, the adoption of the idea in textbooks helps introduce it to new audiences. Other potential outlets to increase rate of diffusion are through writing impact pieces for popular media outlets and using TED Talk style videos.
An important feature of diffusion within academic journal channels is interpersonal networks. Academic journals are important for initially spreading ideas to many academics, but interpersonal networks become more important over time to increase diffusion (Obstfeld, 2005). One such aspect to consider is the institutions in which the author of an idea has studied, worked, or is working. The interpersonal connections made at these institutions go beyond the sport management discipline. Returning to the PCM case study, as one of the coauthors, I have been fortunate to work for some outstanding universities: University of Louisville, University of Texas, Griffith University, and Temple University. From these experiences, I established personnel connections with colleagues within and importantly outside of sport management. In addition, I earned my PhD from The Ohio State University that allowed me to learn from and later collaborate with influential scholars that also graduated from this institution.
A pivotal point in my career was moving to Australia in 2004 and working at Griffith University. Prior to this point, my research was focused in sport management and specifically spectator and fan behavior. However, moving to another country broadened my perspective of sport management as well as highlighted the relationship between sport and other disciplines. Working in Griffith’s Business School and the Department of Tourism, Leisure, Hospitality and Sport provided the opportunity to meet colleagues with opinions on and evaluations of new ideas across a number of disciplines. From these experiences, I was able to extend the PCM to other disciplines through publishing in nonsport journals through personal connections and collaborations. The value of interpersonal connections to spread an idea should never be underestimated. These connections are also related to Rogers’s element of social system that influences idea diffusion.
The social system is comprised of an interrelated network group joined together to solve problems for a common goal. In general, the social system is a combination of external and internal forces that can influence the spread of a new idea. Members of a social system can be individuals, groups, organizations, or systems. Examples of social systems in sport management are academic associations, such as the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand, European Association for Sport Management, and Sport Marketing Association formed for a common goal. For example, NASSM’s goal is to “promote, stimulate, and encourage study, research, scholarly writing, and professional development in the area of sport management.” One important aspect to achieve a goal is an association’s official journal. Within each journal are editorial board members that function as gatekeepers who make judgments about the value of scholarship (Braun, Diospatonyi, Zádor, & Zsindely, 2007). As gatekeepers, they are critical to spreading ideas, and there are many common perceptions of these boards held by new and emerging scholars. The next section provides some insight into whether these perceptions have merit using data collected on editorial board membership.
The first perception is that editorial board members of sport management journals review for multiple journals. This perception deals with the notion that too many of the same people serve on multiple boards (Baccini & Barabesi, 2014). As a result, if a gatekeeper does not like your idea, getting published could be more difficult. To address this perception, data from four journal editorial boards were collected for a 7-year period from 2011 to 2017 and shown in Figure 7. The data reveal that $79\%$ of the reviewers for JSM, ESMQ, SMQ, and SMR served on only one board in a given year with $18\%$ serving on two boards. Based on the data, this perception appears to be false, as each board’s membership appears to be relatively distinct indicating that a diversity of ideas would exist among reviewers.
A second perception is that the size of the editorial board changes slowly. This perception deals with whether editorial boards are changing and/or expanding over time allowing new members to be added that bring a diversity of influential scholars that help shape the type of research appearing in a journal (Fogarty & Liao, 2009). To address this perception, data were collected on editorial board size and tenure of four sport management journals from 2011 to 2017 and shown in Figures 8 and 9. Since 2011, SMR, Sport Marketing Quarterly, and European Sport Management Quarterly have all shown growth in the size of their boards, with SMR and ESMQ having the most noticeable growth. JSM had the largest board over the period but showed a decline since 2013, likely due to a period in which JSM’s board grew significantly to reach its present size. In terms of tenure, over the past 7 years, the average tenure for SMQ was 4.55 years, for JSM was 4.34 years, for SMR was 4.29 years, and for $E S M Q$ was 4.38 years. There was a notable spike in 2017 in which all boards had $20-34\%$ of members whose tenure extended beyond 7 years. Holistically, this data indicate the perception is partially true but not for all journals. On average, a reviewer is on a board for 4.5 years, but given the tenure length of some members and relative size of the boards, this may be problematic as larger boards that change more often can bring diversity of research expertise among reviewers to evaluate new ideas. In addition, whether the current board size is adequate in terms of number and reviewers’ content expertise are areas that need consideration.
Figure 7 — Reviewers serving on multiple boards.
Figure 8 — Editorial board size of journals.
Figure 9 — Editorial board tenure.
Editorial boards are also reflective of processes by which journals relate to academic organizations. Given the Zeigler Award is the keynote address for NASSM, a more detailed analysis was conducted for JSM. Data were collected on the editorial board membership over the 30 years of the journal’s existence. Data for board size are shown in Figure 10. The smallest board was in 1988 with 10 reviewers, and the largest board was in 2013 with 54 reviewers. The average tenure for editorial board members was 6 years.
Publishing in prestigious journals is also highly concentrated, in terms of authors’ current institutional affiliations and doctoral origins (Baccini & Barabesi, 2014; Fogarty & Liao, 2009). However, is this the case for JSM? Data reveal both good and not so good news. The good news is the over the last 30 years, there were 94 unique universities represented on the JSM editorial board, with most universities having one to two reviewers per faculty. There were 52 unique PhD programs in a variety of different fields including sport management, education, business and law degrees with the majority of PhD programs having only one reviewer from their program. The not so good news is that over the same period certain institutions had multiple reviewers serve on the board: Griffith University (6), Temple University (6), University of Illinois (6), University of Alberta (7), University of Massachusetts (7), and University of Michigan (7). In terms of PhD programs, three universities stood out with the most PhD graduates who later became reviewers: University of Michigan (5), University of Alberta (8), and The Ohio State University (16). As a result, there appears to be a number of reviewers that either studied or worked in close proximity, which could introduce potential biases, for certain theoretical and conceptual approaches as well as explain interpersonal connections.
Collectively, the data on editorial boards in general and JSM in particular address common perceptions among scholars about journals. Editorial board members as gatekeepers are critical to spreading ideas and their composition is an important consideration. An additional aspect of social systems is the composition of coauthors that could influence idea diffusion: the structure of social networks and reinvesting in the original idea through these networks. The next section provides insight into these aspects drawing on my own publishing experience.
The notion that a strong coauthor network can help spread ideas through publication is a common assumption. Establishing a network of individuals to collaborate with for the production of journal articles is advantageous, as this network supports each other’s activities and forms a mutually beneficial relationship. However, research on idea diffusion indicates the weak ties are also beneficial and may even be more valuable (Granovetter, 1973). This perspective is based on observations that weak ties serve as a bridge to help establish new contacts, bind strong ties, and are more efficient to maintain by freeing up cognitive resources (Hansen, 1999; Obstfeld, 2005). To examine the presence of strong and weak ties, I examined my coauthor network of publications to gain insight. This information is shown in Figure 11.
The pie chart represents the number of coauthors I have published with in my career. It also illustrates both strong and weak ties. For example, I have published with 116 unique coauthors. The larger wedges along the top right quadrant of the chart represent strong coauthor ties in which I have published four or more articles $(21\%)$ , whereas the smaller wedges along the bottom half represent coauthors in which I have published two to three papers $(17\%)$ . The smallest wedges in the left upper quadrant represent weak coauthor ties in which I have published only one article $(62\%)$ . Overall, the presence of a large network of weak ties among coauthors compliments a smaller network of strong ties.
Further analysis of coauthors revealed the manner in which the coauthor tie first developed differed. Among the top 24 strong ties, $33\%$ are with PhD students, $25\%$ are with individuals met at academic conferences, $25\%$ are with faculty colleagues, and $17\%$ are with individuals from my PhD program. Among the 60 weak ties, these connections and collaborations were initiated through interpersonal connections and predominately through existing strong ties. Holistically, the coauthor network highlights the growth and diversity of the sport management academy, which provides opportunities for new and emerging scholars to collaborate to spread knowledge and ideas (Mahony, 2008), a situation that historically was more difficult due to the size of the field and skills and competencies of scholars (Chelladurai, 1992; Weese, 2002).
Figure 10 — Number of JSM reviewers. $J S M=$ Journal of Sport Management.
JSM Vol. 33, No. 1, 2019
Figure 11 — Coauthor network.
A second aspect related to spreading ideas through coauthor networks is the notion of reinvesting in the original idea.
The iPhone and the number of times Apple has reinvested in a new model are a good approach for scholars to follow when spreading an idea. From this perspective, an idea is like a product, which goes through a life cycle. The idea is introduced and hopefully, will reach a growth phase in which diffusion increases dramatically. However, the idea will eventually mature or plateau, in which adoption begins to decline. The key is to reinvest in the idea at the maturity stage. In the world of academic publishing, this can be done through programmatic research, which can revitalize the idea and keep it spreading.
Programmatic research provides a useful mechanism to reinvest in the original idea and spread knowledge through additional articles. Given one study is unlikely to fully explain a sport management phenomenon or address a research question, programmatic research allows a scholar to focus on publishing-related articles and developing theory (Jacoby, 1978; Randolph-Seng, 2006). Programmatic lines of research helps emerging scholars build their career and reputation by establishing a research identity and narrative. In addition, conducting multiple studies can produce incremental knowledge on a topic utilizing different research designs to eliminate biases that help establish external validity of the idea (Burton-Jones, 2009; Mentzer & Flint, 1997).
In terms of the PCM idea, my coauthors and I have published 41 articles using the original PCM as the conceptual foundation. Such collaboration helps connect articles, which share semantic content as well as utilize self-citation as a valid mechanism of relevant knowledge diffusion (Gavlez, 2017). This practice appears to be more prevalent over the last two decades especially among male authors creating a potential gender imbalance to idea spread (King, Bergstrom, Correll, Jacquet, & West, 2017). Notably, some key articles have helped revitalized the PCM with conceptual augmentation, extensions, as well as empirical validation published in 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. In addition, some of these articles appeared in journal channels outside of sport management and were the result of collaboration with existing and new coauthors that increased both strong and weak ties.
This study address a knowledge diffusion perspective to consider when discussing theory development in sport management. This perspective compliments and informs two existing perspectives on whether sport management scholars should apply theories and concepts from broader disciplines or develop sport-specific theories and concepts. Regardless of which approach is used to develop the original research idea, spreading the idea becomes as important if not more important to advance sport management knowledge and scholarship. Unfortunately, spreading a new research idea will be uncomfortably slow requiring an understanding of the idea diffusion process. For new and emerging sport management scholars, technology and open source publishing should speed up the process moving forward, but attention should be given to communication channels and social systems. In line with these elements, scholars can utilize strategies to help spread ideas and optimize their academic publishing career. Three strategies are discussed in the following sections to help with this endeavor: set realistic goals, optimize the coauthor network, and reinvest in the original idea.
The first consideration for new and emerging scholars to spread ideas is to set realistic goals. Journals as the primary channel to spread an idea will be uncomfortably slow so patience and persistence is required. As you navigate the academic publishing ecosystem, consider your strengths and weaknesses in terms of writing skills, theoretical and methodological competencies, and choice of topic. A useful strategy is to volunteer and review articles for academic journals to better understand how to frame your idea to gatekeepers reviewing your work. Resist the temptation of chasing journal impact factors, rather find the journal channel in which your idea will resonate with the readership. Academic publishing is not for everyone nor is it the only way to achieve idea diffusion. Other channels exist that can help with diffusion such as interpersonal networks, social media, blogging, teaching and curriculum development, working with industry partners, publishing chapters in books and textbooks. In addition, there is a growing need for scholars who can translate insight gained from academic research to industry.
Idea diffusion requires human capital, given the idea must be widely adopted to be self-sustaining. An important aspect to consider is the optimal size of your coauthor network, which contains both strong and weak ties. In regards to strong ties, a team concept is required with various people in the network playing different positions based on competencies and skills. Publication syndicates are useful for spreading ideas but can also create concerns over scholarly independence when being considered for tenure and promotion. In regard to weak ties, a beneficial approach is to attend conferences both in sport and related disciplines. Attempt to meet two new people each day and learn about their research agenda. A good strategy is to write an article every year with a new person who is not in your existing coauthor network.
The final strategy is continual reinvestment in your idea. This requires building mastery in a research area that helps develop a narrative around your idea and how it fits within a collective body of work. This process should be slow and steady utilizing programmatic research that replicates and extends the original idea. A beneficial approach for reinvesting is to review limitation and future direction sections of previous articles you have written and reflect on whether these have been address in subsequent articles you publish. Another key starting point is to focus on solving real-world problems from an academic perspective. This will help other scholars understand your idea as well as help make your research relevant to industry. Although important to stay in your research lane and establish your identity in sport management, attempt to extend your idea outside of sport management journals into relevant and related disciplines that could give you more distribution. Context is important to demonstrate application but generalizability beyond a singular sport context will help spread your idea and extend the shelf life of your idea. Reinvesting can also utilize techniques to increase diffusion beyond academic journals by self-publishing comments on the original idea and nanopublication of content from that article.
|
Baccini, A., & Barabesi, L. (2014). Gatekeepers of economics: The network of editorial boards in economic journals. In A. Lanteri & J. Wromen (Eds.), The economics of economists (pp. 104–150). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Bacharach, S.B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308374
Bass, F.M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227. doi:10.1287/mnsc.15. 5.215
Braun, T., Diospatonyi, I., Zador, E., & Zsindely, S. (2007). Journal gatekeepers indicator-based top universities of the world, of Europe and of 29 countries-a pilot study. Scientometrics, 71(2), 155–178. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1843-4
Brouthers, K.K., Mudambi, R., & Reeb, D.M. (2012). The blockbuster hypothesis: Influencing the boundaries of knowledge. Journal of Scientometrics, 90(3), 959–982. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0540-5
Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burton-Jones, A. (2009). Minimizing method bias through programmatic research. MIS Quarterly, 33(3), 445–471. doi:10.2307/20650304
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1–21. doi:10.1123/jsm. 20.1.1
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 215–219. doi:10.1123/jsm. 6.3.215
Doherty, A. (2011). It takes a village: Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 1–10.
Fink, J.S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm. 2015-0278
Fogarty, T.J., & Liao, C. (2009). Blessed are the gatekeepers: A longitudinal study of the editorial boards of the accounting review. Issues in Accounting Education, 24, 299–318.
Funk, D.C. (2017). Introducing a sport experience design (SX) framework for sport consumer behaviour research. Sport Management Review, 20, 145–158. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2016.11.006
Funk, D.C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119–150. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1
Galiani, S., & Gálvez, R.H. (2017). The life cycle of scholarly articles across fields of research. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2964565. doi:10. 2139/ssrn.2964565
Galvez, R.H. (2017). Assessing author self-citations as a mechanism of relevant knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics, 111, 1801–1812. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2330-1
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469
Hansen, M.T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. doi:10.2307/2667032
Henderson, K.A., Presley, J., & Bialeschki, M.D. (2004). Theory in recreation and leisure research: Reflections from the editors. Leisure Sciences, 26, 411–425. doi:10.1080/01490400490502471
Inglis, S. (2007). Creative tensions and conversations in the academy. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 1–14. doi:10.1123/jsm.21.1.1
Jacoby, J. (1978). Consumer research: A state of the art review. The Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 87–96. doi:10.2307/1249890
King, M.M., Bergstrom, C.T., Correll, S.J., Jacquet, J., & West, J.D. (2017). Men set their own cites high: Gender and self-citation across fields and over time. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1–22.
Mahony, D. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10. doi:10.1123/jsm.22.1.1
Mentzer, J.T., & Flint, D.J. (1997). Validity in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 18(1), 199–216.
Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
Pitts, B. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1–9. doi:10.1123/jsm.15.1.1
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010). Altmetrics: A manifesto, Retreived from http://altmetrics.org/mainfesto
Randolph-Seng, B. (2006). Doing programmatic research: Two case studies from social psychology. The New School Psychology Bulletin, 4(2), 73–90.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hull, E. (2011). Practical relevance of knowledge management and intellectual capital scholarly research: Books as knowledge translation agents. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(1), 1–9. doi:10.1002/kpm.363
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 97–105. doi:10.1123/jsm.10.1.97
Sutton, R.I., & Staw, B.M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384. doi:10.2307/2393788
Weese, W.J. (2002). Opportunities and headaches: Dichotomous perspectives on the current and future hiring realities in the sport management academia. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 1–17. doi:10.1123/jsm.16.1.1
Whetton, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4308371
Zhang, J.J. (2015). What to study? That is a question: A conscious thought analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 1–10. doi:10.1123/ JSM.2014-0163
---
|
The author would like to thank Allison Hossack of Think Company for the intellectual contribution to the content of this paper, challenging him to consider the meaning of the presentation to new and emerging scholars and developing the PowerPoint slide deck for the NASSM conference in Halifax. The following graduate students and emerging scholars were instrumental in being part of this journey and providing insight and collecting data: Heather Kennedy, MiAe Lee, Anthony Pizzo, Kathy Prescott, and Xiaochen Zhou. The author wants to thank his colleagues and friends Jeremy Jordan and Aubrey Kent for their continued support and nomination. Finally, the author would like to thank the North American Society for Sport Management for the opportunity to provide the 2018 Earle F. Zeigler Address and the selection committee for its endorsement.
|
1Article citations are used as a proxy for diffusion and idea adoption. This proxy is not without limitations and underestimates idea spread since scholars might be aware of the idea, and thus, it has diffused, but these scholars do not cite the article in a published paper. In addition, new
scholars should be aware of alternative metrics beyond classic citations, which are becoming more prominent.
2This graph shows citations for the original 2001 PCM idea, which does not account for additional citations-related subsequent articles that have revised or applied the original idea.
|
Enact, Discard, Transform: An Impact Agenda
|
Jennifer E. McGarry University of Connecticut
|
2019
|
In her 2019 Earle F. Zeigler address, Jennifer McGarry drew on the 2017 Academy of Management Report “Measuring and Achieving Scholarly Impact” to examine how the field of sport management and the North American Society for Sport Management operationalize impact. She pointed to a broader, more inclusive, and critical examination of impact. McGarry highlighted impact on practice and impact through being explicit, particularly about the ways gender and race affect what we deem to have impact. Finally, she spoke to impact through individual and collective action, such as educating students, scholarship, and policy and advocacy. She provided examples of where we could disrupt the structures that work to maintain the status quo in terms of impact—the in-groups and the out-groups, the metrics and evaluations. She also gave examples of impact that have happened, that are happening, and that can happen even more.
Keywords: feminism, interorganizational relationships, leadership, organizational culture, race
The Zeigler Award is the most prestigious award given by the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) and may only be bestowed on an individual once over their career. So, good news—you only have to listen to me once. This year, I have the opportunity to pay a special tribute to Earle Zeigler, who left us in September at the age of 99. I am honored to be presented with the award that bears his name. Dr Zeigler’s career spanned more than 70 years and five institutions, including a position at the University of Connecticut—one we share in common. He taught and later served as Dean at Western Ontario until he retired in 1989. He was a multisport athlete at Yale in the late 1930s and coached football, swimming, and wrestling at Western while serving as department head. I also want to point out the impact Dr Zeigler had on the field. He served as an advisor to over 100 graduate students during his career, and NASSM’s history is full of those he mentored and/or served with as a colleague, as well. Earle Zeigler’s “coaching tree” is impressive. I asked Dr Packinathan Chelladurai (Chella) to reflect on Dr Zeigler’s mentorship, and it made me realize that almost every one of us have been impacted by Earle Zeigler. It was Dr Zeigler who hired Chella at Western to teach the first undergraduate sport management course, and then suggested that he write the text book for the class, which he did. Those of you who have used any of Chella’s textbooks and articles have not only him to thank, but also Dr Zeigler, as well. His legacy lives in the people he influenced and continues to influence.
The nature of this event has changed in recent years from the concluding event on the last night to a morning keynote on the first full day of the conference. This means that I can experience the conference not like someone with all their exams at the end of finals week, constantly worried whether they have prepared enough while simultaneously wondering if they have overprepared. I always hated that. So, I appreciate the change, in particular, this year. In about 40 minutes, I will be the most relaxed NASSM attendee in the place. Yes, that is the over–under for those taking bets. I aim to provide my observations of our field from the only vantage point I can, mine. However, my vantage point has been influenced by many people and experiences. I have been impacted. Yes, again, for those of you who like to add competition (Shilbury, 2012) into everything, including Zeigler addresses, the word is impact. I have given thought to what it means to have impact. I hope to leave you with some thoughts on that, as well.
IMPACT—There have been 28 Zeigler award winners in total, after Earle as the inaugural winner. Donna Pastore, Janet Fink, Mary Hums, Alison Doherty, Lucie Thibault, Karen Danylchuk, Sue Inglis, Wendy Frisby, Jackie Cuneen, Joy DeSensi, Chris Green, Brenda Pitts, and Janet Parks make 13 women. I am the 14th. In a male-dominated field, that is something to take note of. Can those women who are here please show us where you are— stand if you are able, wave a hand? I want to acknowledge their impact. Please stay where we can see you.
I recently listened to The Year of Yes by television producer Rhimes (2015). Although many aspects of her advice resonated with me, one point stood out. Rhimes reflected on receiving an award for excellence among women in entertainment. That night, she surveyed the room. “Not a single woman . . . could handle being told, “You’re awesome.” She herself could not handle being told you are awesome. The women looked down, smiled uncomfortably, fidgeted in their seats while being named as past winners. Rhimes said to herself, “what in the hell is wrong with us?” To each of you who have inspired me and others, I am going to share the rest of her message:
You are not lucky. You know what you are? Smart, talented, you take advantage of the opportunities that come your way and you work really, really hard. Don’t ever call yourself lucky. Call yourself a badass.
And in case you need a definition of what that means:
Badassery: (noun) the practice of knowing one’s own accomplishments and gifts, accepting one’s own accomplishments and gifts and celebrating one’s own accomplishments and gifts (Rhimes, 2015, p. 177).
Thank you all for being the badasses that you are. I am honored to be listed among you. And to every other badass woman out there, keep doing what you do and take credit for it. If you ever need any support or inspiration to sustain doing what you do and taking credit for it—these women and I are here for you.
In particular, I would like to recognize Donna Pastore. I thank you for what you saw in me when I came to meet you, unsure of my next steps as a coach and an administrator fed up with the inequities of college athletics. I will never forget your story of frustration over similar issues as a college softball coach and how that led to the fateful game when you launched a bat bag onto the field, spraying bats everywhere. That was when you decided your days of coaching were numbered and you poured yourself into a PhD program to find other vehicles for change. Working with you through my doctoral program and beyond has helped me learn how to effectively redirect the desire to literally throw bats when I am fed up, to instead, figuratively throw bats with my teaching, research, engagement, and leadership.
I attended my first Zeigler address in 1998. Or, as my kids would say when they are reminding me of my age, way back in the 1900s. Dennis Howard, my finance professor at the time, appreciated that the award was a big deal, but it was my first NASSM, and this guy was my professor. And while I was certainly in awe of his abilities in that regard, as anyone who could teach me stadium financing certainly deserves an award, it did not completely sink in what this was all about. Over the years, however, I have grown to understand the significance of the award. It really is a big deal to be recognized by one’s peers for work across a career. I certainly reacted much the way Dr. Howard did as he relayed in his Zeigler address—Me? There are [many] so much more deserving than me —then I remembered Shonda Rimes telling me to embrace my badassery. And I moved on to what Dr. Howard shared next. Wait, am I that old that I would be considered for the Zeigler? Yep. And after a few days, finally, I arrived at “hold on, I have to give this talk” to a great, big room full of people (Howard, 1999, p. 78). For those of you who know me, you know that I have no problem talking, telling stories to make my points, and questioning. But I tend to wade in, not dive in. I build relationships, lead people to consensus. So how to address a room of people in a diversity of roles and positions in colleges, universities, and industries, representing so many different subfields within, and approaches to, sport management. This is a unique challenge.
Or, it is an opportunity. When my all-time favorite baseball player, Ryne Sandberg, addressed his peers, he used the opportunity to talk about how he played the game and what it meant to him. He knew by doing so he was going to be critical of how others played the game. And that was not his persona, but he had the opportunity to tell it like he saw it, and he did. Now, please, please understand I am not saying today is analogous to late summer in Cooperstown, and I can only dream that I ever had the chance to play second base at Wrigley. I am just saying that I have been asked to talk about sport management from my perspective. My perspective is critical. Here goes.
Haley and her colleagues, in a report from the Academy of Management (AOM), defined scholarly impact as an “auditable or recordable occasion of influence” arising out of research. This is tangible, quantitative, and some might even say, objective. However, making meaning of academic impact in a “pluralistic” way or “in ways other than peer-reviewed publications becomes much more difficult and requires significant investments of time and effort” (pp. 2–3). Haley, Page, Pitsis, Rivas, and $\mathrm{Yu}$ (2017) engaged in an initial grounded, qualitative study in order to frame scholarly impact before considering a larger, quantitative study of the AOM membership as they pointed out, “simply counting rarely provides useful information” (p. 4). Rather, they elected to “participate with real people” (p. 18) or 20 impactful members of AOM. They engaged their colleagues about the “meaning and sensemaking of scholarly impact and for whom” (p. 2).
Using Haley’s work as a model, I have reached out to several past Zeigler award winners and also to scholars whose perspectives I consider to have an influence on our field. I have asked them to comment on segments of the AOM findings, as well as their own work. Thank you to Donna Pastore, Alison Doherty, Lucie Thibault, Janet Fink, John Singer, Wendy Frisby, George Cunningham, Mary Hums, Akilah Carter-Francique, Nef Walker (my former Diversity Committee cochair), and Rhema Fuller and Kristy McCray (current Diversity Committee cochairs). And thanks to Rob Ammon and Orland Hoeber for digging a little deeper to locate all of the NASSM membership data.
As with what Haley found, rigor, academic quality, and academic productivity all continue to play a role in conceptualizing impact in sport management; however, when taken alone, these factors are insufficient. Our colleagues and the AOM scholars agreed that, while publishing in top-tier journals is certainly a marker of impact, our “broader role and . . . mission” (Haley et al., 2017, p. 3) extends further. So today, I am asking you to consider how we have, and I contend should, conceptualize impact in sport management.
In 1991, Janet Parks stood in the spot I occupy this morning and spoke to the nature of sport management scholarship as both theoretical and applied. She quoted Boyer and stated that our scholarship should reflect Boyer’s discovery, integration, teaching, and application. Just as our students have not realized the depths of their knowledge until they apply classroom learning in the “real world,” our scholarship should reflect Boyer’s constructs and bridge the real or mythical gap between research and practice (Parks, 1992). Jim Weese, in his 1994 Zeigler address, asked us to consider that, if we are not serving practitioners, then we are not serving our field (Weese, 1995). He cited his conversation with management expert Henry Mintzberg. Mintzberg entrusted two colleagues to provide him with real, and critical, feedback on all of his work. Mintzberg’s Bill and Barbara could easily be Geno (Auriemma) and CD (Chris Dailey), reminding us that our academicspeak-filled, highly theoretical study on positive workplace culture was quite obvious to them after years of building national championship teams. They would then ask us if we were conducting our research as “an end in itself” (Weese, 1995, p. 238 from Mintzberg, 1982, p. 243) and to engage only ourselves, sport management scholars, in the discussion. Or, were we thinking of sport managers— many of whom are graduates of our programs? Dr Ziegler, in his 1987 address to the NASSM membership, spoke to how we should be considering both theory and application as he elaborated on the then NASSM mission statement, stating that this organization exists to “serve the evolving profession as a whole-not any specific individual, group, or university” (Zeigler, 1987, p. 5).
Cuneen and Parks (1997) responded to Weese’s Zeigler point by sharing that NASSM, and the Journal of Sport Management (JSM) in particular, were serving sport managers as part of the larger umbrella of sport management education. Practitioners should not be a protected class, they said, or a specific group, like the mission statement said, but rather members of the profession as a whole. They spoke of NASSM and JSM being “conceived and implemented by a diverse group of scholar-educators with the clearly defined purpose of promoting, stimulating, and encouraging study, research, scholarly writing, and professional development” (Cuneen & Parks, 1997, p. 126). While I am thankful that women like Parks and Joy DeSensi were founders, I know that not everyone here can see themselves in this “diverse group of scholar educators” (Cuneen & Parks, 1997, p. 126).
At this conference, a group of our colleagues are holding a symposium. “Why Are All the Black Scholars Going to NASSS? A Reflective Dialogue on the Under-Representation of Black Scholars at the NASSM Conference.” As John Singer, one of the presenters, shared with me, it is important to use your platform in a constructive and productive way. Wendy Frisby related a story of how she too was unsure of whether sport management and NASSM were where she belonged, given her critical approach. In fact, if it were not for Trevor Slack reaching out, her approach would not have helped to shape JSM as an associate editor and editor for 8 years. As a result, we could possibly not have had papers like Shaw and Hoeber’s (2003). I am getting all my swears in this talk, aren’t I? Dr Frisby talked about how important that paper was and how important that title was. It was explicitly naming a critical issue in sport management. So, when we say that everyone is “welcome to join NASSM, attend the annual conference, and stand for election to the Executive Council” (Cuneen & Parks, 1997, p. 129), is this in theory or in practice? Or both? Does everyone feel welcome to join, to attend, to serve? Critical management studies outline that, as both technology and bureaucracy have expanded, individuals are encouraged, even rewarded, for assimilating. Those who control the means of production, yes, even scholarly production, control the production itself, and those who do not are subject to it. This is Marx as relayed through Neuman (2003). If we do not acknowledge the individuality of our membership—our most salient identities—then power relations are not challenged (Alvesson, 2008; Caproni & Arias, 1997; Shaw, Wolfe, & Frisby, 2011). I want to thank those who are presenting tomorrow—Jaqueline McDowell, John Singer, Akilah Carter-Francique, Charles Crowley, and Nef Walker—and Trevor Slack, Wendy Frisby, Sally Shaw, and Larena Hoeber, for challenging power relations in theory and in practice. That is impact.
In the 2015 Zeigler address, Janet Fink pointed to multiple examples of sexism—how sexism remains relatively “uncontested in sport.” It “is commonly overt yet simultaneously unnoticed. It hides in plain sight. It is so entwined in the fabric of sport that most do not even discern it” (Fink, 2016, p. 1). In speaking with Dr Fink recently, she shared that, in the 4 years since her Zeigler address, only one manuscript has been published in a sport-related journal explicitly naming sexism. We do not name it. Appreciation to Liz Taylor, Allison Smith, Natalie Welch, and Rob Hardin for their paper on female faculty experiences of sexual harassment and sexism in the Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal (Taylor, Smith, Welch, & Hardin, 2018).
If we cannot be explicit about the experiences of those who participate in, manage, and teach sport in our scholarship, then how can we make those experiences better? Fink quoted some of her earlier work in her Zeigler stating that
Sexism in sport is not tidy, it is a downright messy matter. The ideals of meritocracy and fair play embedded in sport make it difficult for people to believe that it provides advantages for some groups over others . . .(Fink, 2008 in Fink, 2016, p. 4).
Shaw and Frisby (2006) stated that we have to critique practices at the structural level that reflects sociocultural, embedded beliefs— many of which are entirely implicit—that allow us to think we are treating everyone the same. We have to be explicit about who we are. We have to be explicit about how that impacts our experiences, and we have to be explicit about how it makes us feel.
The NASSM is an overwhelmingly White, U.S.-based, and male organization $(32\%)$ . White women from the United States are the next $(21\%)$ , followed by Asian males from the United States ( $7\%$ ; North American Society for Sport Management, 2019); who we are impacts the experiences of our members and how they feel. In 2016, at the request of the Diversity Committee and Executive Council, a survey was developed to assess the NASSM climate. Nef Walker and Nicole Melton, as part of the Diversity Committee, developed the survey, and George Cunningham, as part of the Executive Council, oversaw the analysis and reporting of the results (North American Society for Sport Management, 2016b). Members were asked to respond, and 117 did, to items measuring the diversity climate of the organization, benefits from membership, and general satisfaction with NASSM. Overall, the study showed that the strongest level of agreement was with the notion that NASSM leaders were committed to diversity. Respondents in total were less supportive of the notion that new people could easily become involved in NASSM. Women were less likely to agree that NASSM publicized diversity principles, and those from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups were less likely to agree that NASSM leaders valued diversity. Sexual minorities were less likely to agree that NASSM (a) had open communications regarding diversity and inclusion, (b) publicized diversity and inclusion principles, (c) respected the voices of people like them, and (d) maintained a diversity-friendly environment. In total, though, the participants expressed their satisfaction with NASSM.
We could easily have walked away from these results and said that, although some individuals and small groups felt differently about NASSM, the majority were satisfied. But we did not. As part of the larger NASSM Strategic Plan process, we conducted a qualitative follow-up in 2018, aimed at gaining a deeper understanding of members’ experiences. A working group—Joyce Olushola, Michael Odio, and Kyle Rich—was asked to examine the NASSM strategic goals focused on understanding and serving the perspectives of underrepresented and underserved stakeholders. Fifty-six members responded to a 10-item, open-ended survey. When asked, members indicated that many aspects of identity politics, in addition to the type of institution and subdiscipline, contributed to being undervalued and not represented. The most frequent responses were related to race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, geographic location, and professional status. Students and junior faculty indicated the most negative impacts as a result of professional status. In addition, NASSM members who worked in primarily teaching roles and/or at teaching institutions, as well as various subdisciplines, (e.g., law, economics, and analytics), responded that their experiences were not centered by the organization (North American Society for Sport Management, 2018).
The report highlighted three areas for us, NASSM, to consider. The first area was removing barriers and providing opportunities. Members indicated that diverse groups within NASSM should be recognized as valuable to the organization. I will interject that one important step is to continue to support the spaces that exist for diverse groups to contribute and/or build relationships. Some notable examples include the international reception, student mentoring initiative, Diversity Breakfast, and Women in NASSM, and then increasing such spaces. As an example, a former UConn student, Xaimara Coss, has worked for the National Basketball Association (NBA) for almost 10 years. She is the chair of CONEXIÓN ÉNE-BÉ-A, the Latino Employee Resource Team. Teams like this did not exist before the transition in league leadership. Barriers have been removed and opportunities added for Xai and her coworkers. The NBA inclusive culture site states “Our goal is to move from a diversity reflex to an inclusion instinct. The NBA strives to cultivate a workplace in which everyone feels welcomed and empowered to bring their whole selves to work” (National Basketball Association, 2019). That is impact.
Next, “diversifying” the conference/program. NASSM members also indicated that barriers to full participation must be removed —particularly the cost of membership and the conference and the types of sessions at the conference. I should say that sessions like the teaching and learning fair are a noted addition to the conference in more recent years, and the Diversity Committee’s presentation list has helped members navigate the conference. Thanks also to Natalie Smith and Kerri Bodin for their NASSM blog on advice for first-time conference attendees. However, when people have many conferences to choose from, and only so much, if any, financial support from their institutions, why pick NASSM? I’d point to my educational leadership colleagues and how their organization, University Council for Educational Administration, supports the involvement of graduate students, particularly those from underrepresented groups, with identified sessions, workshops, mentoring, and funding for membership and conference attendance.
The NASSM members also encouraged a more integrated approach to diversity and inclusion, including active recruiting for committee roles, and more quality, inclusive experiences for members on those committees. As Pastore shared in her 2002 Zeigler, from Kram’s (1988) mentoring framework, inclusive experiences can be characterized by peer relationships that provide confirmation—or sharing perceptions, values, beliefs, and finding commonality—emotional support, personal feedback, and friendship (Pastore, 2003). Members also acknowledged that in- and out-groups exist within NASSM. These “continually reproduce existing personal and professional networks which are difficult to breach and antithetical to the values of a diverse and inclusive organization” (North American Society for Sport Management, 2018). Some suggestions included enacting a commitment to inclusive practices throughout the coordination of the conference and the organization more broadly. In particular, members urged the development and articulation of a position statement.
And finally, NASSM members suggested rethinking leadership, relationships, and organizational culture. Members indicated that, in order to move NASSM toward a diverse and inclusive organization, a culture shift has to happen. This would need to entail more than demographic surveys and could not be relegated to the Diversity Committee. We need to examine the relationship between the Executive Council and that committee, the makeup of editorial boards and abstract reviewers, and articulate what diversity looks like in this context and how a diversity of perspectives could be better achieved. We need to share the results of NASSM activities, like these two reports I am citing, which seek to improve the experiences of historically undervalued and underrepresented members. Our colleagues George Cunningham and John Singer, in their report on NCAA member institutions (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2009), summarized one aspect of their findings by stating
Human communication is one of the most basic and fundamental functions of individuals within an organization . . . leadership plays a vital role in setting the tone for the discourse on issues of diversity and inclusion . . . this openness is necessary if there is a genuine interest in creating and sustaining a culture in which diversity is valued (National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2009, p. 18.)
We need to be explicit about where we need to improve, what we are committed to doing to improve, and then the results of our actions. That would have impact.
So far, what I have talked about might seem like too much for anyone to tackle and also hard to imagine any organization tackling. However, impact through both individual and collective action (Cunningham, 2014; Doherty, 2013; Mahony, 2008) is possible. One way that many of us have almost daily individual impact is with our students. We play integral roles in their socialization into sport management. As Shaw et al. (2011) outlined, we can teach our students to be voices that challenge. In sport, and in our institutions, the overwhelming majority of which are White and reflective of patriarchal structures, socialization occurs within “a legacy of race and gender exclusion” (Sulé, 2014, p. 432). We can have impact on this legacy by adopting a critical management approach. By intentionally—explicitly— acknowledging individual, organizational, and sociocultural (Dixon & Bruening, 2007) antecedents and outcomes, we challenge our students to see “management as a social construction . . . influenced by power and ideologies” (Neuman, 2003, p. 3).
As teachers, we can facilitate our students critically examining “decision-making hierarchies, evaluation systems, and dominant beliefs that determine rules of behavior” (Sulé, 2014, p. 432). When we expose and interrogate management practices grounded in stereotypes, we inform and encourage our students to lead in ways that produce more equitable outcomes—outcomes that are not antithetical to the bottom line and can, in fact, improve it (Alvesson, 2008; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000; Shaw et al., 2011). This past semester my colleague, Danielle DeRosa, and I taught a Career Development course to all of our undergraduate students. We devoted a significant portion of the class to examining how social identities shape career paths, how organizations consciously and unconsciously demonstrate their values, and leading with a critical management lens. During our last class, we asked our students to reflect. They said,
We are seeing sports from a different perspective. Topics are very relevant to the real world and societal issues are connected to each class.
This class takes a very critical lens towards sport which I appreciate as I feel it allows us to discuss challenging topics.
We are learning about inequalities in the professional workplace. We have a deeper understanding about what diversity and inclusion means because we think about it on a day to day basis.
And then the students spoke to the program as a whole:
The greatest impact has come in how we view people. Prior to being admitted to this program some of us did not really consider outside circumstances and influences on people’s life choices and positions . . . [this program] has shown that there are circumstances outside of individuals’ control, and we have to understand the influence of these circumstances.
As individual educators, we have come together to build a program that explicitly addresses inequity and impacts our students’ “potential for resistance and change” within power structures (Shaw et al., 2011, p. 2). Our classrooms are high-leverage spaces. I encourage you to approach yours as spaces to disrupt, not reinforce, norms. Consider how management could look differently (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000). You know, throw a figurative bat or two across the field.
As I read through the conference program to find current and former UConn students, the topics were not lost on me: critical examinations; Rachel Madsen, gender and negotiation; Jon Welty Peachey, sport for development; Rhema Fuller, the role of teaching institutions; Josh Lupinek, buying beer at NFL games—not sure what happened there, but there is one in every crowd; Mike Mudrick, social identity in sport talk radio; Jaime Ryan DeLuca, applied approaches in the teaching and learning fair; and, my current students Kolin Ebron and Jun Cho, mapping life skill development with youth sport program alumni, and Nneka Arinze, peer relationships among Black and Latina girls in sport-based youth development. Through our teaching, we can have impact. We are preparing future sport managers who are examining identity politics and their impact on organizations and future scholar educators ready to challenge the status quo.
(National Science Foundation, 2019). Look at the increase of scholarship on sport for development in our top-tiered journals (e.g., Schulenkorf, Sherry, & Rowe, 2016; Spaaij, Oxford, & Jeanes, 2016; Svensson & Levine, 2017). Here is a key example of how the “process of inquiry [can reach] beyond [the] surface” to critically examine structures in a way that can lead to change through partnerships between community leaders and scholars (Neuman, 2003, p. 81). In order for our scholarship to have such broader impacts, we have to acknowledge that no neutral stance exists. In adopting a critical social frame where the goal of research is to empower, we acknowledge that “being objective is not being value free” (Neuman, 2003, p. 116). We then can challenge the belief that our research “must be protected from politics” and instead can be a tool for “emancipatory social change” (Harding, 1986, p. 162).
Our scholarly impact should extend beyond traditional means of evaluation too. The AOM scholars shared that “the present system of faculty evaluation and . . . rankings have led to an overreliance on techniques, methodologies, and what journal editors may find acceptable.” They continue even more critically, stating that the present system serves to benefit “career-aspiring . . . academics with a corresponding under-reliance on ideas, community . . . and . . . limited societal impact” (Haley et al., 2017, p. 9). These scholars call for us to challenge our taken-for-granted assumptions on measuring impact and the resultant evaluation systems. When responses were summed, the majority of the AOM’s members $(60\%)$ indicated that rankings and lists probably did not, definitely did not, or might or might not reflect scholarly impact. They stated:
the incentive systems are not aligned [with engaging in impactful scholarship].
The goal of research can be to empower. If our purpose is only to study—and not to change (Neuman, 2003)—or, to Dr Fink’s point, only to admire sexism but not to do away with it, if it is not to pull back W.E.B. DuBois’ metaphorical veil, then ultimately, what is our impact? (DuBois, 1903). As Haley et al. (2017) shared, the majority of AOM eminent scholars communicated that faculty publish “in a limited number of journals with little attention to influence or true impact” (p. 10). In our field, we can point to that limited number of journals, and we can point to the mainstream topics and approaches addressed in them. We can also point to the critical issues and approaches and locate them, historically and primarily “in special issues . . . dedicated to ‘difference,’ . . .” (Shaw et al., 2011, p. 1). In Ketra Armstrong’s introduction to JSM’s special issue on race and ethnicity, she wrote:
It is my hope . . . that the scholarship featured in this Special Issue encourages Sport Management scholars at the personal and professional levels to be more willing to address race and ethnicity openly, directly, and cautiously . . . (Armstrong, 2011, p. 104)
How can the impact of that special issue be felt in the ways in which we “understand the nuances of managing sport . . . [and] navigate our epistemological . . . approaches” (Armstrong, 2011, p. 104) to create impact with our scholarship beyond special issues? Broader impact. The National Science Foundation (NSF) requires broader impacts statements on all of its grant applications. NSF desires intellectual merit and broader impacts that have “the potential to not only advance knowledge, but benefit society”
. . . we tend not to research real-life problems, do not work enough with government, and do not publish in vehicles that influence business . . . policy and practice . . . We do have vehicles that reach managers, but these do not count for much . . . (p. 21)
Our evaluation systems are imperiling external impact and incentivizing the wrong behaviors. It is not an either-or proposition. It is yes, and . . .
My colleague Justin Evanovich is a scholar activist. He serves as the Managing Director of Husky Sport (www.huskysport.uconn. edu). Every week he applies his research to practice as he challenges the students in his Sport Based Youth Development course. See the Sport Management Education Journal and Sport Management Review. He asks students to critically examine structures that historically deny opportunities (e.g., sport, education, health) to youths based on their ethnicities and socioeconomic status. Then he manages the campus–community partnership that connects the UConn and Hartford communities to collectively work to dismantle these structures because, to him, it is not enough only to discuss and research the issues.
My colleague Joseph Cooper is a scholar activist. His research on the holistic development of college students is at the nexus of sport, education, race, and culture. His work can be found in Sport Management Review, the Sociology of Sport Journal, and Whiteness in Education. Dr. Cooper founded Collective Uplift and empowers students across racial and ethnic backgrounds at UConn within and beyond their roles as college athletes every day. He is publishing his work outside the academy too. Take a look at his piece in The Conversation entitled “Dangerous Stereotypes Stalk Black College Athletes” (Cooper, 2019).
My colleague Laura Burton is also a scholar activist. She is a NASSM Research Fellow and published in journals such as Quest and the Harvard Education Review on gender in leadership. What you might not know is that she has served as an expert witness or written an expert report in four cases of wrongful termination of female collegiate sport coaches, including the high profile $\$1.434$ outcome for former University of Iowa athletic administrator Jane Meyer on all claims—gender and sexual orientation discrimination, retaliation and whistle blower violations, and unequal pay (Emmert, 2017). These two are having impact. They are committed to what they do, and we have developed a culture in our department that not only supports the work they are doing, but also celebrates it. As an aside here, I am the department head. Not coaching three sports, just being the department head. Seriously, though, one way to make change is to lead it yourself. A plug for those of you thinking about how you can have impact. One hundred twentyseven women in the U.S. Congress would tell you the same thing. As leaders, we can change the reward structure and, as a result, change our professional socialization. We can leave it at the individual level, as Holosko and colleagues in social work have highlighted. The “wrong behaviors” can continue to be incentivized and the Black, female (you insert the identities) academics—will “just have to learn to live with [it]’’ (Holosko, Barner, & Allen, 2016, p. 727). Or we can work to change the system. We can continue to use citations and indexes, or we can recognize, like the field of psychology has, that these “reflect systematic . . . differences” and instead use “caution when relying on metric[s] to promote and reward” scholars (Geraci, Balsis, & Busch, 2015, p. 2023).
I am going to bring it back to Boyer here. My colleagues Rachel Madsen, Justin Evanovich, Rhema Fuller, and I also wrote, using Boyer’s framework,
. . . Boyer (1990) examined the American professoriate identifying the increasing emphasis on research, grants, and publications as antithetical to the reasons many are called to higher education, “a love for teaching and for service—even for making the world a better place” (Boyer, 1990, p. xii).
We went on in what now I realize has the uncanny feel of a Zeigler address. Who would have known?
The leaders in the field of sport management have been calling . . . [our] professoriate to engage in the world for many years. From Frisby (2005) challenging us to examine critically the structures and the cultures of sport to Chalip (2006) urging us to identify areas for change in sport to Inglis’ (2007) exploring of the creative tensions of academic life . . . the sport management professoriate has heard their words. But . . this professoriate has struggled to examine (Frisby, 2005), identify (Chalip, 2006), and explore (Inglis, 2007) . . . (Bruening, Madsen, Evanovich, & Fuller, 2010, p. 31).
We are still having the same conversation. But the world has changed. Compared with current critical scholarship, discovery, integration, and application are safe terms. No bats being thrown there. What Alvesson and Deetz (2000) would tell us is that we need insight into how our existing knowledge has been shaped, even taken for granted, by our standpoint. We should critique and question our assumptions, and finally transform them. Sulé (2014) would tell those who have been underrepresented and undervalued to enact norms that are aligned with own our positionalities, discard the norms that conflict with those positionalities, and transform norms to bring them into alignment with our positionalities (p. 440).
How many of you have heard Abby Wambach’s Barnard College commencement address (Wambach, 2018)? You know, the Wolfpack? She inspired those graduates to consider how things are and how they might be:
Our landscape is overrun with archaic ways of thinking about women, about people of color, about the “other,” . . . and these ways of thinking are destroying us.
As you go out into the world: Amplify each other’s voices. Demand seats for women, people of color and all marginalized people at every table where decisions are made. Call out each other’s wins just like we do on the field . . . scarcity has been planted inside of us and among us. This scarcity is not our fault. But it is our problem. And it is within our power to create abundance . . . where scarcity used to live.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
How about Jamele Hill? She was fired from ESPN (Entertainment and Sports Programming Network) for speaking her truth about a norm that conflicted with her positionalities. She now has a new show called Unbothered where she talks about sport at the intersections of race, gender, and politics. She is speaking her mind, owning her truth, and not shying away from it. What about Aly Raisman? Fierce (Raisman, 2017). She spoke her truth, too, and as a result, norms about how our society views women are being transformed. Read the recent New York Times opinion piece by former major leaguer and current MLB broadcaster, Doug Glanville? Ambiguity has always been a friend to racism, he states: “ . we need to acknowledge racism, and acknowledge that it operates not only with fire hoses and police dogs but also in whispers, in fine print, in invisible ink, in coded language. Until we are fully against it, we are letting it fester, and while we try to sort out the ambiguities, people are suffering” (Glanville, 2019). I am also reminded of Kyle Korver’s Player’s Tribune piece entitled “Privileged” (Kover, 2019). Many of us, the majority in this room, like Korver, can opt in or opt out. More of the norms benefit us than don’t. We don’t have to enact, discard, transform. Wambach, Hill, Raisman, Glanville, Korver: they are all telling us we still should. That would have impact. As Wambach said to the women of Barnard, are you picking up what I am laying down here?
We all have bias. Another inconvenient truth, right Lucie (Thibault, 2009)? Most of our bias is unconscious, implicit. And yet, it presents itself in our individual actions and the policies and practices that undergird our organizations. Remember the statistics I shared earlier on the NASSM membership? White people control this institution and most institutions in sport and our society, including the academy, our journals, the Social Science Citation Index. I think you get my point. Our biases are embedded in us as individuals, “regardless of intentions, awareness, or self-image.” No one has escaped being shaped by bias and by structures that reinforce bias. In 2017, Robin DiAngelo wrote that “our task is not to exempt ourselves from the impact” (DiAngelo, 2017) of how we have been socialized to the world and this profession, but instead call out—make explicit—how we have been shaped, our taken-forgranted assumptions, and disrupt them. As a sociologist, she describes the culture we live in as white supremist. While many associate that concept with extreme and explicit forms of hate, she uses it to describe individual and organizational contexts where Whiteness is the norm, even ideal. DiAngelo stated,
[we] mask white supremacy by rendering invisible–whites, white advantage, and the policies and practices of the institutions we control. This is what we need to make visible, understand, and interrupt . . . naming white supremacy . . . shifts the problem to white people, where it belongs . . . all white people, even white progressives (DiAngelo, 2017).
While I understand where Dr Zeigler, and NASSM in 1987, were coming from in shaping a mission that did not prioritize or protect any individual, group, or university, and I realize what Cuneen and Parks were saying about sport management education as a whole benefitting from NASSM and JSM’s focus, I can’t help but ask in 2019: if we do not serve the evolving profession as the individuals they are and groups they belong to, then do we run the risk of being exclusionary? If we are not explicit about how sport is a microcosm of society (Lapchick, 2006), then how are we serving the field? Our biases are “hiding in plain sight,” right Janet? In Cunningham’s (2014) Zeigler address, he appealed to all of us to consider that “justice . . . in sport will only be realized through our collective actions—not our silence” (p. 3). We can all have impact. Mary Hums, the 2009 Zeigler winner, shared with me that behind-thescenes work, advocacy, is needed. It’s not all about speaking out. It’s not look at me, I did this. It’s also the work that is not recognized by the field as impact, but it is. It takes time, energy, thought, and care. It’s not, as Mary says, “shiny.” But if it weren’t for her, the MLB injured list would still be called the disabled list. So, what can we do? Well, first, “Never say you cannot do something” (Pastore, 2003, p. 10). The time has come for us to try on a different lens, right Donna? And put a plan into action. Be a collegial peer (Pastore, 2003). I have heard some great stories during my preparation for this talk about 2008 Zeigler winner Lucie Thibault’s wide circle of colleagues from all over the world. Why? Because she took the time to engage with them at this conference and others. Go to a talk you would not have otherwise attended; I would point to the symposium tomorrow morning . . . in case you are looking for a suggestion. Listen, ask a constructive question, make a constructive comment. I heard a story while doing my research for this talk about how Laurence Chalip came to a presentation at a critical time in a younger scholar’s career and offered feedback and encouragement. That had impact. Students and professionals new to NASSM, put yourselves out there and introduce yourselves to someone you’d like to talk to, and those of us who’ve been around a while, be kind. Make time. I know many of us come to the conference partly because it is the one time a year we see some of our friends. I get it. But our membership is telling us that there are in-groups and out-groups. Do something to expand your in-group and disband your out-group this year. Come on. When you meet someone new or listen to a presentation on a new research method or innovative pedagogy, who do you know who might be interested? Connect people to each other, here at the conference or by email later. Do it. When you go home to your campuses, think about how you approach your programs. What is your reward structure for faculty—how does it reinforce the traditional, dominant narrative? How can you enact, discard, transform? (Sulé, 2014).
In his Hall of Fame induction speech, Ryne Sandberg said it’s
more “than knowing where to find the little red light on the dugout camera” (Sandberg, 2005). Impact is bigger than look at me. Jamele
Hill said, “we are disrupters, the whole function of our job is to hold people . . . accountable” (Hill, 2019). Even ourselves. I have given you examples of big I impact where we can disrupt the structures that work to maintain the status quo, the in-groups, and the out-groups, the metrics and evaluations. And I have given examples of little I impact that have happened, that are happening, and that can happen even more. As our own members have told us, NASSM “should be a diverse and inclusive academic society—one in which all persons can thrive, irrespective of their individual differences” (North American Society for Sport Management, 2016a). Here is the thing, and nothing against NASSS, it is a pretty cool organization and puts on a solid conference, but no one should have to go there in order to feel they and their work are valued. We can do better.
|
Alvesson, M. (2008). The future of critical management studies. In D. Barry & H. Hansen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of new approaches in management and organization (pp. 13–30). London, UK: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Armstrong, K.L. (2011). ‘Lifting the veils and illuminating the shadows’: Furthering the explorations of race and ethnicity in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 25(2), 95–106. doi:10.1123/ jsm.25.2.95
Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Lawrenceville, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bruening, J.E., Madsen, R.M., Evanovich, J.M., & Fuller, R.D. (2010). Discovery, integration, application and teaching: Service learning through sport and physical activity. Sport Management Education Journal, 4(1), 31–48. doi:10.1123/smej.4.1.31
Caproni, P.J., & Arias, M.E. (1997). Managerial skills training from a critical perspective. Journal of Management Education, 21(3), 292– 308. doi:10.1177/105256299702100303
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1–21. doi:10.1123/jsm.20.1.1
Cooper, J.N. (2019). Dangerous stereotypes stalk Black college athletes. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/dangerous-stereotypesstalk-blackcollege-athletes-101655
Cuneen, J., & Parks, J.B. (1997). Should we serve sport management practice or sport management education? A response to Weese’s perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 11(2), 125–132. doi:10. 1123/jsm.11.2.125
Cunningham, G.B. (2014). Interdependence, mutuality, and collective action in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 28(1), 1–7. doi:10. 1123/jsm.2013-0152
DiAngelo, R. (2017). No, I won’t stop saying white supremacy. Retrieved from https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/no-i-wont-stopsaying-white-supremacy-20170630
Dixon, M.A., & Bruening, J.E. (2007). Work–family conflict in coaching I: A top-down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377–406. doi:10.1123/jsm.21.3.377
Doherty, A. (2013). “It takes a village:” Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 27(1), 1–10. doi:10. 1123/jsm.27.1.1
DuBois, W.E.B. (1903). The souls of black folk. New York, NY: Bantam Classic.
Emmert, M. (2017). Jane Meyer wins $\$1.43$ case against Iowa. Retrieved from https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/sports/ college/iowa/hawkcentral/2017/05/04/janemeyer-wins-1-43-m-case
Fink, J.S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding comments. Sex Roles, 58(1–2), 146–147. doi:10.1007/ s11199-007-9364-4
Fink, J.S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm. 2015-0278
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 1–12. doi:10.1123/jsm.19.1.1
Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A.J.B. (2015). Gender and the h index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105(3), 2023–2034. doi:10.1007/ s11192-015-1757-5
Glanville, D. (2019). I was racially taunted on television. Wasn’t I? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/opinion/sunday/ doug-glanville-cubs.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
Haley, U.C.V., Page, M.C., Pitsis, T.S., Rivas, J.L., & Yu, K.F. (2017). Measuring and achieving scholarly impact: A report from the Academy of Management’s Practice Theme Committee. Available at http://aom.!org/uploadedFiles/About_AOM/StrategicPlan/AOM ScholarlyImpactReport.pdf.
Harding, S.G. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hill, J. (2019). Jamele Hill a disrupter. Retrieved from https://dailycampus. com/stories/2019/3/7/jemele-hill-a-disrupter
Holosko, M.J., Barner, J.R., & Allen, J.L. (2016). Citation impact of women in social work: Exploring gender and research culture. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(6), 723–729. doi:10.1177/ 1049731515598374
Howard, D.R. (1999). The changing fanscape for big-league sports: Implications for sport managers. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 78–91. doi:10.1123/jsm.13.1.78
Husky Sport. Retrieved from https://www.huskysport.uconn.edu
Inglis, S. (2007). Creative tensions and conversations in the academy. Journal of Sport Management, 21(1), 1–14. doi:10.1123/jsm.21.1.1
Kover, K. (2019). Privileged. Retrieved from https://www.theplay erstribune.com/en-us/articles/kyle-korver-utah-jazz-nba
Kram, K.E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lapchick, R.E. (2006). New game plan for college sport. ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Mahony, D.F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22(1), 1–10. doi:10.1123/jsm.22.1.1
Meyerson, D.E., & Kolb, D.M. (2000). Moving out of the arm chair: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7(4), 553–571. doi:10.1177/135050840074003
Mintzberg, H. (1982). If you’re not serving Bill and Barbara, then you’re not serving leadership. In J.G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C.A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership beyond establishment views (pp. 239–259). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
National Basketball Association. (2019). Inclusive culture. Retrieved from https://inclusion.nba.com/inclusive-culture/
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2009). Retrieved from https:// www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DiversityInAthletics2009.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nsf. gov/od/oia/publications/Broader_Impacts.pdf
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
North American Society for Sport Management. (2016a). 2016–2021 Strategic Plan. Author. Retrieved from https://www.nassm.org/ sites/default/files/NASSM%20Strategic%20Plan%202016-2021.pdf
North American Society for Sport Management. (2016b). Climate survey: Summary of findings. Author.
North American Society for Sport Management. (2018). NASSM Report Goal 7: Understand and serve the perspectives of under-represented and underserved stakeholders. Author.
North American Society for Sport Management. (2019). Membership demographics. Author.
Parks, J.E. (1992). Scholarship: The bitter “bottom line” in, sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 220–229. doi:10.1123/ jsm.6.3.220
Pastore, D.L. (2003). A different lens to view mentoring in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 17(1), 1–12. doi:10.1123/jsm. 17.1.1
Raisman, A. (2017). Fierce: How competing for myself changed everything. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Company.
Rhimes, S. (2015). Year of yes: How to dance it out, stand in the sun and be your own person. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Sandberg, R.D. (2005). Retrieved from https://americanrhetoric.com/ speeches/rynesandbergbaseballhalloffame.htm
Schulenkorf, N., Sherry, E., & Rowe, K. (2016). Sport for development: An integrated literature review. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 22–39. doi:10.1123/jsm.2014-0263
Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable? Promoting an alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 483–509. doi:10.1123/jsm.20.4.483
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4), 347–375. doi:10.1123/jsm.17.4.347
Shaw, S., Wolfe, R., & Frisby, W. (2011). A critical management studies approach to sport management education: Insights, challenges and opportunities. Sport Management Education Journal, 5(1), 1–13. doi:10.1123/smej.5.1.1
Shilbury, D. (2012). Competition: The heart and soul of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 26(1), 1–10. doi:10.1123/jsm.26.1.1
Spaaij, R., Oxford, S., & Jeanes, R. (2016). Transforming communities through sport? Critical pedagogy and sport for development. Sport, Education and Society, 21(4), 570–587. doi:10.1080/13573322. 2015.1082127
Sulé, V.T. (2014). Enact, discard, and transform: A critical race feminist perspective on professional socialization among tenured Black female faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(4), 432–453. doi:10.1080/09518398.2013.780315
Svensson, P.G., & Levine, J. (2017). Rethinking sport for development and peace: The capability approach. Sport in Society, 20(7), 905–923. doi:10.1080/17430437.2016.1269083
Taylor, E.A., Smith, A.B., Welch, N.M., & Hardin, R. (2018). “You should be flattered!”: Female sport management faculty experiences of sexual harassment and sexism. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 26(1), 43–53. doi:10.1123/wspaj.2017-0038
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 1–20. doi:10.1123/jsm.23.1.1
Wambach, A. (2018). Make failure your fuel. Retrieved from https:// time.com/5281711/abby-wambach-barnard-commencement-2018- speech/
Weese, W.J. (1995). If we’re not serving practitioners, then we’re not serving sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 9(3), 237– 243. doi:10.1123/jsm.9.3.237
Zeigler, E. (1987). Sport management: Past, present, future. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 4–24. doi:10.1123/jsm.1.1.4
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
Finding Joy in the Journey: Sustaining a Meaningful Career in Sport Management
|
Marlene A. Dixon Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
|
2020
|
In her 2020 Earle F. Zeigler Award address, Marlene Dixon presented and discussed five elements of a sustained career in academia: Lifelong Learning, Authenticity, Relational Mentoring, Work-Life Balance, and Faithfulness. Dixon suggests that remaining open to new learning and taking risks helps increase capacity and vigor. Authenticity brings richness, voice, durability, and purpose. Relational mentoring brings connection, community, enrichment, and longevity. Cultivating work-life balance, rest, and self-care not only helps avoid burnout, but also improves creativity, playfulness, and liveliness. Finally, leveraging the extended metaphor from Tolkein’s Leaf by Niggle, Dixon argues that faithfulness, rather than visibility or measurable outcome, defines the meaning and value of our work and contribution not only to science, but also to our life circles.
Keywords: development through sport, mentoring, occupational commitment, relationships, sense of community, work family issues
It is so weird to be standing here. This talk was originally supposed to take place in San Diego last May in a room with a view overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Instead, we are coming to you from the luxurious third coast of College Station, Texas, with a view of, well, nothing.
It is so weird to be standing here. I mean talk about icing the shooter. I feel like I’ve been standing on the free throw line for 18 months waiting for the ref to hand me the dad-gum ball!
It’s SO weird to be standing here. I’ve been coming to North American Society of Sport Management (NASSM) since 2000 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and have had the honor of listening to and introducing a number of incredible colleagues deliver their thoughts to the field from this platform; hearing what is core to people’s mission in sport and how they think we can do better. Over the years, I have heard many incredible talks from this platform from some excellent scholars and wonderful people. I have introduced this award (I think with a formal march-in with bagpipes?). I have introduced my favorite people from this platform. And, I have handed out some NASSM awards in some pretty crazy venues (sorry, there will be no hockey announcer voice today, even with a triple dog dare from Brianna Newland).
Given the esteem I have for every one of the former Zeigler Award winners, it is truly a privilege and honor to stand before you today as the 2020 Earle F. Zeigler award recipient for the NASSM. Thank you all for taking a few minutes of your day to share this honor with me.
As I said, I’ve been coming to NASSM for just at 20 years. I look back to those early conference days when I was a graduate student, you know, when you mapped out a full 3 days of sessions, took copious notes at EVERY one, and tried to drum up new projects to work on. For me, it was like the peanut vendors at a baseball game —peanuts, popcorn, and projects. Get your hot projects here!! I was open to any projects, looking for a team, specifically hoping for ones that would land me my first JSM publication.
Those grad school days were also when I only knew everyone by their publications and awkwardly tried to introduce myself to these amazing people whose work I was reading and trying to digest and figure out this whole thing we called sport management research. Oh, you are Doherty (1995)? I love your model! So nice to meet you Danylchuk (1999)!! Yes, I think becoming more globally minded is important, too. Thibault (1993)? We read your paper in Chella’s doc seminar! I am just starting to study strategy!! And I thought, what is this whole research thing? I’m not sure it is for me. I will most likely head back to coaching, with maybe some teaching on the side.
Fast forward 18 years, and I’m at the last conference I attended in person. I headed out the front door of the hotel in my shorts and tshirt to go for a run (yes, instead of a session) and came across a student looking a bit lost—I asked if I could help her locate her destination, and then introduced myself. She said, Marlene Dixon? The Researcher?! As you can guess, after I made it far enough away to not embarrass the student, I fell over laughing.
Yes, I guess I am Marlene Dixon, the researcher. Dixon et al. (2020). Not at all to disparage the compliment from this very earnest student. What is funny is that just like at my first NASSM, I have never really seen myself as that. I just always have always felt like Marlene Dixon, the person that wants to help make sport programs more of what they could be. The person who wants to study meaningful problems, to help people and organizations figure things out, and to provide support and encouragement to empower ideas and dreams.
Jim Collins (2001) would say this kind of approach is what I have been encoded for. It’s what is in my DNA; it comes naturally to me. It is what brings me joy. It energizes me. I love a good puzzle in an idea or manuscript or an organization. I love to hear people’s stories and ideas and dreams, and hopefully have something to speak into them.
Over the years, I have found it best to speak from what I know—to stay in my own lane. In that spirit, and in embracing my own encoding, I would like to offer this discussion, a fireside chat as Chris Beard would call it, a few thoughts on life in academia that have helped me sustain a career through the myriad events, people, transitions, evaluations, and emotions that are part of this crazy journey. I hope within my musings about my journey you will also find a nugget that resonates and lifts you along your own.
Because we need a bit of organization for this discussion, because we need to have a little fun, because Matt Katz will not be denied his boxes and arrows, and because every academic model needs an inordinately long and complex name with accompanying acronym, I present to you the Dixon Career Longevity Model for Joyful and Ultimate Sustainability—affectionately known as the CLMJUS. The following Figure 1 depicts a diagrammatic overview for this discussion.
The first factor that I believe sustains one over the course of their academic journey is being a lifelong learner—this is about being humble and open to new learning (Li, 2016), and exercising the willingness (Napoli, 2007) to embrace the risks and surprises that come with new adventures. Legend has it that after becoming an esteemed teacher sought after by many students, Confucius was impressed by a 7-year-old prodigy who responded to Confucius’s questions with quick wit and also posed questions that outsmarted the master. Subsequently, Confucius acknowledged Xiang Tuo as his teacher. Whether this legend has historical accuracy is beside the point; the real appeal is that even the “exemplary teacher of all ages” (萬世師表) had room for further self-improvement in learning and that he was the first to recognize this personal need and to seek learning even from a child (Li, 2016).
I can relate to this legend in the sense that I find that I am constantly in the presence of people that are smarter or wiser or have different life experiences than mine, and that when I am open and listening, I can learn so much from each of them. As I think back even over the past year, I have learned so many things from people of all ages and walks of life.
I have learned so much about resilience from my son Justin, who continues to persevere regardless of the limitations people want to put on him. I have learned about flexibility from my son Cody, who is constantly adapting to different situations and demands from coaches, teammates, and friends. I have learned about altruism and friendship from my daughter Avery, who endlessly supports her friend group and helps champion each of their distinctive gifts. I have learned so much about listening and loving people from my husband Stuart, who sacrifices daily for our family and for the kids in our community. From my friends Sam in India and Salim in Kenya, I have learned about capacity building— how they find a need like rickshaw driving or guest transport, and build whole livelihoods from there. I’ve learned much from grassroots sport program leaders like Dennis Orek, Emma Owiro, Torrey Bates, Gideon Ochieng, and Irene Waite about perseverance and creativity, about staying the course in overwhelmingly difficult situations. My former doc students have taught me so much. From my first student, Jarrod Schenewark, who has pursued a career that honors his family first, to my most recent graduate, Arden Anderson, who is doggedly true to her identity and values. My current doc students continue to help me learn new things— Baykal has taught me about institutional voids and about blending strengths from multiple fields. Daniel has taught me a ton about student development, all things Aggie, and all kinds of Excel tricks. Ashlyn has given me an incredible global perspective; she helps me question a million assumptions, and always pushes me to be my most authentic self.
In academia, it is easy to get caught in a success orientation mindset—I just need to finish my dissertation, and then I will have arrived. I just need to get a good job, then I will have arrived. I just need to get a JSM or an SMR publication, or Research Fellow. I just need to get tenure, or associate or full, then I will have arrived. George Napoli (2007), successful entrepreneur and business educator, argues that “in order to be fulfilled and to grow personally and professionally, we need to change our success orientation and develop a growth orientation where we constantly establish new goals and challenges for ourselves based on learning and growing.” I couldn’t agree more.
In my experience, while there may be markers and milestones, there is not a destination, and we need to continue to find new avenues for growth and learning that will help us continue to build success in ourselves and others. If we are going to thrive over the long haul, we must remain teachable and humble.
Humility, teachability, and openness to experience can look different to different people and at different life stages. It may look like learning a new literature base, a new technology, a new leadership or relational tool, new approach to organizing or managing, or new relationships themselves. Ultimately, learning is complex and requires people to face different challenges at the individual level, which also depends on the societal and cultural norms associated with their environment (Regmi, 2020). It may look like a new job, a different aspect of a job, teaching a new class, or heading research in a different direction. It might be something nonwork-related like a new hobby or sport.
Figure 1 — Organizing framework: Dixon Career Longevity Model for Joyful and Ultimate Sustainability.
The challenge with remaining teachable and open to new learning, however, is that it makes one uncomfortable. It can be stressful and requires both effort and agency in the process (Boyadjieva & Ilieva-Trichkova, 2018). I often find myself wanting and thinking that if my life were more ordered, predictable, and within my control, it would be better, maybe easier, and certainly less convoluted. However, I’ve often found that the best things in life come with risk, surprise, and within the messiness of the unexpected and the discomfort of putting oneself out there to try something new.
In my life and career, I have taken a few risks (e.g., travel, new jobs, partner organizations, grad students, new theories, teenagers) all requiring a level of challenge and the insecurity and awkwardness that comes from novelty. But with each challenge, I have found renewed vigor, increased capacity, the joy of adventure that not only keeps me thriving, but also reminds me how very much more there is to do, learn, and grow. I challenge you to take the risks and to never feel that you have arrived.
One of the most important aspects I have also found to longevity in this academic journey is authenticity (Wayne et al., 2019). In fact, I think over the last year, the concepts of authenticity (Cha et al., 2019; Javed et al., 2021) and vulnerability have resonated with me in new and powerful ways that continue to compel my thinking and action. Maybe I’m just old. Maybe I’ve watched one too many Brené Brown Ted Talks. Maybe the pandemic helped distinguish for me what I really see as important. But, over the past year in particular, the need and desire to be me (dumb jokes and all), and to lead and write and study in ways that give proper value to the things that are important to me, has really become integral to all I think and do.
As I have moved through this career, and as I have watched the careers of really great scholars unfold, one thing that I found is that it is absolutely essential to study things that are important to us. I think of Wendy Frisby and her examination of grassroots sport for women. This grounded work that involved the participants in ways that Frisby had long deemed essential both to process and outcome brought her great purpose and joy, and the lasting impact of the inquiry and the programs themselves followed. It has inspired me to do the same in my work in Kenya.
I think of Janet Fink and her unwavering pursuit of improving sport visibility for women. The more she studied the issue, the more powerful her voice became in speaking toward the problems and the solutions. I think of George Cunningham and his pursuit of social justice in sport. I love how he knows why he studies what he does, even if it is not apparent or understandable to others. And Laurence Chalip, what a privilege it was of mine to work with such a visionary and deep thinker. I still remember having to look up words after every conversation and meeting with him. Laurence is the only person I know who can actually say salubrious socialization, and mean it with all his being.
The pursuit of knowledge and problem-solving in areas that resonate with us does amazing things for a career in academia. It brings a richness, a voice, a durability, and a purpose. I’ll never forget Chris Green’s consistent prompting in my early years at Texas. She’d say, “Marlene, you can cite 30 sources on this and tell me in detail what all these other people think. But, what do you think?”
At the time, I didn’t really have thoughts, but as I found the things that were important to me—creating new and better opportunities for girls and women in sport, fighting for work– life balance, building sport that enhanced life quality, mentoring—I found that I actually had ideas, and theories, and questions. I had a voice in the work.
So, while I understand that there continues to be enormous pressure to publish in quantity, which can drive us out of our core, and that there is also increasing pressure to do “fundable work,” I have found it and watched it be a painful grind to do work that is not very meaningful or authentic to who one is as a scholar or a person. If you are young in the field or maybe burning out a bit, I encourage you to turn off the pressures to do “projects,” to do things that are “good for your CV,” and focus your study, hone your efforts on the problems that resonate with you. As your questions are authentic, so will be the answers.
A third aspect that I have found to be essential in this academic journey is the need to cultivate relationships and live within community (Dixon et al., 2020). As Confucius teaches, “Human flourishing depends on the support of other people : : : therefore, human flourishing is not conceptualized primarily as an ‘individual’ process inside the skin, but is deeply rooted in the web of social relationships” (Li, 2016, p. 152).
In sport management, Dan Mahoney (2008) captured this well many years ago in his inspiring Zeigler talk about community—No One Can Whistle a Symphony: Working Together for Sport Management’s Future. In this talk, he emphasized the need to work together within and across universities to build our field both in size and prestige. He said, “By working together, sometimes across institution types, we can produce more and better research. In fact, a recent comprehensive analysis of over 20 million papers from a 50-year period found that collaborative research was more successful than solo authored work, and this difference was increasing over time” (Wuchty et al., 2007, as cited in Mahony, 2008, p. 5).
Now, as many of you may know, I love to hike. Give me a mountain and I am on my way. I love to run, too. And for most days a walk around the neighborhood (Texas is a little shy on mountains) will also suffice. I do my best thinking when I hike. I feel joy when I hike—the mountains and trees, the pines and aspen, the greens and blues of the meadows and skies, and endless vistas. But as much as I do love to enjoy these moments alone, I have had some of my best adventures and most invigorating conversations and memorable moments walking with others.
When I was a kid, growing up in Colorado, on many a summer weekend, you’d find the Link family traipsing across a mountain trail, building a fire, scrambling over boulders, or playing a boundaryless game of kick the can. As a college kid and young adult, I hiked with friends. It has been the joy of my life to hike with a tall drink of Texas water, my husband Stuart. You know the guy with the long ole legs, a spirit of adventure, an incredible sense of humor, and patience to put up with my endless stream of wild ideas.
We added to the fun as I threw my kiddos on my back and hiked with them. Now, they haul me up the mountain (and race me down it). I don’t think I’ll ever be able to keep up with them, but it sure is a blast adventuring together. Some of our best memories are on a trail or around a campfire.
To Mahoney’s point, over the years, I have walked and hiked with many of you in NASSM, EASM, SMAANZ, AASM, and WASM destinations. From Canmore and Ottawa and Halifax, to Sydney, Melbourne, Warsaw, London, Langkawi, Seoul, Cologne,
Bern, and even a crazy week in Santiago (tear gas and all), my career in sport management has led me to some amazing destinations. Even more so, it has led me to incredible opportunities for growth, learning, discovery, and friendship.
Indeed, there are times that serving in NASSM felt like work as we hashed out the operating codes for the 100th time, or painstakingly carved the WASM Constitution for 2 days in a windowless conference room in Malaysia, or restless nights grappling over tense conversations where resolution seemed impossible to achieve. But mostly serving NASSM, and the global sport management experience, has been a joy and provided endless stories of people’s lives and of sport-related issues that we have bantered and sought solutions and that drive us forward to continue pursuing answers. Janet Parks and Jackie Cuneen, you were right—I will never regret getting involved in this organization.
While collaboration and relationships in general are absolutely essential to surviving and thriving in academia and life, I’d like to address a particular type of relationship that has been paramount to my career. That is the relationship of mentor-protégé. Both roles in this relationship have been core to my longevity and fulfillment in the profession.
Darren Kelly and I have previously discussed the value to a protégé of having a constellation of mentors whereby one would build a “personal board of directors” (Kelly & Dixon, 2014, p. 509) that could be helpful in a variety of capacities—athletic, academic, emotional, career, and spiritual. This has certainly been true for me. I think of the many mentors that have poured into me over the years—incredible sport management scholars like Chris Green, Laurence Chalip, Maureen Fitzgerald, Jan Todd, Janet Fink, Chella, Karen Danylchuk, Marijka Taks, Bob Baker, Pam Baker, Paul Batista, David Shilbury, and Annalise Knoppers. They have helped me so much to grow and develop as a scholar and thinker and leader. And in my personal life, such wonderful people like my parents, my parentsin-law, Dr. Sheryl Tynes, Becky Geyer, Eric and April Nelson, Barbara Orr, and Eric Geary. Individuals who have imparted such wisdom across many spheres of life, who have seen me at my worst, but always help me be my best.
In her Ziegler address, my PhD advisor, the one and only, Dr. Buckeye herself, Donna Pastore (2003), discussed the value of mentoring in the field of sport management. Having the privilege of being advised and mentored (and still mentored) by Donna, brings to light the importance of this for development of individual strengths, navigation of power networks, career opportunities, and cultivation of fruitful research collaborations. Donna and I have discussed this at length over the years, most recently trying to understand more about how to transition people from protégé to mentor and to promote the incredible benefits of mentoring, especially to the mentor.
I’m not sure there is a more fulfilling relationship in all of academia than that of a mentor. Ragins (2016), in her most recent work, has described this as “Relational Mentoring,” which she argues is a focus not on mentoring relationships in general, but on high-quality mentoring relationships—how they are formed and the benefits thereof. I suppose in many ways much of what she has written has already been organic to my academic career, but I am going to borrow from her well-developed concepts to suggest a few lessons I’ve learned about the value and process of relational mentoring and how it can enhance one’s career both from the perspective of a protégé (Ragins, 1997), but especially that of a mentor.
Relational mentoring is mutually beneficial for protégé and mentor. Ragins (2016) suggest that:
In average quality relationships the mentor helps and supports the protégé, but there is little expectation of reciprocity in learning or growth. The mentor may gain status, prestige, loyalty, and a sense of satisfaction, but both members view the relationship primarily as a “one-way street” that focuses on the protégé.
In contrast, high-quality mentoring relationships are a “twoway street” where both mentors and protégé’s actively learn and grow from each other. Two-way relationships are more likely to meet both members’ needs. (p. 232)
In my career, I think of this in terms of the many, many things I have learned from my graduate students. They have taught me everything from the use of new technologies and styles of communication to entire theoretical paradigms. They bring light into a dreary day, provide a sense of humor, and push me to learn more about people and leadership. They push me to question assumptions and approaches and continue to force me to grow and expand in my thinking and writing.
As Ragins (2016) argues, “Most work relationships rely on exchange norms. Exchange norms use an economic approach : : : . Relationships are viewed as transactions, and people are motivated to give in relationships when they expect to get something in return” (p. 233). In this, protégés in particular are expected to reciprocate. For example, I (the mentor) help you with your manuscript, you (the protégé) grade my papers. This may work to “get things done” but ultimately constrains the potential of the relationship.
Conversely, what if the relationship was built on communal norms? That is, not on self-interest or exchange, but on meeting the needs of the other? Scholarship has shown that “in these relationships, members give because they care for the well-being of their partner, not because they expect something in return. These trusting relationships are likely to be high quality because members’ needs are likely to be met” (Ragins, 2016, p. 233). The value of these relationships is not in a transaction, in some economic or social exchange, but in gaining from each other to expand one’s capacity and sense of self. Close relationships of this sort let us bring out the best in each other.
This idea has emerged for me over many years of manuscript reviews, reading others’ reviews, and mentoring doc students. The core of my thinking here is about being honest in feedback, packaged in kindness. In other words, it’s not kind to not tell the truth, but we have to do so in ways that build, not tear. In this way, kindness does not mean soft or easy, it means having the best interest of the person in every aspect and form of feedback. As Ferrucci (2006) puts it,
To act honestly, even at the risk of saying an unpleasant truth, or of saying no and causing distress to others—if done with intelligence and tact, is the kindest thing to do, because it respects our own integrity and acknowledges in others the capacity to be competent and mature. (p. 30)
In order to maximize our success as a field, and as mentors, we must consider the feedback of Harley (2019) and find ways to promote a truthful assessment of academic work.
In my experience, as a mentor and person in a position to review and “pass judgment,” I find I have incredible opportunities to exert influence in people’s lives. That exertion can either tear down or build up. Quite often, it is easier, quicker, and takes much less effort to tear. However, as I have the best interest of the other person at heart, whether that is a student, a colleague, an author, or a presenter, I find myself seeking to find and speak truth, yet do so in a way that is palatable, helpful. It takes more time and effort to weigh my words and my attitude, but I find that in the end, even the most difficult conversations usually end up advancing both the work and the person.
High-quality mentoring relationships have the potential to be so much more than work-related. This holistic perspective allows for a much broader array of relational outcomes that extend to life domains, work–life balance, and growth over the life course. As Ragins (2016) states, “In a nutshell, while average relationships may help members ‘do their jobs,’ high-quality relationships help them ‘live their lives’” (p. 234).
I love how this has played out across hundreds of students in my classes and academic experiences, but particularly among my relationships with doc students. There are far too many stories than I could tell in this realm, but suffice it to say that my most enriching mentoring experiences have come after my students graduate and we engage in each other’s lives—through job changes, family changes, joys, and hurts. In sum, there is tremendous value both in being mentored and in mentoring. And when done well, embracing the ideals of relational mentoring, pretty soon you don’t have mentors, protégés, networks, constellations, or collaborations— you find yourself surrounded by friends.
In that vein, the fourth major factor I have found toward longevity in this career is work–life balance. I know, no talk from Dixon et al. (2020) “the researcher” could be complete without at least a tiny dip in this realm. As most of you know, I’ve been doing work in the area of the work–family interface for many years. What started with my friend and colleague Jennie McGarry as a personal conversation over coffee became a full agenda that has grown to include a number of studies, co-authors, contexts, and continually emerging discussion.
Over the course of time, my thinking in the area of concepts like conflict, work, family, life, balance, enrichment has changed and has become clearer and nuanced in their meanings. Thus, I feel it is worth sharing a couple thoughts that have emerged from continual research in the area and from living it out as my own work and personal life have shaped over time. Most specifically, I think we, err, I, need to fundamentally shift my thinking in this area away from work–family conflict and toward work–life balance.
First, over time, it has soaked in that work–family implies a particular social construction and often implies a “family” that has children living in the home. Clearly, that is a restrictive notion to suggest that only people who have their own children living in their home deal with balancing paid work and other interests. Many people have significant life interests outside of work that they battle to find time, emotion, and energy to invest in. Many of you have hobbies or serious leisure pursuits like travel, golf, running, or skiing. Others of you, I hear your stories of volunteer interests in organizations like Boys and Girls Clubs, the National Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, or Mobile Mutts. Some people have aging parents or family members who need a lot of assistance. Those life interests and their relationship to paid work need to be captured in a broader concept of work–life interface, rather than restricting our conceptualization to work– family.
Second, the notion of conflict is, well, frustrating. As Jennie and I have often discussed, using the concept of conflict frames the relationship of work and nonwork as constantly embroiled in frustration, where the best end one can achieve is no conflict. The best you get is survival. This mentality leads us and others to boost each other with platitudes like “Keep your head above water,” “Hang in there,” “Just keep swimming,” yet these connote the best we can do is keep up or not drown. The result is a cloud of incessant guilt that settles over the life of one who is endlessly caught in a juggling act of obligation and conflicting responsibilities, but can never hope to be enough to any of the people or tasks demanding attention.
While conflict is certainly one characterization of this relationship, it is not the only outcome. Building on the work of Garey, Hewlett, and others, our collective work in sport management— collective meaning the scholarly studies from many of you—such as Sarah Leberman, Farah Palmer, Jarrod Schenewark, Mike Sagas, Sally Shaw, Jeff Graham, Mike Newhouse-Bailey, Shaina Dabbs, Matt Huml, Liz Taylor, Erianne Weight, Soyoun Lim, and Arden Anderson—this body of work collectively suggests that conflict is certainly not the only outcome of holding multiple life roles. In my own life, in our continued research in the area, in my friendships and relationships across various life stages, it is obvious that work and life realms enrich each other, they enhance each other, they spill over in positive ways, they segment to build as separate blocks in positive ways. They complement to build upon each other and to, as Anita Garey (1999) said, “weave a life” (p. 15).
How can we not only get used up, but also build capacity? To not just get back to zero, but also to grow? Instead of just soldiering on, what if we actually made time for strategic retreat? To rest, to heal, to mend, to play? What if we actually made time for personal development to learn a new skill or broaden our capacity? In the end, if we are to sustain a thoughtful contribution, avoiding burnout in any realm, we must fight well to tend to the creative, the playful, the relaxing, and the self-care that keeps us lively, sustained, and truly balanced in our heart and soul.
The final factor, perhaps a mediator in this model, is the concept of faithfulness. Faithfulness, I will define as simply persevering or being durable in the work and relationships presented to us over the life course. To that end, I’d like to tell you a story that has been of great inspiration to me as I think about my work and contribution to the larger body of science and to people’s lives.
I have found that over the course of my career there is much discouragement—the work is hard as a doc student balancing coursework, teaching, writing, and some semblance of a personal life. And to top it off, all your faculty advisors tell you that it only gets worse. As faculty, the grind is real—there’s always more to write, more to prepare, more to grade, and more students to wrangle. Our colleagues can be selfish, students are often thankless, and of course, there is always Reviewer 2.
And as I talk with so many of you—and I know for me—I have often felt discouraged in this journey for two reasons. One, is that the work rarely feels like it is making an impact, especially in changing practice. For example, I often feel like no matter all the work we’ve done in understanding and challenging the work–life culture in sport, that culture will not change. And for all the sportfor-development work we do, there is so much more to be done. It really feels like a drop in the bucket.
The second is that the judging is real. At every stage, there is someone to critique, and evaluate, and pick apart your work. There is no such thing as an “accept as is” in our teaching, research, or service. If you work in a business school, the kinesiology people frown upon that. If you work in a kinesiology program, the business school people look down upon that. If you are at an R1, then you are not student-focused. If you work at a teaching institution, you are not a serious scholar.
I hear this in so many conversations with so many young colleagues, and I hear this in and about NASSM every year. People are anxious. People are frustrated. People are discouraged. And people feel this way because no matter what they do, they do not feel their work is valued. They do not feel that it is contributing, especially not in the ways they hoped it would, and they do not feel that they matter.
As Tim Keller (2014) argues,
In all our work, we will be able to envision far more than we can accomplish, both because of a lack of ability and because of resistance in the environment around us. The experience of work will include pain, conflict, envy, and fatigue, and not all our goals will be met. For example, you may have an aspiration to do a certain kind of work and perform at a certain level of skill and quality, but you may never even get the opportunity to do the work you want, or if you do, you may not be able to do it as well as it needs to be done. Your conflicts with others in the work environment will sap your confidence and undermine your productivity. (p. 89)
In fact, he argues that we should expect to be regularly frustrated in our work, even if we are in exactly the right vocation.
The word discouragement essentially means to take apart courage, or take apart heart. When we are discouraged, we lose heart, we lose courage, and we lose stamina to continue on the path. The opposite of discourage is en-courage—to give heart, to strengthen courage, to put the heart together. I hope today that this final word would be a word of encouragement for all of you to continue in your path toward the unique contribution in sport management that you are already making in the short and the long term.
Near the end of his life, J.R.R. Tolkien became somewhat despondent that he would not finish the magnum opus of his career and life, the Lord of Rings trilogy. As a deep thinker and philosopher, his writing often took tangents and bunny trails that were interesting and compelling to him, but made little ultimate contribution to the finished written work. Can you relate? As he grew older, he worried that he had spent too much time niggling about in details and in interruptions of life—things like conversation, and tending to friends and family.
One morning he woke up with a short story in his mind and wrote it down. When The Dublin Review called for a piece, he sent it in with the title “Leaf by Niggle.” It was about a painter. The story begins like this:
There was once a little man called Niggle, who had a long journey to make : : : .
Niggle was a painter. Not a very successful one, partly because he had many other things to do. Most of these things he thought were a nuisance; but he did them fairly well, when he could not get out of them : : : . There were some other hindrances, too. For one thing, he was sometimes just idle, and did nothing at all. For another, he was kindhearted, in a way. You know the sort of kind heart: it made him uncomfortable more often than it made him do anything; and even when he did anything, it did not prevent him from grumbling, losing his temper and swearing (mostly to himself). All the same, it did land him in a good many off jobs for his neighbour, Mr. Parish, a man with a lame leg. Occasionally he even helped other people from further off, if they came and asked him to. Also, now and again, he remembered his journey, and began to pack a few things in an ineffectual way: at such times he did not paint very much.
He had a number of pictures on hand; most of them were too large and ambitious for his skill. He was the sort of painter who can paint leaves better than trees. He used to spend a long time on a single leaf, trying to catch its shape, and its sheen, and the glistening dewdrops on its edges. Yet he wanted to paint a whole tree, with all of its leaves in the same style, and all of them different.
There was one picture in particular which bothered him. It had begun with a leaf caught in the wind and it became a tree; and the tree grew, sending out innumerable branches, and thrusting out of the most fantastic roots : : : . Niggle lost interest in other pictures; or else he took them and tacked them on to the edges of his great picture. Soon the canvas became so large that he had to get a ladder, and he ran up and down it, putting in a touch here, and rubbing out a patch there : : : . He listened to what they said, but underneath he was thinking all the time about his big canvas, in the tall shed that had been built for it out in his garden.
One day Niggle stood a little way off from his picture and considered it with unusual attention and detachment. He could not make up his mind what he thought about it, and wished he had some friend who would tell him what to think. Actually, it seemed to him wholly unsatisfactory, and yet very lovely, the only really beautiful picture in the world. What he would have liked at that moment would have been to see himself walk in, and slap him on the back and say (with obvious sincerity): “Absolutely magnificent! I see exactly what you are getting at. Do get on with it, and don’t bother about anything else! We will arrange for a public pension, so that you need not.”
However, there was no public pension. And one thing he could see: it would need some concentration, some work, hard uninterrupted work, to finish the picture, even at its present size. He rolled up his sleeves and began to concentrate. (Tolkien, 2016, pp. 9–12)
As the story goes, Niggle did not finish his tree. In fact, he made very little progress. While tending to his neighbor, he became ill, and was called away on his journey to the afterlife. Because his painting remained unfinished, after his death the canvas was used to cover a hole in his neighbor’s leaky roof. The only part of his tree that survived was one little leaf that they put in the local museum, titled Leaf by Niggle.
In his afterlife, Niggle worked for a while at various jobs, and eventually came to a place of decision where two voices decided his fate for the next step. One was the voice of judgment. This voice that argued Niggle’s accomplishments were nothing, that he had been grumpy, and that he had not prepared for his journey. The first voice suggested maybe he was not so amazing at painting trees, but instead, he has a penchant for leaves. He loves the details of a leaf, the perfect sheen, the veins and details. But in doing so, he becomes discouraged at the progress of the whole, thinking that the small details are of importance to him, but of little significance or contribution to others.
The second voice, the voice of mercy, spoke of how Niggle did tend to his neighbor, how he sought nothing in return for his kindness, and how Leaf by Niggle had a charm of its own. This voice suggested that Niggle had a kind heart, and that he really did make a contribution, one that was uniquely his, and one that allowed him to move on in his journey. In fact, it is in a time of helping his neighbor that Niggle falls ill and passes from the earth—discouraged and despairing that he had not finished his painting. Ultimately it is decided that, as a reward for his kindness, Niggle will be allowed to continue on his journey, out of the mines and into a beautiful country. Tolkien (2016) continues:
Niggle pushed open the gate, jumped on the bicycle, and went bowling downhill in the spring sunshine. Before long he found that the path on which he had started had disappeared, and the bicycle was rolling along over a marvelous turf. It was green and close; and yet he could see every blade distinctly. He seemed to remember having seen or dreamed of that sweep of grass somewhere or other. The curves of the land were familiar somehow. Yes: the ground was becoming level as it should, and now, of course, it was beginning to rise again. A great green shadow came between him and the sun. Niggle looked up, and fell off his bicycle.
Before him stood the Tree, his Tree, finished. If you could say that of a Tree that was alive, its leaves opening, it branches growing and bending in the wind that Niggle had so often felt or guessed, and had so often failed to catch. He gazed at the tree, and slowly he lifted his arms and opened them wide.
“It’s a gift!” he said. He was referring to his art, and also to the result; but he was using the word quite literally.
He went on looking at the Tree. All the leaves he had ever laboured at were there, as he had imagined them rather than as he had made them; and there were others that only budded in his mind, and many that might have budded, if only he had had time. Nothing was written on them, they were just exquisite leaves, yet they were dated as clear as a calendar. Some of the most beautiful—and the most characteristic, the most perfect examples of the Niggle style—were seen to have been produced in collaboration with Mr. Parish: there was no other way of putting it.
The birds were building in the Tree. Astonishing birds: how they sang! They were mating, hatching, growing wings, and flying away singing into the Forest even while he looked at them. For now he saw that the Forest was there too, opening out on either side, and marching away into the distance. The Mountains were glimmering far away. (pp. 31–32)
It is a gift! Why? Because Niggle was sooo amazing? No, because Niggle was faithful. He painted the leaves he was called to paint and served the community right in front of him. Because it’s not about painting the whole tree. It’s not about painting the perfect tree. It’s about being faithful and diligent to serve the work and the people who come into our lives as we walk out this journey.
I just want to remind you that, like Niggle’s tree, just because you can’t see the impact, doesn’t mean it is not there. Just because right now it is not all you hoped it would be, doesn’t mean it won’t someday be all that and more.
If you, like me, sometimes get discouraged or derailed by the challenge of it all, if you ever ask yourself in the midst of your stagnant or nonexistent H-factor, “Has the little leaf that I have painted really made any difference in this world of knowledge and in the lives and careers in which I attempt to contribute?” I hope this address is an encouragement to you regarding yourself and your work.
If you take away one thing from this address, I hope it is this: No matter your career stage, no matter if you are at a teaching school or research school, whether you are a clinical, visiting, associate, tenured, or instructional, whether you base yourself in Asia or Australia or Europe, Africa, South America, or North America, whether you sic ’em or hook ’em or gig ’em, whether you work on leaves, or stems, or branches, or dive into theoretical roots —when you bring your authentic self, and both give and receive in the community around you—
your work matters, your contribution matters.
Your LIFE matters.
Turn off the judging.
Embrace the voice of mercy.
Dig in right where you are at.
Keep pursuing the problems that have value to YOU.
Keep doing hard things.
Keep finding joy in your journey.
|
Boyadjieva, P., & Ilieva-Trichkova, P. (2018). Lifelong learning as an emancipation process: A capability approach. In The Palgrave international handbook on adult and lifelong education and learning (pp. 267–288). Palgrave Macmillan.
Cha, S.E., Hewlin, P.F., Roberts, L.M., Buckman, B.R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E.L., Ostermeier, K., & Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 633–671. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0108
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap : : : and others don’t. HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Dixon, M.A., Hardie, A., Warner, S.M., Owiro, E.A., & Orek, D. (2020). Sport for development and COVID-19: Responding to change and participant needs. Frontiers in Sport and Active Living, 2, Article 590151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2020.590151
Ferrucci, P. (2006). The power of kindness: The unexpected benefits of leading a compassionate life. Penguin Random House LLC.
Garey, A.I. (1999). Weaving work and motherhood. Temple University Press.
Harley, B. (2019). Confronting the crisis of confidence in management studies: Why senior scholars need to stop setting a bad example. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(2), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2018.0107
Javed, M., Akhtar, M.W., Hussain, K., Junaid, M., & Syed, F. (2021). “Being true to oneself”: The interplay of responsible leadership and authenticity on multi-level outcomes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2020-0165
Keller, T. (2014). Every good endeavor: Connecting your work with God’s work. Penguin Random House LLC.
Kelly, D., & Dixon, M. (2014). Successfully navigating life transitions among African American male student-athletes: A review and examination of constellation mentoring and a promising strategy. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 498–514. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2012-0320
Li, J. (2016). Humility in learning: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Moral Education, 45(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057 240.2016.1168736
Mahony, D. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for Sport Management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.1.1
Napoli, G. (2007). The essence of being “teachable.” Agency Sales Magazine, 37(5), 29–31.
Pastore, D. (2003). A different lens to view mentoring in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 1–12.
Ragins, B.R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9707154067
Ragins, B.R. (2016). From the ordinary to the extraordinary: High-quality mentoring relationships at work. Organizational Dynamics, 45, 228– 244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2016.07.008
Regmi, K.D. (2020). Social foundations of lifelong learning: A Habermasian perspective. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 39(2), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020. 1758813
Tolkien, J.R.R. (2016). Leaf by niggle (paperback ed.). HarperCollins Publishers. (Original work published 1964)
Wayne, J.H., Matthews, R.A., Odle-Dusseau, H., & Casper, W.J. (2019). Fit of role involvement with values: Theoretical, conceptual, and psychometric development of work and family authenticity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 115, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb. 2019.06.005
Wuchty, S., Jones, B.J., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science, 314(5827), 1036– 1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
---
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
“The Best Teacher Is Also a Student”: Improving Qualitative Research Literacy by Learning From My Mistakes
|
Larena Hoeber Faculty of Kinesiology & Health Studies, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada
|
2022
|
This article is based on the 2022 Earle F. Zeigler Lecture Award that I presented in Atlanta, Georgia. For this paper, I reflect upon my career as a qualitative sport management researcher, with a specific focus on the mistakes I have made. I have two objectives with this paper. One objective is to advocate for continued learning about and rethinking how we conduct qualitative research. The second objective is to highlight ways in which we, as a field, can improve our qualitative research literacy. In the paper, I discuss eight learnings on the topics of ontologies and epistemologies, research designs, themes, pseudonyms, rigor, generalizability, positionality, and the publisher SAGE. In learning from my mistakes, we can be better consumers, producers, and evaluators of qualitative research.
Keywords: epistemology, themes, pseudonyms, rigor, positionality
I have a fortune cookie message stuck to a metal cabinet in my office. It states “The best teacher is also a student.” This statement reflects a general philosophy that I have followed throughout my career. For me to be a better leader, researcher, administrator, and teacher, I need to be open to new ideas and ways of doing things. I need to learn from others, including colleagues, graduate and undergraduate students, practitioners, and researchers from other fields. I am open to new information, knowledge, and ways of doing things because I have come to realize that what I know is not static. The world around me continues to evolve, and I need to evolve with it. Some refer to this as a continuous learning process or self-development, which is part of professional development (London & Smither, 1999). Thus, for this talk I will discuss the idea of continuing to be a student in relation to how I think about and use qualitative research methodologies. How can I do qualitative research better? And, in turn, how can I contribute to improving qualitative research literacy in sport management, based on what I have learned?
My first formal introduction to qualitative research paradigms was in a class as a master’s student at the University of Saskatchewan. Although I do not remember who taught me, I do remember the book. It was Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) “Naturalistic Inquiry.” Although I had to read the book many times to comprehend it, while reading I had many aha moments. Lincoln and Guba offered a different perspective on doing research and conceptualizing data than what I had been previously taught. The insight offered by them, particularly around trustworthiness, influenced how I conducted my master’s and doctoral projects, and early studies as a faculty member.
One of the first times that I realized what I know about qualitative research was not static was at a master’s thesis defense. The external examiner asked the student, “why are you using Lincoln and Guba’s four criteria for trustworthiness?” I was on the student’s thesis committee, and my reaction was “there are other criteria?!”1 It was then that I realized that what I “knew” about qualitative approaches was limited to what I was taught in graduate courses in the mid-1990s. My primary sources were Lincoln and Guba (1985), and Miles and Huberman’s (1994) book on qualitative data analysis and Creswell’s (1998) book on five qualitative research designs. Since other people doing qualitative research were also citing these books, I believed that the ideas stated by those authors were universal, standard, and unquestioned. I was wrong. While these books provide an introduction or a starting point to qualitative research (Singer et al., 2019), we need to go beyond them. There are excellent sources that focus on specific elements of qualitative research methodologies (e.g., paradigms, designs, data collection and creation, and data analysis) that people should consult to understand them in more depth (see Hoeber & Shaw, 2017; Shaw & Hoeber, 2016; Skinner et al., 2021; Smith & Sparkes, 2018). Additionally, I came to recognize that qualitative research methodologies continue to evolve, be reconsidered, or be debated. For example, concepts like knowledge translation and mobilization, co-production of knowledge, positionality, reflexivity, or relational ethics were not discussed when I first learned about qualitative research methodologies, but are important and relevant now. I appreciate that it is difficult to keep up with shifts in the qualitative methodologies’ landscape. Another way to support qualitative research literacy is to browse current issues or get alerts for new publications in journals devoted to qualitative methodologies, such as Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, Qualitative Inquiry, Qualitative Research, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Cultural Studies $<->$ Critical Methodologies, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Organizational Research Methods, and Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management. In addition, we can attend conferences that focus specifically on qualitative research, such as the Qualitative Research in Sport and Exercise conference, the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, and the International Institute for Qualitative Methodology.
There is, and continues to be, more for me to learn about and reconsider in relation to qualitative research. As noted by Giardina (2017), we, as researchers, tend to use the methods, paradigms, epistemologies, and approaches that we were taught. If we were trained to do phenomenology, switching to a different research design is daunting given the publish-or-perish culture of academia and the lack of time we have to truly delve into, learn, and master new approaches. If we have gained confidence in conducting oneon-one interviews, doing observations might take us out of our comfort zone. If we know how to do coding and theming, we might not encourage our students to use deconstruction or discourse analysis as analytical approaches because it might be difficult to provide advice to them. While the lessons we receive as students provide the foundation of our understanding of research methodologies, they are just the foundation. We need to use those lessons as starting points, not end points. We need to leave space for exploration, growth, or evolution in the methodologies we use. Since Giardina (2017) argued that “those of us who have any sort of institutional or professional capital to write against the grain when it comes to thinking about qualitative research methods” (p. 261), I am using this platform to write against the grain with a goal of improving qualitative research literacy within the sport management community, starting with myself.
I want to share some of the mistakes I have made and how I continue to be a student of qualitative approaches so I can teach others. I am doing this in my talk and my paper because it is not likely that we will enroll in specialized courses to enhance our understanding of various qualitative approaches. Those of us who are faculty members typically do not have the time to do this. Some graduate students do not have the luxury to take additional classes as part of their required coursework. In some programs, sport management doctoral students are not required to have any training in qualitative research methodologies (Nite & Singer, 2013). In other cases, students receive training with both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, but there is more emphasis, through credit hours, placed on quantitative approaches (James, 2018). For those who did not get adequate training through coursework, academic societies and their respective journals and conferences can serve as a place to elevate “qualitative research literacy” (Greenhalgh et al., 2016, p. 3) to their membership. They can host workshops for students, early career researchers, journal reviewers, and journal editors. They can appoint qualitative experts to editorial boards. They can also publish think pieces, like this one.
I am not “the” expert on qualitative methodologies and methods. However, in my career I have used and supported many different approaches to qualitative research. While I often fall back on traditional approaches, such as case studies using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis, I (or my students) have also used photo-elicitation (Mills & Hoeber, 2013), narratives and narrative inquiry (Rich et al., 2020), self-ethnography (Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013; Kerwin & Hoeber, 2015), critical discourse analysis (Sveinson et al., 2021), multimodal critical discourse analysis (Sveinson & Hoeber, 2022), and visualization of large-scale social media data (Hoeber, et al., 2016, 2017; Snelgrove, et al., 2017) to name a few. I review manuscripts on studies using a range of qualitative approaches, some of which I do not use very often, but have become familiar with, such as netnographies, action research, and phenomenology. I continue to learn and reconsider my knowledge of qualitative approaches by following other qualitative researchers on social media, including Virginia Braun ( $@$ ginnybraun), Victoria Clarke ( $@$ drvicclarke), Michael Giardina ( $@$ mdgiardinaFSU), and Brett Smith ( $@$ BrettSmithProf). I improve my learning through teaching graduate, and now undergraduate, students about qualitative research. Learning about and trying new approaches contribute to the growth and advancement of a field “by encouraging a multiplicity of methodologies, critical forms of inquiry, and diverse ways of engaging in research” (McSweeney & Faust, 2019, p. 359).
This paper is based on my observations and experiences as a supervisor, teacher, researcher, and reviewer, but are not original thoughts. Other qualitative scholars have already said similar things. Their comments aligned with what I have experienced, so I am retelling them in a sport management context.
Near the end of my doctoral studies, I read Crotty’s 1998 book.4 When I finished it, I wondered why I did not read it earlier. His book helped me understand what ontology and epistemology refer to5 and the range of ontological and epistemological stances. Most importantly, Crotty helped me to realize that these stances influence how I conduct research.
Our ideas about how we come to know what is “real” and how knowledge is established influence the methodologies or designs we use. Consider participatory action research (PAR) as one example. PAR is often connected with a relativist ontology recognizing that research participants’ experiences are varied and sometimes different from the researchers’ experiences and worldviews (Frisby et al., 2005). Furthermore, because PAR is usually focused on empowerment and change within marginalized communities, appreciative inquiry or critical theory would be appropriate epistemological stances to use (Frisby et al., 1997). These stances also influence how we share knowledge from our studies. If I believe that knowledge is constructed, I must include participants’ voices or images in my research to show how they construct their meanings. Alternatively, if I use an interpretivist lens, the process I used to interpret data must be documented, and my interpretations must be included in the findings.
I do not recall ever explicitly stating my epistemological and ontological stances in my work. I have, from time to time, identified the research paradigm that I used, such as poststructural feminism (e.g., Hoeber, 2007) or a participatory approach (e.g., Rich et al., 2020). One reason for not stating my epistemological and ontological stances is that I did not think it was necessary to do it. I assumed that since I was doing qualitative work, people would realize that I was using a relativist ontological perspective and constructivist or interpretivist epistemological stances. That is a problematic assumption, not the least because there are numerous epistemological stances associated with qualitative work. In other cases (e.g., Hill & Kikulis, $1999^{6}$ ; Hoeber & Hoeber, 2012), I had not consciously considered what my stances were. I was just doing research and did not think about how my views on knowledge shaped what I did. Or maybe it was just that ontology and epistemology were too complicated to consider. But in our attempts “to make productive our continual reinvention and growth as researchers” we need “to embrace the struggle(s) over epistemology and ontology” (Giardina, 2017, p. 264).
My introduction to qualitative research designs was limited to case studies, ethnographies, phenomenology, and grounded theory. My knowledge of ethnographies was that they took too long to conduct. I did not want to collect data for 2 or more years, especially as a graduate student or early career researcher. I did like the idea of studying cultures, but I did not want to go into a setting that I was an outsider. It seemed like a lot of work to establish relationships and rapport with people I did not know, which is daunting for someone who is an introvert. Phenomenology was over my head. I could not understand how to capture the essence of a phenomenon. And I really did not understand how one went about analyzing phenomena or bracketing their assumptions. People did not agree about what grounded theory was, so I avoided that one too. My fallback was case studies, because they seemed to be the most straightforward approach. With a case study, one needed to collect data from multiple sources, around a common topic within a particular time and space (i.e., bounded system). That seemed reasonable to me.
Interestingly, in preparing for this talk, I was referring to some books on qualitative approaches. One by Mayan (2009) suggested that case studies are not a design but rather the focus of the study. WTF?! Head spinning!! Thankfully, in many other books on research methodologies case studies are included as designs. Whew!! My intention is not to say whether case study is or is not a research design, but rather to point out that there are different qualitative methodologies for us to consider in our research and that designs must be identified.
Nite and Singer (2012) advocated for PAR, ethnography, and grounded theory in sport management research, as these designs are often used to improve the conditions in which people engage with sport. In addition, researchers in our field could also use narrative inquiry, different forms of ethnography (e.g., netnography, organizational ethnography, autoethnography, and organizational autoethnography), phenomenology, discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis. Each of these designs provides a different perspective on a topic but also a different plan for conducting research. The research plan has been referred to as methodological coherence (Mayan, 2009), scaffolding (Berbary & Boles, 2014), and paradigmatic consistency (Snelgrove, 2017). These concepts all recognize that the design provides guidelines for decisions about one’s study, such as what are the research questions, who is included in the sample, how are participants recruited, what kind of data should be collected or created, how should data be analyzed, and how should findings be presented. To illustrate, narrative inquiry tends to involve a small number of participants because of the time required to understand how people’s lives are shaped by narratives. Furthermore, with this design, stories are co-constructed as the participant and researcher spend time together. It is expected that the findings are presented in a narrative format, rather than as themes or collections of quotations. In contrast, an ethnography often involves many participants to allow a researcher to understand how different people experience and contribute to a culture. Recruitment can be a long process as one aims to learn more about a culture. Ethnographic interviews tend to be informal and conversational. Ethnographic findings can be shared as vignettes or narratives, but the emphasis is on highlighting everyday elements of the culture or larger cultural processes (Jarzabkowski et al., 2014). In both examples, researchers are spending considerable time with people, but the sample size, approaches for data generation, and data presentation differ.
The second point I want to make is that one must identify the design used for a study. As a reviewer, sometimes I read manuscripts where there is no indication of the design or paradigm. The most common situation I come across is that authors will state that interviews were conducted, implying that this constitutes qualitative research. Interviews are a qualitative data collection method, but not a design (Braun & Clarke, 2022). There are no inherent guidelines about sample size, recruitment, data analysis, or data presentation when using interviews. Furthermore, there are different types of interviews, such as structured, semistructured, long-form, life history, multiple, and conversational (see Gubrium et al., 2012, for a comprehensive discussion of using interviews in research). The type of interview that is used should be informed by the overall design of the project. Identifying a research design provides researchers with a roadmap or guide to follow with their project. Alternatively, if a researcher wants to deviate from the normal guide associated with a design, at least in knowing what is typical they would understand why and how they are creating a new path or improvising with it (Berbary & Boles, 2014).
For many qualitative researchers (see Braun & Clarke, 2022),9 seeing, reading, or hearing the phrase “the themes emerged” is frustrating and irritating. It is used as the standard phrase to explain how the themes were established. In looking back at some of my earlier publications and presentations, I noticed that I did not specifically use this phrase. However, I did say “the themes that were uncovered” (Hill & Kikulis, 1999, p. 27) or referred to emergent themes (Hoeber, 2004). When I hear or see this phrase now, my response is that data analysis is not magic. People do not wave a wand or rub a magic lantern, blink their eyes, and have themes emerge from the smoke or dust before them.
Themes are socially constructed, established, shaped, reshaped, and interpreted by researchers and, in some cases, research participants. Themes are difficult to establish. Thematic analysis10 is an active, personal, time-consuming, and not usually straightforward process. The determination of themes happens over time and through multiple phases, such as reading and reviewing the data, thinking about the data in relation to theory and one’s assumptions, and memoing one’s ongoing interpretations. Identifying themes is more than simply summarizing the main points from one’s data or reporting manifest content, which some might refer to as content analysis (Vaismoradi et al., 2013) or categories (Morse, 2008). Thematic analysis requires researchers to think about the data at a deeper level and identify ideas that weave throughout the data set (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Morse, 2008). Data analysis is messy, and one has to sit with it for a while to make some sense of it. If it only takes a day or a week to identify themes, it is likely that they are not themes.
I expect that this phrase comes from the idea that themes are usually grounded in the data (i.e., emergent analysis), rather than deductively created from theory. While that is accurate, the establishment of themes is still a process of interpretation, rather than a process of uncovering or discovery, which assumes that themes exist—one just has to see or find them. Thematic analysis requires creativity, risk, and initiative. I warn students that “your brain is going to hurt” because there are many interpretations of the data, many ways to group it, and no easy answers about what are “right” or “correct” themes.
Explaining how one has analyzed qualitative data is difficult. I struggle to describe how I go from reading and reviewing data to presenting findings at a conference or in a paper. The process is not neat, tidy, or linear. There is not a signal or indication of when it is done. Nonetheless, instead of saying “themes emerged from the data,” one could say that themes were identified, established, created, or developed. This is a good starting point for being more accurate in describing how some qualitative data analysis is done.
In my first academic paper (Hill & Kikulis, 1999), I referred to participants with a generic label of “one interviewee.” I kept the label vague because all participants shared the same position as athletic director. Since there were only a couple of women with this position in my study, assigning gendered names to each participant would have made them obvious and compromised their anonymity. In other papers, I continued to use generic labels, such as Participant 1 or participant from Study 1, or assigned pseudonyms to them. In doing this, I protected their anonymity of people, but I lost the context of their experiences, background, and identities.
I have come to appreciate that naming is a balance between considerations of anonymity, relational ethics with participants and organizations (see Lahman et al., 2022), and a need to include rich descriptions of context. And it does not matter if generic labels are assigned, pseudonyms are used, or real names are kept in, as Guenther (2009) stated, “the act of naming is an act of power” (p. 412).
In some studies, participants and places are assigned pseudonyms. This is seen as a way to humanize them or provide contextual information. It can also make it easier for readers to connect with the data. Sometimes people and places are assigned names from pop culture references, such as television series, movies, or sport teams. Others are assigned what might be seen as neutral, nondescript names, like James and Mary or Coldville Recreation Centre. Regardless of where the pseudonyms come from, none of them are neutral. Names and labels have meaning. People’s names may have symbolic meanings associated with religion or faith, sex, gender, age, family histories, ethnicity, cultures, and generational trends (Allen & Wiles, 2016; Heaton, 2022). I was born in 1970 in Saskatchewan—a place and time that were dominated by White, Eurocentric, Christian families. In my classes were a lot of girls named Jennifer, Kimberly, Melissa, Michelle; and Lisa, and boys named Jason, Christopher, and Scott. Had I grown up in Germany, Brazil, or Bangladesh, those names would have been different. Popular names of students in my undergraduate classes (i.e., people who were born around 2000) include Taylor, Aiden, Hunter, Jacob, Caleb, Connor, Madison, McKayla, and Kaitlyn.12 I also have more cultural diversity of names in my classes than what I saw 20 years ago, such as Yijiang, Precious, Neelam, Riya, and Abdi. Assigning a name such as Mary to a cisgender woman who is 20 years old and of Iranian descent may not be appropriate and reflective of their background (Heaton, 2022).
Another approach is for participants to choose their own pseudonym or consent to use their real names. In one project, a participant wanted to be called “The Hobbit” after his favorite character by Tolkein. I was reluctant to use it because it seemed odd to me. But how is this any more odd than my real name?
Names are also political. In a community-based project I did with Dr. Kyle Rich, we examined narratives around a local sport event. The event is an annual ice hockey game organized by ranchers and members of the Nekaneet First Nation. The event is called the Battle of Little Big Puck, and it is advertised as a hockey game between cowboys and Indians. While my reaction to the name and how they advertise it make me uncomfortable, the organizers and participants are very proud of this event, the name of it, and how they promote it, as it celebrates historical and current partnerships between two seemingly different groups. This example points to relational ethics between researchers and participants, and how sometimes we, as researchers, need to respect the wishes of participants, in spite of our uncomfortableness.
In one of my early papers (Hoeber, 2007), I stated confidently that “Trustworthiness of the research can be judged on four criteria” (p. 64). I cited “the” four criteria from Lincoln and Guba (1985)— credibility, transferability, confirmability, and dependability—and proceeded to show how I achieved them. I believed that these were the only markers to demonstrate qualitative rigor. If I did not mention all four of them, I assumed that my work would be seen as lacking rigor. While other criteria for establishing and evaluating qualitative rigor have been discussed and offered (see Lincoln & Guba, 2006; Mayan, 2009; Tracy, 2010), Lincoln and Guba (1985), and specifically this source, continues to be cited to support trustworthiness.
Lincoln and Guba established those four criteria to align with typical markers of quality for quantitative research. Shortly after that publication, they drew attention to other markers that focused on authenticity (rather than trustworthiness), which were better aligned with the philosophy of qualitative paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Sparkes and Smith (2009) argued there are no universal markers of quality. Instead, researchers should consider and demonstrate markers and strategies that are relevant for a particular design, context, or topic (Sparkes & Smith, 2009). If I am engaged in an ethnography, prolonged engagement is a relevant strategy because I need to spend time in a culture and with people to establish credibility. With other approaches, such as narrative inquiry, where lived experiences of people are the focal point, I would argue that being ethical and demonstrating resonance (Tracy, 2010) would be more suitable markers.
Qualitative scholars have been critiquing and challenging some of the strategies of qualitative rigor that many, including myself, have taken for granted (see Barbour, 2001; Smith & McGannon, 2018). One of these strategies is member checking, whereby transcripts are returned to participants to confirm what they said. Birt et al. (2016) questioned whether member checking really is an indication of confirmability. From my limited experience of returning transcripts to people, some are embarrassed to read them, as we do not speak as well as we write. Some do not even look at or read the transcripts, because it is time consuming. Only a few might make changes. A more useful strategy is to engage in member reviewing, whereby we share with participants the quotations we will use in our work, a summary of our interpretation of their data, an overview of the findings, or even the entire document or manuscript to review (Locke & Velamuri, 2009). In these approaches, we are asking participants whether our interpretations resonate with them (Tracy, 2010).
Qualitative researchers need to demonstrate rigor, just like with any other type of research, but it can be done it in multiple ways. Rigor is not a checklist (Barbour, 2001; Morse, 2021). Instead, consider which markers and strategies are relevant to one’s design, topic, context, epistemology, and ontology.
In a paper I published on Indigenous peoples’ experiences as volunteers in sport events, I noted, “the findings of the two studies in this paper cannot be generalized to other marginalized groups” (Hoeber, 2010, p. 353). I used to see the lack of generalizability as a limitation of qualitative research and one that I should point out. But it is not a limitation.
Qualitative research has never claimed to be generalizable and nor should it be.13 A strength of qualitative project is the understanding of local, contextually specific knowledge, often situated with small data sets. Going back to the work I did around Indigenous peoples’ experiences as sport volunteers, it is important to note that the study was situated in Saskatchewan, Canada. Furthermore, I only heard from individuals from one First Nation, who represent Plains Cree and Plains Saulteaux. This work cannot be generalized to other Indigenous groups. The people whom I interviewed do not represent the wide range of First Nations people in Canada nor do they represent experiences of Indigenous sport volunteers in other countries. Yet, what readers can take away from the paper, if I have provided enough contextual details, is that some findings that might be similar to or resonate with other Indigenous peoples’ experiences as sport volunteers in other provinces, territories, and countries.
We need to judge qualitative research on what it has been designed to do—capturing naturalistic and holistic views of a phenomenon or a context, getting at the depth and richness of individual or local experiences, and highlighting the messy and contradictory sides of life. Thus, appropriate limitations of qualitative research would be a lack of depth in the data or findings, a failure to adequately describe the context, or not acknowledging the messiness of one’s study.
I have seen others say this on social media platforms, but I will repeat it here. Stop apologizing for a lack of generalizability (Smith, 2018). This apology reinforces the idea that there are inherent flaws to qualitative research. We need to stop comparing qualitative research to quantitative research. We need to stop seeing quantitative research and how it is done as the gold standard for all forms of research. Instead, we need to acknowledge and assess qualitative research on its own merits.
The dominant discourse of postpositivist research is that the researcher must be objective. While objectivity is an important characteristic in some forms of research, a parallel discourse is that subjectivity is not only inevitable but also accepted, wanted, and valued. I refer to it as a parallel discourse because it can sit alongside objectivity. It recognizes that in order to come close to achieving some level of objectivity, we must acknowledge our positionality, that is, where we come from, our assumptions, prior experiences, and identities, and engage in reflexive practices to consider how our positionalities impact our research.
For most of my academic career, I have been aware of my positionality, but I have not always openly stated it or recognized it as an asset. Early in my career, I did not share my positionality because I was worried about criticisms from reviewers or colleagues of being biased or too close to the topic. Now, if I have room in my paper or time during a presentation, I will mention it, but I still do not address it in much depth. One of the few times I have been very transparent about my positionality is with a self-ethnography project I conducted with Dr. Shannon Kerwin on our lived experiences as women sport fans (Hoeber & Kerwin, 2013; Kerwin & Hoeber, 2015). In conducting a self- or auto-ethnography, one must share and reflect on their viewpoints, beliefs, and experiences. Nonetheless, I recall conversations between us about how much do we reveal about ourselves. I was worried how reviewers would react to our work and our openness about our positions, especially in a sport management journal. Thankfully, our work was accepted and published, but this might not happen with others who share, speak about, and reflect upon their positionality.
One way to improve qualitative research literacy in this area is to stop apologizing for biases because everyone has them. Instead, I recognize that subjectivity is an asset. It provides personal insights into a topic, organization, or phenomenon. I often wonder why someone is interested in a topic. In many cases, it is our experiences, opinions, and feelings that draw us to a topic, connect us with the participant, or help us to understand the context. I am interested in women’s experiences as sport fans because I have lived those experiences. Sometimes, our positionality means that we are insiders to our research setting. Jones and Bartunek (2021) refer to this situation as being optimally positioned. Other times, we are outsiders to our research. But even as outsiders, we still have positions or viewpoints about what we are studying. In the project I conducted with Dr. Rich (Rich et al., 2020), I was a partial insider because I reside in Saskatchewan and have lived in a small town, and thus have some understanding of the sociopolitical context of the region and the importance of sport events for small towns and politics of small town life. I was a partial outsider, in that I do not play hockey and I do not reside in the community we studied. In that project, my positionality helped me gain legitimacy with the participants and afforded me a critical lens to reflect on the event.
There are many excellent sources on the topics of positionality and how it influences our research. Some examples that I recommend explore topics of examining power relations among and between researchers and participants (Mason-Bish, 2019), recognizing and addressing researcher emotions (DeLuca & Batts Maddox, 2016), considering the connection between the researcher, knowledge, and place (Rose, 1997; Tuck & McKenzie, 2015), dealing with the tensions between research and real-world values (Avishai et al., 2013), addressing shifting researcher roles (Frisby, 2010), and navigating insider–outsider positions (Berger, 2015). Within the sport management body of literature, I highly recommend Vadeboncoeur et al.’s (2020) discussion of reflexivity and Whiteness.
With that insight, we need to reflect upon our positionality. We are not lucky enough have Dumbledore’s Pensieve to collect memories and look back at them (see Gerstl-Pepin & Patrizio, 2009), but we can keep a reflexive journal, whether that is written in a book, dictated to our phone, typed on our computer, or captured through videos or photographs. Alternatively, we can have conversations with peers, critical friends, or among research teams to share how we are interpreting the data (see Krane et al., 2012; Linabary et al., 2021). My point is that we should be normalizing positionality in our research. This comes with stating our positionality, followed by working through it.
A quick one for my last point. Many methodology-focused books that I have cited and continue to use are published by SAGE. For a long time, I wrote this as Sage (lower case). But it should be written as SAGE, as this is an acronym for Sara Miller and George McCune, the founders of the company (SAGE, n.d.).
What qualitative research is, how it is assessed, and its application and implementation in the field of sport management are evolving and shifting. This probably frustrates or scares some people, as it is one more thing for us, as students, supervisors, reviewers, or editors, to keep up with. But it is no different than the evolution of concepts and theories that we use in sport management. Our ideas about leadership, consumer behavior, diversity, institutional theory, competitive balance, and job satisfaction, as examples, are refined with new research. Furthermore, our field has grown to include topics and contexts that were nonexistent 40 years ago, such as esports, sport ecology, sport for development, and intersectionality. If our understanding of these topics, concepts, and contexts can evolve, so should our understanding and implementation of qualitative research methodologies.
I have highlighted some concepts related to qualitative research that I now approach differently, but there are others that I am also reconsidering. These include my understanding of saturation (Braun & Clarke, 2021; O’Reilly & Parker, 2012; Saunders et al., 2018) and determining when the data set is rich enough (Braun & Clarke, 2022). In recent years, I have become aware of, and interested in, approaches for knowledge translation, representation, and mobilization (Barton & Merolli, 2019; Schaillée et al., 2019). Barton and Merolli (2019) argue that the academic community needs to reform the “publish or perish” cultural norm with a “get visible or vanish” norm (p. 596), by translating their research in more visible, accessible, and approachable ways. In doing so, our research can better reach relevant audiences, thus increasing the impact of what we do. Some of these approaches include policy briefs, infographics (Muir & Munroe-Chandler, 2020), graphical abstracts, social media platforms, comics and graphic novels (Forde, 2022), and podcasts (Smith et al., 2021). In conclusion, I hope some of you learn from my mistakes so that we can elevate and improve qualitative research literacy in sport management, and in turn, we can all be better consumers, producers, and evaluators of qualitative research.
|
Allen, R.E.S., & Wiles, J.L. (2016). A rose by any other name: Participants choosing research pseudonyms. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1133746
Avishai, O., Gerber, L., & Randles, J. (2013). The feminist ethnographer’s dilemma: Reconciling progressive research agendas with fieldwork realities. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 42(4), 394–426. https://10.1177/0891241612458955
Barbour, R.S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ, 322(7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115
Barton, C.J., & Merolli, M.A. (2019). It is time to replace publish and perish with get visible or vanish: Opportunities where digital and social media can reshape knowledge translation. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(10), 594–598. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098367
Berbary, L.A., & Boles, J.C. (2014). Eight points for reflection: Revisiting scaffolding for improvisational humanist qualitative inquiry. Leisure Sciences, 36(5), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2014. 912169
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219– 234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(3), 1802–1811. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and samplesize rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094–2101. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1049732318788379
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. SAGE.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. SAGE.
DeLuca, J.R., & Batts Maddox, C. (2016). Tales from the ethnographic field: Navigating feelings of guilt and privilege in the research process. Field Methods, 28(3), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1525822X15611375
Forde, S.D. (2022). Drawing your way into ethnographic research: Comics and drawing as arts-based methodology. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 14(4), 648–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 2159676X.2021.1974929
Frisby, W. (2010). Rethinking researcher roles, responsibilities, and relationships in community development research. Leisure, 30(2), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2006.9651364
Frisby, W., Crawford, S., & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participatory action research: The case of low-income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport Management, 11(1), 8– 28. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.11.1.8
Frisby, W., Reid, C.J., Millar, S., & Hoeber, L. (2005). Putting “participatory” into participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm. 19.4.367
Gerstl-Pepin, C., & Patrizio, K. (2009). Learning from Dumbledore’s pensieve: Metaphor as an aid in teaching reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 9(3), 299–308. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1468794109105029
Giardina, M.D. (2017). (Post?)qualitative inquiry in sport, exercise, and health: Notes on a methodologically contested present. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 9(2), 258–270. https://doi. org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1273904
Greenhalgh, T., Annandale, E., Ashcroft, R., Barlow, J., Black, N., Bleakley, A., Boaden, R., Braithwaite, J., Britten, N., Carnevale, F., Checkland, K., Cheek, J., Clark, A., Cohn, S., Coulehan, J., Crabtree, B., Cummins, S., Davidoff, F., Davies, H., : : : Ziebland, S. (2016). An open letter to The BMJ editors on qualitative research. BMJ, 352, Article i563. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i563
Gubrium, J.F., Holstein, J.A., Marvasti, A.B., & McKinney, K.D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of craft. SAGE.
Guenther, K.M. (2009). The politics of names: Rethinking the methodological and ethical significance of naming people, organizations, and places. Qualitative Research, 9(4), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1468794109337872
Heaton, J. (2022). “\*Pseudonyms are used throughout”: A footnote, unpacked. Qualitative Inquiry, 28(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10. 1177/10778004211048379
Hill, L., & Kikulis, L. (1999). Contemplating restructuring: A case study of strategic decision making in interuniversity athletic conferences. Journal of Sport Management, 13(1), 18–44. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jsm.13.1.18
Hoeber, L. (2004, June 1–4). Meanings of gender equity for studentathletes [Paper presentation]. The North American Society for Sport Management 19th Annual Conference. Atlanta, GA.
Hoeber, L. (2007). Exploring the gaps between meanings and practices of gender equity in a sport organization. Gender, Work & Organization, 14(3), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2007.00342.x
Hoeber, L. (2010). Experiences of volunteering in sport: Views from Aboriginal individuals. Sport Management Review, 13(4), 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.01.002
Hoeber, L., & Hoeber, O. (2012). Determinants of an innovation process: A case study of technological innovation in a community sport organization. Journal of Sport Management, 26(3), 213–223. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jsm.26.3.213
Hoeber, L., & Kerwin, S. (2013). Exploring the experiences of female sport fans: A collaborative self-ethnography. Sport Management Review, 16(3), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2012.12.002
Hoeber, L., & Shaw, S. (2017). Contemporary qualitative research methods in sport management. Sport Management Review, 20(1), 4–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.11.005
Hoeber, O., Hoeber, L., El Meseery, M., Odon, K., & Gopi, R. (2016). Visual Twitter analytics (Vista): Temporally changing sentiment and the discovery of emergent themes with sport fan tweets. Online Information Review, 40(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2015-0067
Hoeber, O., Snelgrove, R., Hoeber, L., & Wood, L. (2017). A systematic methodology for preserving the whole in large-scale qualitativetemporal research. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0278
James, J.D. (2018). Not all doctoral programs are created equally. Journal of Sport Management, 32(1), Article 257. https://doi.org/10.1123/ jsm/2017-0257
Jarzabkowski, P., Bednarek, R., & Lê, J.K. (2014). Producing persuasive findings: Demystifying ethnographic textwork in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 12(4), 274–287. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1476127014554575
Jones, E.B., & Bartunek, J.M. (2021). Too close or optimally positioned? The value of personally relevant research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(3), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018. 0009
Kerwin, S., & Hoeber, L. (2015). Collaborative self-ethnography: Navigating self-reflexivity in a sport management context. Journal of Sport Management, 29(5), 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2014-0144
Krane, V., Ross, S.R., Barak, K.S., Rowse, J., & Lucas-Carr, C. (2012). Unpacking our academic suitcases: The inner workings of our feminist research group. Quest, 64(4), 249–267. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00336297.2012.706882
Lahman, M.K.E., Thomas, R., & Teman, E.D. (2022). A good name: Pseudonyms in research. Qualitative Inquiry. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004221134088
Linabary, J.R., Corple, D.J., & Cooky, C. (2021). Of wine and whiteboards: Enacting feminist reflexivity in collaborative research. Qualitative Research, 21(5), 719–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941 20946988
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84, https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2006). Judging the quality of case study reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839900030105
Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 108–50). SAGE.
Locke, K., & Velamuri, S.R. (2009). The design of member review: Showing what to organization members and why. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 488–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442 8108320235
London, M., & Smither, J.W. (1999). Empowered self-development and continuous learning. Human Resource Management, 38(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199921)38:1< 3::AIDHRM $>$ 3.0.CO;2-M
Mason-Bish, H. (2019). The elite delusion: Reflexivity, identity and positionality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770078
Mayan, M.J. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Left Coast Press.
McSweeney, M., & Faust, K. (2019) How do you know if you don’t try? Non-traditional research methodologies, novice researchers, and leisure studies. Leisure, 43(3), 339–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14927713.2019.1629830
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
Mills, C., & Hoeber, L. (2013). Using photo-elicitation to examine artifacts in a sport club: Logistical considerations and strategies throughout the research process. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise, & Health, 5(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2012.712989
Morse, J. (2008). Confusing categories and themes. Qualitative Health Research, 18(6), 727–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308314930
Morse, J. (2021). Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) review process does not use checklists. Qualitative Health Review, 31(5), 819–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973232199114
Muir, I.L., & Munroe-Chandler, K.J. (2020). Using infographics to promote athletes’ mental health: Recommendations for sport psychology consultants. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 11(3), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2020.1738607
Nite, C., & Singer, J.N. (2012). Qualitative inquiry: Quality research for connecting with and affecting change in sport populations. Qualitative Research Journal, 12(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 14439881211222750
Nite, C., & Singer, J.N. (2013). An examination of sport management doctoral programme research requirements. Educate, 13(2), 24–35. https://www.educatejournal.org
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2012). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190–197. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1468794112446106
Poucher, Z.A., Tamminen, K.A., Caron, J.G., & Sweet, S.N. (2020). Thinking through and designing qualitative research studies: A focused mapping review of 30 years of qualitative research in sport psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1656276
Rich, K., Hoeber, L., & Weisgerber, A. (2020). The Battle of Little Big Puck: Narratives of community, sport, and relationship in rural Canada. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 15(3), 45–64. https://journals.brandonu.ca/jrcd/article/view/1781
Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geographies, 21(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/03091397673302122
SAGE. (n.d.). About. https://group.sagepub.com/about
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Schaillée, H., Spaaij, R., Jeanes, R., & Theeboom, M. (2019). Knowledge translation practices, enablers, and constraints: Bridging the researchpractice divide in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 33(5), 366–378. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0175
Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2016). Unclipping our wings: Ways forward in qualitative research in sport management. Sport Management Review, 19(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2016.03.001
Singer, J.N., Shaw, S., Hoeber, L., Walker, N., Rich, K., & Agyemang, K. (2019). Critical conversations about qualitative research in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 33(1), 50–63. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0085
Skinner, J., Edwards, A., & Smith, A.C.T. (2021). Qualitative research in sport management (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017. 1393221
Smith, B., & McGannon, K.R. (2018). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities with sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984x.2017.1217357
Smith, B., & Sparkes, A.C. (Eds.). (2018). Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. Routledge.
Smith, R., Danford, M., Darnell, S.C., Larrazabal, M.J.L., & Adbellatif, M. (2021). ‘Like, what even is a podcast?’ Approaching sport-fordevelopment youth participatory action research through digital methodologies. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(1), 128–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020. 1836515
Snelgrove, R. (2017). Advancing paradigmatic consistency and distinction in leisure studies: From epistemology to method. Annals of Leisure Research, 20(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2017. 1287579
Sparkes, A., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of qualitative inquiry: Criteriology and relativism in action. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 491–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009. 02.006
Sveinson, K., & Hoeber, L. (2022). Fashion versus comfort: Exploring the gendered marketing messages of sport team licensed merchandise. Journal of Sport Management. Advance online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2022-0044
Sveinson, K., Hoeber, L., & Heffernan, C. (2021). Implementing critical discourse analysis as theory, methodology, and analyses in sport management studies. Journal of Sport Management, 35(5), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2020-0288
Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015). Relational validity and the ‘where’ of inquiry: Place and land in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 633–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563809
Vadeboncoeur, J.D., Bopp, T., & Singer, J.N. (2020). Is reflexivity enough? Addressing reflexive embodiment, power, and whiteness in sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 35(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2019-0375
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi. org/10.1111/nhs.12048
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
---
|
n/a
|
1. I love interrobangs, and I have always wanted to include them in an academic article. I also love reading annotated books and articles. I know this is not proper American Psychological Association style, but sometimes we need to shake things up.
2. I stopped using Miles and Huberman early in my career as I felt that they took a “one-size-fits-all” approach to qualitative data analysis. 3. There will be a lot of self-citation in this paper. This was not done intentionally to boost my Google scholar profile or h-index.
4. I refer to this as “the purple book.”
5. But I still mix them up. There are also axiology and research paradigms to make things even messier when talking about how we do research. In addition to Crotty (1998), I also consult Lincoln et al. (2018) and Poucher et al. (2020) as refreshers on the topics.
6. Hill is my maiden name. It would have been a lot easier to remember and say had I kept that name.
7. Of note, this was 1994. There was not a lot of diversity of qualitative research designs at that time.
8. I recently told graduate students to avoid using exclamation marks, especially multiple ones, in academic writing. I am not always a good listener to my own advice.
9. If one is doing thematic analysis, and specifically, reflexive thematic analysis, get this book. Braun and Clarke provide a clear, and sometimes funny, discussion of coding and theming. But be careful, not all qualitative researchers need to, or should, use thematic analysis.
10. There are other approaches to analyze qualitative data, beyond thematic analysis. These include, but are not limited to, content analysis, deconstruction, discourse analysis, narrative analysis, and grounded theory.
11. This point is not restricted to qualitative research. This can be a consideration for quantitative research if participants, organizations, or places could be named.
12. And various iterations of those names: Ayden, Conner, Madyson, Makayla, Caitlin, and Katelynn.
13. There are, however, some forms of generalizability that are appropriate or can be used in qualitative research (Carminati, 2018; Smith, 2018). But it should not be an expectation of this kind of research. 14. In some forms of research, objectivity is not necessary. Thus, positionality is valued for different reasons. For example, in research based on critical paradigms positionality is important because it draws attention to the politics of knowledge production.
15. If readers get nothing else from this paper, I hope the references are useful.
|
“What Have I Learned : : : ” and How Did I Get There? Reflection on a Research Journey
|
Marijke Taks Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
|
2023
|
Receiving a lifetime award allows one to pause and reflect on one’s research journey. In the spirit of Earle Zeigler himself, I reflect on: “What I have learned : : : ” on my research journey, and more specifically on how I got there. My research has always focused on the interaction between sport, economics, and society and evolved: “From socio-economic impacts on sport participation to socio-economic outcomes of sport events.” To cover 40 years of research, I am highlighting how: (a) “triggers,” (b) “influencers,” and (c) “lessons learned” intermingled to push my research agenda forward. This reflection proved to be a very gratifying exercise. I can highly recommend it to all researchers. Perhaps, this can become a stepping stone to be promoted to the rank of Prof. Emeritus or Emerita. Either way, sharing our experiences may trigger, inspire, and advance the learning of future generations of sport management scholars.
Keywords: sport events, socio-economic impact, sport participation, leveraging, subjective well-being
It is an immense honor to stand here today as the recipient of the prestigious Zeigler Lecture Award and to be recognized alongside many highly esteemed and prominent scholars in the field of sport management. Receiving a lifetime award toward the end of a career allows one to pause and reflect on one’s research journey, and that in itself is a tremendous privilege! In the spirit of Earl Zeigler’s book (2012), I will reflect on: “What I have learned : : : ” on my research journey, and more specifically on how I got there. Forty years of research is a long time. There is so much to tell and share, but to say it with the eloquent words of a terrific storyteller, Isabelle Allende (2022):
: : : memory is made up of the unexpected events that mark your course. These are the things worth passing on. (p. 117)
To tell the story of my research journey in a compelling but a concise manner, I was inspired by two radio programs (indeed, I am a radio fanatic). One is a Flemish program called “De Rotonde” [“The roundabout”], in which the host talked to a well-known Fleming about significant turning points in their life. In this presentation I borrow this idea to reflect on significant triggers that made me take turns in my research journey. The other radio program is a Canadian show, called “Under the influence” (2023) which “gives listeners a rare backstage pass into the hallways, boardrooms, and recording studios of the advertising industry : : : connecting the dots : : : . ” I use this idea to demonstrate how people influenced turning points in my research journey and advanced my learning. Thus, in this lecture, I will highlight how: (a) “triggers” $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ , (b) “influencers” $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , and (c) “lessons learned” $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]^{}$ intermingled to push my research agenda forward, and I will use the symbols between the squared brackets as identifiers.
My research has always investigated the interaction between sport (events), economics, and society. Initially (prior to 2005), I investigated the impact of society and economics on sport participation, but over the past 20 years I focused on how sport and particularly events impact society and economics. Although I focus my lecture primarily on the latter part of my research, I will also briefly outline the lead-up to that research. Thus, my research has evolved:
From socio-economic impacts on sport participation to socioeconomic outcomes of sport events.
My first independent research project started in 1984 in the context of my Bachelor thesis on Reliability and Validity of Rhythm Tests (Taks, 1986)—my practicum specialty at the time was dance; my theoretical specialty was sport management. However, from that early on, I identify Prof. Roland Renson as the first influencer $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ of my research journey in the realm of sport management. During his Social Kinesiology class in my Physical Education program at KU Leuven (1981–1985), the social status pyramid of sports in Belgium (Renson & Vermeulen, 1976) was a trigger $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ . The pyramid represents social stratification in sports demonstrating “upper-class,” “middle-class,” “status-neutral,” and “lower-class sports” (i.e., sports that are proportionally more participated in by people in these layers of society). The pyramid was developed and designed by Renson himself and was based on the socioprofessional status of Belgian fathers with a son in the first year of high school (13-year-old boys). The empirical data were collected in 1969 as part of the Leuven Growth Study on Belgian Boys. I found this graphic representation of social stratification in sports fascinating, but at the same time confronting because it seemed contradictory to the Sports for All philosophy I grew up with. To me, “Sports for All” equally means “every sport for All,” but this status pyramid revealed a social stratification that represented social inequality $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ .
The social status pyramid from 1969 stimulated me to such an extent $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ that I decided to explore it further in my doctoral thesis in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I collected new data in 1989 through the “Study on physical activity of the Flemish Population anno $1989^{\ '}$ (Taks et al., 1991). This time, the pyramid was based on the socioprofessional status of fathers of 6- to 18-year-old boys and girls in Flemish schools. A similar social stratification of sport participation emerged, distinguishing: upper-class, upper-middle class, lower-middle-class, status-neutral, and lower-class sports. To better understand this social stratification in sport, I took a twotiered, social and economic approach, and embarked on my thesis entitled: Social stratification in Sport: A matter of money or taste? (Taks, 1994). To unpack the “taste” side (or social perspective) of the equation, I employed Pierre Bourdieu’s theory (1979) and his notion of “habitus.”
In analyzing the economic perspective of sports, my focus centered on understanding the pricing aspects. However, determining the true cost of participating in sports proves to be a challenging task $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ . Unlike a straightforward purchase of a tangible item from a store, engaging in sports involves a multitude of expenses. These encompass various subcomponents, such as membership fees, entry fees, tournament costs, lessons, clothing, equipment, travel expenses, refreshments, personal care items, and so on. Collectively, these elements contribute to the overall sporting experience. As a result of this investigation, a comprehensive model was developed to capture consumer expenditures in sports (Taks, Renson, & Vanreusel, 1994; model reproduced in Taks & Misener, 2015—with second edition forthcoming).
This model prompted new opportunities $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ , notably to determine the economic significance of sports at the aggregate level, a project which I developed with my Ph.D. cosupervisor Stefan Késenne $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ . We collected primary data from Flemish households, who were surveyed about their sports expenditures based on the same model and estimated the economic significance of sport in Flanders $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ . This became my very first North American Association for Sport Management (NASSM) presentation in $1999[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ , and subsequently my first Journal of Sport Management publication in 2000 (Taks & Kesenne, 2000). Before I continue to talk about my research itself, it is important to highlight some “unexpected events that marked my way.”
It was Chelladurai $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ (also known as “Chella”) who encouraged me to come to NASSM. I had known Chella since 1993 when the European Association for Sport Management (EASM) hosted its first conference in Groningen (the Netherlands). He has played a central role in my relocation to Canada (see below) and remained a true supporter throughout my career. His encouragement, together with successfully obtaining a travel grant, allowed me to attend my first NASSM in 1999. The conference was hosted by the University of British Columbia and organized by none other than the esteemed sport management scholar and my dear friend Lucie Thibault $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , who years later inspired me when I became the Editor of European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ) (2009–2011) and remained a very supportive colleague during all those years.
It was during NASSM 1999 that I was approached by Bob Boucher $[\mathrm{I^{*}}]$ and Gordon Olafson, enquiring if I would be interested taking on a position in Canada. This idea was reinforced when Chelladurai invited me to stay with him in Columbus (Ohio) after the conference. From there, Chella took me on a road trip to London (Ontario), over to Bowling Green University (Ohio) and the University of Windsor (Ontario), visiting sport management colleagues along the way $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ . Moreover, the idea of relocating to Canada gained further traction during EASM 1999 (hosted in Thessaloniki, Greece $[\mathrm{T^{*}}])$ when Jim Weese $[\Gamma^{*}]$ inquired if I had already decided about my plans to move to Canada. At that time,
Dr. Weese was serving as the dean of the Faculty of Human Kinetics at University of Windsor.
After the NASSM 1999 conference, I returned home to my Alma Mater, the KU Leuven in Belgium. Because of my work on the economic significance in sport, I was approached by Haruo Nogawa (from Japan; $[\mathrm{I}^{*}])$ requesting to collaborate on a pilot study on the economic impact of the 2000 Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) European Football Championship (also known as Euro 2000), because it was the first event of this size being hosted by two countries, namely Belgium and the Netherlands. Similarly, the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) 2002 World Cup would be hosted by two countries for the very first time 2 years later (i.e., Korea and Japan). So, I did. However, in the meantime, the offer from the University of Windsor came through. The fact that the field of sport management was more advanced in North America at the time compared to Europe attracted me, and I decided to go for it. In 2001, the whole family moved to Windsor, Ontario, where I took up a new position as associate professor in the sport management group at the University of Windsor; the place where NASSM was founded in 1985.
The transatlantic move brought about important personal and professional changes. From a personal perspective, there was a need to adapt to a new society with different customs and habits. Luckily, as a family, we felt quickly welcomed in Canada, allowing for a smooth transition. Professionally, I entered a different work culture. A first noticeable difference was a better work–life balance, which I appreciate to this day. From a pedagogical perspective, an important difference regarding teaching included the way in which students were assessed. In Belgium, a course mark was based on one final exam worth $100\%$ of the score, while in the Canadian system, a series of assignments, midterms, and final exams made up the final score. This disparity necessitated a change in mindset on my part and a substantial amount of new preparation. Fortunately, I received great support from my new colleagues who graciously passed along their former course syllabi to help me get on track.
Besides variations in work culture, there seemed to be a noticeable disparity in the approach to sport management. For example, in Europe, sport and sport management have a broader scope, with a significant emphasis on voluntary sport participation and nonprofit organizations (club sports), as opposed to professional and university sport, which tended to be the dominant realms in sport management in North America at the time. This distinction affected both my teaching and my research. While delving further into this difference is beyond the scope of this lecture, I will provide some insights into how it influenced my research.
In addition to some differences outlined above, I soon began to realize that the size of a country such as Canada also strongly affected my research approach in sport management. For example, it was standard practice with my previous research in Europe to strive for representative samples at the regional or national population levels when collecting primary data. This no longer proved to be realistic in a vast country such as Canada. Similarly, sport participation is organized and delivered in very different ways because of the country’s size. For example, the notions of “house leagues” and “travel teams” are nonexistent in Belgium. All youth teams in Belgium can easily travel to compete face-to-face in regular competitions against teams from other clubs. This shift made me realize that starting to understand how sport was delivered locally was probably the best course of action to continue my research in Canada. Hence, the hosting of the 2005 Pan-American Junior Athletic Championships (PanAmJacs) $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ by the University of Windsor together with my evolving experience in economic impact studies from events presented itself as a unique opportunity and became another important trigger to continue my research trajectory.
The idea of hosting the 2005 PanAmJacs emerged in the early 2000s, when Bob Boucher and Jim Weese recognized that the University of Windsor was in dire need of a new track-and-field stadium. They decided that bidding for the PanAmJacs could help them reach that objective. They put in a bid and were successful in obtaining it, and a new stadium was built. I remember Dr. Weese knocking on my office door probing me to do an economic impact study on the event. This seemed a good idea, and I put together my first Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant proposal. Unfortunately, I was not successful $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ . The feedback was that the research project was just “another economic impact study” $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . Clearly, I had to come up with a more ambitious plan. This led to the next trigger: NASSM 2004 in Atlanta, Georgia $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ . I shared my setback with Dr. Laurence Chalip $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ and Dr. Christine Green $[\mathrm{I^{*}}]$ . We brainstormed and decided to add tourism components into the mix. I also reached out to Stefan Késenne, an expert and strong proponent of cost–benefit analysis (CBA) of events, to expand the standard economic impact analysis approach. We submitted a revamped SSHRC proposal in 2004 and were informed in the spring of 2005 that we were successful.
When we embarked on the 2005 PanAmJacs research, graduate students Ryan Snelgrove and Laura Wood were research assistants on the project. Snelgrove investigated motives and identity of spectators at the event (Snelgrove et al., 2008). A line of research that was continued by another graduate student, Inge Derom, who examined leisure experiences of participants during the 2008 Canadian Transplant Games, also hosted in Windsor (Ontario; Derom & Taks, 2011).
The ambiguity surrounding event impacts and outcomes is largely shaped by the complexities involved in measuring these impacts. Two methods used for measuring economic impacts are the standard Economic Impact Analysis and CBA. The more common standard Economic Impact Analysis gauges the economic impact by assessing the total additional visitor, operational, and capital expenditures that arise within a defined area as a direct result of hosting the event. However, this method tends to highlight only the positive outcomes. In contrast, the CBA breaks down the costs and benefits of hosting the event. On the cost side, it considers factors such as opportunity cost, which involves diverting investments from other projects, and crowding out regular tourists, among others. On the benefit side, it incorporates the consumer surplus, which reflects the additional value that spectators or host residents may experience (willingness to pay more) beyond the price they pay to attend or experience the event. While both methods present challenges and limitations, the CBA offers the distinct advantage in that it allows for identification of the net benefits associated with hosting a sport event. In many cases, these net benefits are generally low or even negative, shedding light on the true economic implications of hosting such events $[\bar{\mathrm{L}}^{*}]^{-}$ (Késenne, 2012; Taks et al., 2011, 2013).
By now we have established that we must consider opportunity costs when considering economic impact of sport events. Besides that, we cannot be blindsided by the negative economic impact of major sport events. Events’ opportunity costs and negative economic impacts also generate opposition, riots, and protests because residents feel that the large amount of public money invested in these sport events should be spent on other, much needed basic infrastructure and services such as hospitals or schools (e.g., Brazil with the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games; e.g., Jepson & Walters, 2021; Maharaj, 2015).
Regarding tourism, we studied flow-on and future tourism, particularly in relation to information search (Taks et al., 2009). Here we learned that one-time sport events must enhance their efforts to integrate destination experiences with the event to generate some form of sustainable tourism $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . Strengthening cooperation between event organizers and destination marketers can be one such avenue, which was later supported when examining a series of other events hosted in the Windsor region between 2013 and 2014 (e.g., the 2013 International Children’s Games, the 2014 Ontario Summer Games, and the $201455+($ Ontario Summer Games $[55+]$ ; Wood et al., 2018).
In short, we found no evidence for substantial economic or sustainable tourism impact $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ , and related scholarship produced similar evidence (Agha & Taks, 2019; Solberg & Preuss, 2007; Zimbalist, 2020). These findings triggered the next steps $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ . Given that the focus of my research is on one-off sport events that rely heavily on public funds, we continued our pursuit searching for positive outcomes for host residents, following the line of thought presented in this quote by Chalip (2006): “ : : : those of us who study and promote events tell each other over beers to convince ourselves that there is more going on than bread and circuses. But is there?” (p. 111). Consequently, we redirected our research focus toward exploring the social and sport participation impacts of events, which encompass less tangible outcomes. Before sharing “What I learned : : : ” in these realms, I must introduce a set of other triggers and another series of events entering my research space.
We continued to find triggers as the city of Windsor was host to various types of events: 2012 Skate Canada International, the 2013 International Children’s Games, the 2014 Ontario Summer Games, the 2014 Ontario $55+\mathsf{S}$ ummer Games, and the 2016 FINA World Swimming Championships $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ . This is the time when Laura Misener $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ joined the team as a newly hired professor at the University of Windsor. Chalip, Green, Misener, and I became a solid foursome, setting out on a journey of sport participation research related to events for many years to come. In parallel, I focused on social impacts, collaborating with Laura Wood $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ and Ryan Snelgrove $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ who in the meantime became assistant professors and were embarking on a SSHRC-funded project: Managing sport events to maximize positive impacts (e.g., Derom et al., 2023; Snelgrove et al., 2019, 2022; Wood et al., 2018).
During that time, another trigger came my way: SMAANZ $2014[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ . Invited by David Shilbury $[\mathrm{I^{*}}]$ , I presented a keynote on: Linking Sport Events to Sport Participation: What we Know and Need to Know. During the conference, I was approached by Benoit Séguin and Milena Parent about a sport management position coming up at the University of Ottawa. Somehow, I always felt a good fit with Ottawa because of the bilingualism, but also because of its location in the Capital, with easy access to the federal level of government (Sport Canada) and headquarters of multiple National Sport Governing bodies. In addition, I was joining a group of experts who all studied events, be it from different angles: Séguin $[\Gamma^{*}]$ examined sponsorship, marketing, and ambush marketing related to the Olympic Games; Parent $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ focused on management and governance of events; and MacIntosh $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ investigated athletes’ experiences in the context of events, whereas I studied events from the residents’ perspective. In 2016, I accepted a new position at the University of Ottawa $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ , where I continued my work on social impact and sport participation impacts from events.
In the meantime, research on event impact was shifting focus from: (a) large to small events (e.g., Agha & Taks, 2015; Taks, 2013), (b) tangible to intangible (e.g., Preuss, 2015), and (c) legacies to leveraging (e.g., Chalip, 2018). Before addressing intangible impacts in the context of social impacts and leveraging in the context of sport participation impacts, I first make an important side note on the notion of small and large events.
As a strong proponent of small events, I firmly believe that the impact of one-off, smaller-sized sport events, though seemingly local with limited global reach, can yield substantial positive outcomes. The advantages of these events become apparent when considering their resource requirements, as they demand fewer resources, thereby offering better potential for economic and environmental benefits. Additionally, their ability to forge a profound connection with the local community leads to enhanced potential for social outcomes, setting them apart from large-scale events. Furthermore, a multitude of smaller-sized events are being organized on a global scale. Consequently, when considering the aggregate level, the overall benefits derived from one-off, smaller-sized sport events may prove to be more substantial, more lasting, and more global and enduring compared to large events $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ (Taks, 2013).
For some time, I struggled with defining the one-off, smallersized events I was investigating. When I edited a special issue with Chalip and Green on: “Impact and strategic outcomes from nonmega sport events for local communities” for the European Sport Management Quarterly (Taks et al., 2015), we referred to these events as “non-mega sport events.” In this context, we considered them to be the smaller counterparts of mega sport events, akin to their “brother or sister” in scale. Our description of these events was as follows:
While there are no universal definitions of different types of events, non-mega sport events are generally smaller in size, scale, scope, and reach than their mega counterparts (e.g., the Olympic Games, the World Cup, the Euro Cup, and the Commonwealth Games). However, like mega events, they are one-off, discontinuous, and out of the ordinary. (p. 1)
As I contemplated the various types of events I have investigated thus far, it became evident that the focus extended beyond merely “smaller-sized events.” It was during my collaboration with Nola Agha $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ that I gained a clearer understanding of my research scope. Specifically, we redefined events based on the resources they necessitate, including financial, physical, and human resources required for hosting. Smaller events typically draw fewer visitors and receive less business and government support, resulting in lower resource requirements. On the other hand, large events, due to their high profile and extensive global reach, tend to attract more visitors and enjoy greater support from businesses and governments, hence demanding more resources $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . We coined this concept as “event resource demand” and compared it to the notion of “city resource supply” (Agha & Taks, 2015, 2019).
When host cities (or regions or countries) do not have the necessary resources to supply these needs, events create a “city resource deficiency,” making cities rely on larger proportions of government support, including taxpayers’ money to stage the event. Thus, public funding becomes necessary when the event resource demand surpasses the host cities’ resource supply (Agha & Taks, 2015), thereby making these sport events publicly funded major sport events, regardless of their size and scope (e.g., local, national, and global level) $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . These publicly funded sport events are generally one-off events, out of the ordinary, and create a shock in the host community because of the number of resources they need. Whether mega or non-mega sport events, they all require substantial public funding from one or more levels of government (e.g., national, regional, and city levels). Thus, the types of events that I have been interested in all along are publicly funded sport events. It remains a challenge to attribute exact amounts of government funding to sport events particularly when it comes to infrastructure projects (e.g., Sant & Mason, 2015). Nevertheless, the examples in Table 1 demonstrate local, regional, and/or national governments support for hosting major sport events with public resources; hence, positive returns (societal outcomes) for host residents are expected to justify financial investments.
Table 1 Examples of Public Funded One-Off Sport Events and Levels of Government Funding
<html><body><table><tr><td>Event</td><td>2013lnternational Children's Games</td><td>Vancouver2010</td><td>2019 Canada Games</td><td>2021RoadWorld Championships</td></tr><tr><td>City</td><td>Windsor</td><td>Vancouver</td><td>Red Deer</td><td>Leuven</td></tr><tr><td>Country</td><td>(ON, Canada)</td><td>(BC, Canada)</td><td>(AB, Canada)</td><td>(Flanders/Belgium)</td></tr><tr><td>Overall budget</td><td>Est. CA$89 m</td><td>Est. CA$7.0b</td><td>CA$44.3 m</td><td>21.3 m</td></tr><tr><td>Total govt. funding</td><td>Costs of hosting (11 m + $78 m</td><td>CA$2b-4b</td><td>CA$30 m</td><td>16.3 m</td></tr><tr><td>Federalgovt.</td><td>aquatic complex)</td><td>CA$1.2b</td><td>CA$11m</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Regional govt.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>13m</td></tr><tr><td>Provincialgovt.</td><td></td><td>CA$2.1b</td><td>CA$11m</td><td>0.4m</td></tr><tr><td>City govt.</td><td>All</td><td>CA$140m</td><td>CA$8m</td><td>2.89 m</td></tr><tr><td>Source</td><td>Anderson and Taks (2019)</td><td>Bakhsh et al.(2022) and Hume (2013)</td><td>Bodin and Taks (2022b)</td><td>Helsen et al. (2022)</td></tr></table></body></html>
Note. Sum of $\$=$ total government funding; $\mathbf{b}=$ billion; $\mathrm{{m}=\mathrm{{million}}}$ .
In summary, my research has focused on exploring various impacts of publicly funded sport events. Throughout my investigations, a key concern has been to ensure that those investing in these events (i.e., taxpayers) derive meaningful benefits. As part of this endeavor, I delved into both market-related impacts, such as economic and tourism effects, and nonmarket impacts, encompassing social and sport participation outcomes. My ultimate goal was to understand the potential for these events to lead to sustainable outcomes. Having now established the types of events I studied, let us delve deeper into our findings regarding social impacts, which marked a transition from tangible to intangible aspects. Additionally, we will explore the impact on sport participation, highlighting the shift from legacies to leveraging opportunities.
Although my research focus shifted toward measuring less tangible outcomes like social impacts, it is essential to acknowledge that measuring these impacts also presents challenges. The lack of a consensus on what exactly constitutes social impact further complicates the matter. Nevertheless, recurring dimensions of social impact include community spirit, social cohesion, social capital, community involvement, as well as aspects related to disorder and conflict, and feelings of (un)safety. Community spirit pertains to the feelings of pride and happiness instilled by an event and is sometimes referred to as the “feel-good factor” or “psychic income.” Social cohesion gauges how individuals perceive an event’s influence on connectedness within the community. Social capital reflects how the event impacts residents’ broader community relationships and engagement. Community involvement, on the other hand, assesses the extent to which the community is engaged in event hosting, and whether their input is actively sought and appreciated. For a comprehensive overview of studies, theories, and measurements related to social impact, I refer to the work of Taks et al. (2020).
When we first presented our work in this area (Littlejohn et al., 2016; Taks et al., 2016) during EASM 2015 $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ , it was a serious discussion with Bob Heere $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ that made us realize that “wording matters.” As a result, we began distinguishing between two types of social impact items: “other-referenced” and “self-referenced.” Other-referenced items are perception-based, reflecting subjective opinions or attitudes, akin to “public opinion polling.” For example, they are worded as “Events create new friendships in the community.” On the other hand, self-referenced items are experience-based, portraying the impact from the first-person perspective. An example of self-referenced wording is: “Because of the event, I create new friends in the community” (Oshimi et al., 2021, 2022; Taks et al., 2020; Taks & Rocha, 2022). Utilizing selfreferenced wording allows for a more accurate reflection of reality, capturing event impacts when aggregated.
I collaborated with Claudio Rocha $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ on Rio 2016 (Taks & Rocha, 2022), worked with Ann Pegoraro $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ and Jordan Bakhsh $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ on the 2019 National Basketball Association Finals hosted in Canada (Kennedy et al., 2023); Daichi Oshimi $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ for the 2019 Rugby World Cup and Tokyo 2020, both in Japan; and Nola Agha joined our team along the way (Oshimi et al., 2021, 2022; Taks et al., 2020). Of note, Bakhsh $[\mathrm{I^{*}}]$ included self-referenced social impact items in his dissertation on “Understanding Residents’ Social Return on Investment from Hosting a Major Sport Event: The Case of the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games” (Bakhsh et al., 2022, 2023), and Kerri Bodin $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ included selfreferenced social impact items in her work on “Host community residents and long-term event outcomes: The role of trust, knowledge, and power in the public/government relationship” (Bodin & Taks, 2022a, 2022b).
Collectively, these studies systematically indicated that both other-referenced and self-referenced social impact items (be it positive or negative) are overrated preevent compared with postevent, and that other-referenced social impact items were significantly higher than self-referenced social impact items pre- and postevent, indicating that self-referenced items tend to be less overrated. This is particularly relevant postevent, where self-referenced social impact items become a more accurate reflection of the lived experience $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ (see Table 2).
We also found that self-referenced social impact better predicts peoples’ support for future events (Oshimi et al., 2022). It was notable that overall, social impact scores were low preevent and even lower postevent (after the experience). Postevent, all social impact scores were below the midpoint of the Likert scale, except the self-referenced feel-good factor $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ .
As was the case for economic impact, social impacts can also be negative. Researchers have investigated aspects such as disorder and conflict (i.e., to what extent an event disrupts residents’ daily lives and traffic congestion) or feelings of unsafety (e.g., threats of terrorist attacks). These types of negative social effects tend to dissipate as the event concludes. However, there are others that leave lasting repercussions long after the event has ended. Examples of these enduring negative impacts include displacement and gentrification, such as the displacement of entire townships during the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa. Moreover, some events have been associated with violations of human rights, such as the LGBTQ protest during FIFA World Cup 2018 in Russia, and human rights issues surrounding FIFA World Cup 2022 in Qatar. These long-term negative consequences warrant close attention and consideration in the evaluation of social impacts from events (Jepson & Walters, 2021).
In summary, sport scholarship has yielded limited evidence supporting significant economic and tourism returns $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ . As a result, our research focus shifted toward exploring social impacts, yet the question of sustainability persisted. To address this concern, we redirected our efforts toward examining residential well-being as a potential positive and sustainable outcome. We speculated that social impacts might influence subjective well-being, serving as a pathway to achieve greater sustainability in major sport events and thereby justifying their public funding.
Table 2 Wording Matters: Other-Referenced Versus Self-References SII Pre- and Postevent
<html><body><table><tr><td>PositiveandNegativeSll</td><td>Preevent</td><td></td><td>Postevent</td></tr><tr><td>Other-referenced (e.g.,“Events create new friendships in the community")</td><td>Overrated</td><td></td><td>Overrated</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Self-referenced (e.g., “Because of the event, I create new friends in the community")</td><td>Less overrated</td><td></td><td>Lived experience</td></tr></table></body></html>
Note. SII $=$ Social Impact Items. Summary of findings from Taks et al. (2020), Oshimi et al. (2021), Oshimi et al. (2022), and Taks and Rocha (2022).
Subjective well-being refers to general levels of happiness, and/or aspects such as quality of life, satisfaction with life overall and various life domains (e.g., work, family, health, and leisure time) which all contribute to higher levels of well-being (Fabian, 2022). Not surprisingly, the measuring challenges continue. Some studies investigating the impact of major sports events on the subjective well-being of host residents have used a single-item measure, such as measuring general feeling of happiness: “Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days—would you say you are happy, quite happy, or not very happy?” (Kavetsos & Szymanski, 2010, p. 160), or Quality of Life to reflect one’s overall’s life satisfaction: “Overall, taking everything into account, I am very satisfied with my quality of life” (Kaplanidou et al., 2013, p. 636). The use of a single item is popular in event studies because it can be easily included in a survey, and/or a form of these items is available in national or international population surveys. However, using a single-item measure of subjective well-being may pose certain drawbacks, such as reliability and validity concerns, and its inability to fully encompass the intricate nature of subjective well-being.
In a series of our studies (Littlejohn et al., 2016; Taks et al., 2016; Taks & Rocha, 2022), we adopted a holistic approach to measure subjective well-being, aiming to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its complexities. Individuals may, however, interpret subjective well-being differently based on their personal understanding of happiness and cultural background. For instance, in Western Societies, wealth often correlates with higher levels of happiness, while in Eastern cultures, personal relationships may play a more significant role in people’s happiness, and some studies suggest that even individuals with lower economic status might experience higher levels of happiness.
To address this issue of interpersonal incomparability, we utilized a hypothetical baseline measure to contextualize respondents’ concepts of well-being and happiness. Before rating their own level of happiness on a 6-point Likert scale (ranging from $1=$ not at all happy to $6=$ very happy), participants were presented with a vignette (Hopkins & King, 2010) describing a hypothetical individual with theoretically high happiness. This vignette primed the participants to evaluate the happiness of this fictional character, “Sam,” who is depicted as an outgoing person with a secure career, a loving home, good health, and a consistently cheerful disposition, satisfied with life. By first assessing the presumed happiness of Sam, we provided a reference point for participants to gauge their own happiness in a similar manner: “Taking all aspects of your life into account, please select your current overall level of happiness.” This approach allowed us to navigate the potential disparities in how individuals perceive and evaluate their subjective well-being, thus enhancing the validity and reliability of our findings.
We then proceeded with various components of subjective well-being as proposed by Diener (2000), such as: life satisfaction (e.g., “Overall, how satisfied are you currently with your life?”); satisfaction with important life domains (e.g., “Rate your current level of satisfaction with each of the following domains”: life at home, health status, employment status, leisure time, : : : ); and high positive and low negative affect (e.g., “How have you generally felt during the past week?”: Happy, Frustrated/annoyed, Depressed/blue, Hassled/pushed around, Warm/friendly, Worried/ anxious, Enjoying myself, and Tired). This approach has been applied in the context of publicly funded major sport events, for non-mega (Taks et al., 2016) and mega sport events (Taks & Rocha, 2022).
Other studies concerning publicly funded mega sport events (e.g., Schlegel et al., 2017) have assessed subjective well-being using the well-being index of the World Health Organization, commonly known as the WHO-5, which includes emotional states such as feelings of cheerfulness, being in good spirits, calmness, relaxation, vigor, and feeling refreshed and rested. Regardless of whether a single-item or multidimensional approach was employed to gauge subjective well-being, the evidence consistently demonstrates that the “feel-good factor” or the sensation of happiness tends to be the most empirically validated and predominantly positive aspect. However, it is essential to note that this effect is temporary, typically peaking during the immediate period leading up to the event, reaching its height during the event itself, and may persist somewhat after the event has concluded.
Subsequently, the focus of our research team shifted toward exploring potential mechanisms to determine whether social impacts could positively influence subjective well-being, thus promoting a more sustainable outcome for major sport events and justifying their public funding. Schlegel et al.’s (2017) study identified a modest yet positive correlation between the celebratory atmosphere and subjective well-being, both before and during FIFA 2014. However, due to the absence of postevent measurements, it was challenging to confirm a lasting effect on the subjective well-being of host residents. Nevertheless, the study highlighted perceived celebratory atmosphere as a mechanism that bolsters the transient feelings of well-being during the event.
In our investigation of Rio 2016 (Taks & Rocha, 2022), we explored the impact of self-referenced social experiences on subjective well-being, both during and after the events. Surprisingly, no discernible difference was observed in the effect of social impact on subjective well-being between these two time periods. In short, no significant boost from social impact to subjective well-being was found postevent either. By delving into these potential mechanisms, our research aimed to shed light on pathways to foster positive effects on subjective well-being during major sports events, ultimately supporting the case for their public funding and contributing to a more sustainable and meaningful experience for both event attendees and host communities, but so far evidence is indecisive $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ .
Comprehension of factors that influence the subjective wellbeing of residents during publicly funded sport events is still in its infancy. Sport management research recommends several key strategies that can potentially enhance residents’ happiness in such events. These strategies include increasing residents’ awareness of the event, utilizing effective communication approaches that evoke feelings of pride and belonging (e.g., Doyle et al., 2021), and fostering a celebratory atmosphere in the lead-up to and during the event (e.g., Chalip, 2006; Schlegel et al., 2017). However, to this day there is no substantial evidence that these recommendations create long-lasting effects on residents’ well-being, regardless of whether the event is a mega event or a non-mega sport event. Additionally, it is essential to acknowledge that (sport) sociologists have identified potential long-term negative effects on residents’ well-being resulting from major sport events. These negative effects include the displacement of marginalized groups, gentrification, and the neglect of other societal needs, as mentioned earlier (Jepson & Walters, 2021).
In summary, the empirical evidence regarding the impact of publicly funded major sport events on subjective well-being remains inconclusive. Significant questions persist about their effectiveness in producing meaningful and sustainable outcomes for subjective well-being and the extent to which these outcomes can be achieved. As further research and evaluation are conducted, a deeper understanding of the true implications of publicly funded sport events on community well-being might emerge. This knowledge is essential for making informed decisions about future investments and ensuring the overall welfare of host communities.
In my continued pursuit to further explore meaningful returns to host communities from publicly funded sport events, our research team turned our attention to sport participation impact from events. Another research avenue of event impacts gaining traction in the past decade.
To remain true to our focus to investigate the possible positive outcomes of publicly funded sport events for residents, we started on a research trajectory related to the so-called “trickle-down,” “demonstration,” or “inspiration” effect from events (e.g., Weed et al., 2015). Notably, whether and how sport events have the potential to stimulate sport participation. To do so, we first embarked on a three-phased study in our SSHRC-funded project entitled: Leveraging sport events for sport development.
In Phase 1, the evaluation phase, we assessed leveraging tactics and outcomes of past events: the 2005 Pan-American Junior Athletic Championships held in Windsor (Ontario, Canada), and the 2005 Canadian National Figure Skating Championships held in London (Ontario, Canada; Misener et al., 2015; Taks et al., 2014). In Phase 2, the planning phase, we assembled a panel of experts (i.e., practitioners and academics from various relevant fields) to determine how these effects can be planned. This process resulted in the creation of a model for leveraging sport events to promote sport participation (Chalip et al., 2017). In Phase 3, the implementation phase, we embarked on event leveraging. The chosen event to be leveraged was the 2013 International Children’s Games, with a focus on stimulating participation in athletics and gymnastics. This phase led to developing an event-leveraging framework (Taks et al., 2018), shifting away from the notion of legacies and recognizing that events must be leveraged (Chalip, 2018). In other words, desired outcomes must be strategically planned for, well in advance of the event taking place, and the plan must be appropriately implemented to generate potential sport participation outcomes.
Overall, we found no evidence for new participation in sport created by the publicly funded sport events under investigation. Our findings aligned with Weed’s (2015) conclusions, that effects are limited: (a) Those people who already do a little sport can be inspired to do a little more, (b) those people who have played sport before can be inspired to play again, and (c) some people might give up one sport to try another $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ . Our implementation efforts were unsuccessful because the local sport organizations (LSOs) lacked the necessary skills and resources, and they had their way of doing things. Nevertheless, LSOs remained convinced that events can help them build their sport $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . These findings triggered $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ us to embark on the next SSHRC-funded project entitled: Building Capacity for Sport Participation through Events.
Through a Participatory Action Research approach (Frisby et al., 2005), we: (a) assisted LSOs build capacity to integrate sport events into their marketing mix to stimulate sport participation, and (b) evaluated processes and outcomes. Here we found that even when desired outcomes were collectively expressed at the onset of each project, Participatory Action Research’s attempts to help LSOs embark on new strategies to build their capacity and attract new participants in their sport, whether an event was included in the strategy or not, was obstructed because of intraorganizational dynamics and other priorities (often protected by gatekeepers). Although LSOs gave lip service to the need to increase participation, the effort and resources required to do so mitigated any action on their part. In sum, we did not find strong support that assisting LSOs build capacity to integrate events in their marketing strategies increased participation $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ . If growing participation in their sport is an important objective, initiatives other than events may be more effective and efficient.
Nonetheless, we have observed compelling evidence on sport development resulting from these events, particularly in terms of personal growth and skill development for individuals already involved in the sport system. This underscores the capacity of events to propel the advancement of the entire sport system, benefiting both individuals and organizations. While I have not elaborated on the role of revamped and built sport infrastructure for events, “white elephants” serving no practical purpose after the event should be avoided, stimulating sport participation can be achieved by prioritizing residents’ needs, as they play a central role in the success of these initiatives (e.g., Taks, 2013) $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ .
Looking ahead, sport organizations can strategically plan for the future by identifying areas for improvement within their organizations, devising action plans, setting key performance indicators, and evaluating their progress postevent to assess the attainment of predetermined goals and targets. As we move forward, my focus will remain on sport participation, with the upcoming 2026 World Championships Wheelchair Basketball $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ in Ottawa serving as the next impetus for exploration. I am excited to collaborate with former Ph.D. Student Georgia Teare $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , whose expertise promises to influence new avenues of learning in this field (Teare & Taks, 2021).
To wrap things up, let us shift focus to the “benefits” derived from events. On the economic and tourism front, we observe tangible gains for various stakeholders, including some developers, some players in the hospitality industry, some retailers, some local, provincial, national, and/or international sport federations, some sponsors, some advertisers, and some broadcasting networks. When it comes to the intangible aspects, such as social impact and sport participation, we find evidence of a short-lived feel-good factor experienced by many. However, the most significant beneficiaries are those already entrenched in the sport system, both individuals and organizations (see Figure 1).
To ensure accountability to their residents, governments must take two essential steps. First, they must be transparent about the utilization of public funds invested in supporting events. Second, they should be honest and realistic in their portrayal of the promised event outcomes, while also effectively leveraging these desired outcomes to maximize benefits. By being upfront about the investment and outcomes, governments can demonstrate responsible stewardship of public funds and ensure that the benefits generated from these events are both meaningful and sustainable for the well-being of the host communities.
In this article, I have shared the story of my research journey and how it evolved from “From socio-economic impacts on sport participation to socio-economic outcomes of sport events.” I highlighted the unforgettable events and inspiring people, who triggered twists and turns in my research journey and advanced my learning. As I reflect, it becomes evident that triggers $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ , influencers $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , and lessons learned $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ intermingled through this journey.
Figure 1 — Socioeconomic benefits from events. $\mathrm{FGF}=$ Feel-Good Factor; $(\mathrm{I})\mathrm{SF}=$ (International) Sport Federations.
The triggers $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ I identified can be described as striking, and sometimes unexpected phenomena that stimulated my curiosity. I recognize that these can take place in academic and nonacademic settings. The triggers I highlighted in my research journey were primarily academic such as: striking contents during a university course, remarkable international conferences, changing institutions, academic setbacks, and new research findings; they all advanced and stimulated my research journey. Nonacademic triggers included, in my case, a relocation to a new country and adapting to different cultural, educational, and geographic perspectives. Other nonacademic triggers can encompass any other salient phenomenon happening in the world around you, including personal and family-related issues.
The influencers $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ on my research journey were the people who motivated and inspired me, and who had a profound effect on my academic journey. Upon reflection, I categorize them in two groups: (a) influencers who caused triggers (e.g., Renson and Chelladurai), and (b) influencers I reached out to and invited them to help me unpack my curiosity (e.g., Kesenne, Chalip, Green, Misener, Agha, Oshimi, Rocha, : : : ). In the category of influencers causing triggers, I have primarily pinpointed to colleagues within the academic realm, although it is clear that nonacademic influencers such as prominent media figures, environmental activists, family members, and so on, can also cause significant triggers.
When reaching out to influencers to join me on my research journey (i.e., the second category of influencers), I posit that the dynamics among members of a research team undergo a transformation; it ceases to be a unidirectional influence and instead becomes a space where all members mutually influence one another (bidirectional or multifaceted influencers) creating the necessary environment to achieve outcomes that surpass the sum of individual contributions, thereby elevating higher levels of knowledge and learning. Here too, research team members can be from an academic (e.g., colleagues, undergraduate, and graduate students) and/or nonacademic environments (e.g., community groups, members of professional sport organizations, and affiliates of athletic departments).
When it comes to: “What have I learned : : : $\ '[\mathrm{L}^{\ast}]$ , I see two levels of learning. Level 1 is where curiosity is unpacked through the multifaceted interaction and collaboration with outstanding influencers in a research team, thereby advancing academic knowledge. Level 2 is the life lessons learned throughout this research journey more broadly. More specifically, triggers will come your way; learn to be alert, see the opportunities, dare to take risks, absorb setbacks, alter your course of action, step out of your comfort zone, be receptive to advice from others, and do not hesitate to reach out to others. It is this broad learning that makes one grow as a person and as an academic. This broader reflection about the intermingling of triggers $[\mathrm{T}^{*}]$ , influencers $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , and lesson learned $[\mathrm{L^{*}}]$ in a research journey is presented in Figure 2.
To sum things up, I would like to end where I started, with a free adaptation (in cursive) from Allende’s (2022) work:
There are intersections in our research journey which we don’t notice in the moment they occur, but in retrospect, after many years they become clear in hindsight. At each crossroads or fork, we must decide which direction to take. These decisions may determine the course of the rest of our research journey. (p. 254)
It was a gratifying exercise to reflect and unpack how my research journey went and why. We could consider making this type of reflection a stepping stone to be promoted to the rank of Prof. Emeritus or Emerita. Food for thought : : : . Either way, sharing our experiences may trigger, inspire, and advance the learning of future generations of sport management scholars.
In conclusion, I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to all influencers who crossed my path, including the very special people in my life who have been instrumental in all my accomplishments. To my beloved spouse, Walter, our cherished children, Adinda, Lisa, and Rik, as well as my sons-in-law, Brady and Adam, and our precious twin granddaughters, Celeste and Danica—each one of you has been a tremendous influencer, a source of motivation and inspiration. I have learned invaluable lessons from and through all of you. Thank you, with all my heart!
Figure 2 — The intermingling of triggers $[\mathrm{T^{*}}]$ , influencers $[\mathrm{I}^{*}]$ , and lesson learned $[\mathrm{L}^{*}]$ in a research journey.
|
Agha, N., & Taks, M. (2015). A theoretical comparison of the economic impact of large and small events. International Journal of Sport Finance, 10(3), 199–216.
Agha, N., & Taks, M. (2019). Economic impact of minor sporting events and minor league teams. In P. Downward, B. Frick, B. Humphreys, g Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 7–21.
Derom, I., & Taks, M. (2011). Participants’ experiences in two types of sporting events: A quest for evidence of the SL-CL continuum. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(3), 383.
Derom, I., Taks, M., Potwarka, L.R., Snelgrove, R., Wood, L., & Teare, G. (2023). How pre-event engagement and event type are associated with spectators’ cognitive processing at two swimming events. Journal of Global Sport Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2023.2197918
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 1, 34–43.
Doyle, J., Filo, K., Thomson, A., & Kunkel, T. (2021). Large-scale sport events and resident well-being: Examining PERMA and the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games. Journal of Sport Management, 35(6), 537–550.
Fabian, M. (2022). A theory of subjective wellbeing. Oxford University Press.
Frisby, W., Reid, C.J., Millar, S., & Hoeber, L. (2005). Putting “participatory” into participatory forms of action research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm. 19.4.367
Helsen, K., Taks, M., & Scheerder, J. (2022). Involvement, social impact experiences, and event support of host residents before, during, and after the 2021 UCI Road World Championships. Sustainability, 14(15), 9509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159509
Hopkins, D.J., & King, G. (2010). Improving anchoring vignettes: Designing surveys to correct interpersonal incomparability. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 201–222.
Hume, M. (2013, October 23). Vancouver Olympics worth the $\$7$ -billion price tag, study says. The Globe and Mail. https://www.the globeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-olympics-worththe-7-billion-price-tag-study-says/article15036916/
Jepson, A.S., & Walters, T. (2021). Events and well-being (1st ed.). Routledge.
Kaplanidou, K., Karadakis, K., Gibson, H., Thapa, B., Walker, M., Geldenhuys, S., & Coetzee, W. (2013). Quality of life, event impacts, and mega-event support among South African residents before and after the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Travel Research, 52(5), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478501
Kavetsos, G., & Szymanski, S. (2010). National well-being and international sports events. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(2), 158– 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.11.005
Kennedy, H., Bakhsh, J.T., Pegoraro, A., & Taks, M. (2023, July 2). Measuring residents’ social (media) event impacts from a major sport event. Event Management. Accepted for publication.
Késenne, S. (2012). The economic impact, costs and benefits of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games: Who wins, who loses? In W. Maennig& A. Zimbalist (Eds.), International handbook on the economics of mega sporting events (pp. 270–278). E. Elgar.
Littlejohn, M., Taks, M., Wood, L., & Snelgrove, R. (2016). Sport events and happiness: Towards the development of a measuring instrument\*. World Leisure Journal, 58(4), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16078055.2016.1225884
Maharaj, B. (2015). The turn of the south? Social and economic impacts of mega-events in India, Brazil and South Africa. Local Economy, 30(8), 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094215604318
Misener, L., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. (2015). The elusive “trickle-down effect” of sport events: Assumptions and missed opportunities. Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(2), 135–156.
Oshimi, D., Taks, M., & Agha, N. (2022). Social impact of events: Advancing insights on social impact scales. European Sport Management Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi. org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2076891
Oshimi, D., Yamaguchi, S., Fukuhara, T., & Taks, M. (2021). Expected and experienced social impact of host residents during Rugby World Cup 2019: A panel data approach. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 628153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.628153
Preuss, H. (2015). A framework for identifying the legacies of a mega sport event. Leisure Studies, 34(6), 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02614367.2014.994552
Renson, R., & Vermeulen, A. (1976). Social status symbolism of sport stratification. Hermes, 10, 433–443.
Sant, S.-L., & Mason, D.S. (2015). Framing event legacy in a prospective host city: Managing Vancouver’s Olympic bid. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2013-0294
Schlegel, A., Pfitzner, R., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2017). The impact of atmosphere in the city on subjective well-being of Rio de Janeiro residents during (vs. Before) the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Journal of Sport Management, 31(6), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm. 2017-0108
Snelgrove, R., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. (2008). How visitors and locals at a sport event differ in motives and Identity. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 13(3), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080 802310215
Snelgrove, R., Wood, L., Potwarka, L.R., Taks, M., & Derom, I. (2022). Cognitive factors that lead to inspiration and post-event intention to swim among spectators. Managing Sport and Leisure. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2022. 2135585
Snelgrove, R., Wood, L., Taks, M., Potwarka, L., & Wigfield, D. (2019). Attracting spectators to youth sport events: The case of the International Children’s Games. Journal of Amateur Sport, 5(2), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.17161/jas.v5i2.6900
Solberg, H.A., & Preuss, H. (2007). Major sport events and long-term tourism impacts. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 213.
Taks, M. (1986). Studie van de betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van ritmetests [Study of the reliability and validity of rhythm tests]. KU Leuven.
Taks, M. (1994). Sociale gelaagdheid in de sport: Een kwestie van geld of habitus? [Social stratification in sports: A matter of money or habitus?] [Doctoral Thesis]. KU Leuven.
Taks, M. (2013). Social sustainability of non-mega sport events in a global world. European Journal for Sport and Society, 10(2), 121–141.
Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B.C. (2015). Impacts and strategic outcomes from non-mega sport events for local communities. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 16184742.2014.995116
Taks, M., Chalip, L., Green, B.C., Kesenne, S., & Martyn, S. (2009). Factors affecting repeat visitation and flow-on tourism as sources of event strategy sustainability. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 14(2–3), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775080902965066
Taks, M., Christine Green, B., Chalip, L., Kesenne, S., & Martyn, S. (2013). Visitor composition and event‐related spending. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0020
Taks, M., Green, B.C., Misener, L., & Chalip, L. (2014). Evaluating sport development outcomes: The case of a medium-sized international sport event. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14(3), 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2014.882370
Taks, M., Green, B.C., Misener, L., & Chalip, L. (2018). Sport participation from sport events: Why it doesn’t happen? Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 36(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-05- 2017-0091
Taks, M., & Kesenne, S. (2000). The economic significance of sport in Flanders. Journal of Sport Management, 14(4), 342–365.
Taks, M., Kesenne, S., Chalip, L., Green, B.C., & Martyn, S. (2011). Economic impact analysis versus cost benefit analysis: The case of a medium-sized sport event. International Journal of Sport Finance, 6(3), 187.
Taks, M., Littlejohn, M., Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2016). Sport events and residential happiness: The case of two non-mega sport events. Journal of Global Sport Management, 1(3–4), 90–109.
Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2015). Sport’s role in economic development (Chapter 5). In M.T. Bowers& M. Dixon (Eds.), Sport management: An exploration of the field and its values (pp. 95–122). Sagamore Publishing.
Taks, M., Oshimi, D., & Agha, N. (2020). Other- versus self-referenced social impacts of events: Validating a new scale. Sustainability, 12(24), 10281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410281
Taks, M., Renson, R., & Vanreusel, B. (1991). Hoe sportief is de Vlaming? Een terugblik op 20 jaar sportbeoefening (Rapporten van de onderzoekseenheid SOCK nr 13) [How sporty is the Fleming? Looking back at 20 years of sports practice (Reports of the research unit SOCK no. 13)] (13; Reports of the research unit SOCK, p. 117). KU Leuven.
Taks, M., Renson, R., & Vanreusel, B. (1994). Of sport, time and money: An economic approach to sport participation. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 101269029402900405
Taks, M., & Rocha, C. (2022). Involvement, social impacts and subjective well-being: Brazilians’ experiences from Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. World Leisure Journal, 64(4), 361–382. https:// doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2022.2052951
Taks, M., Vanreusel, B., & Renson, R. (1994). What does sport really cost? A micro-ecomomic study on th e consumer cost of golf and soccer. European Journal for Sport Management, 1(1), 22–34.
Teare, G., & Taks, M. (2021). Sport events for sport participation: A scoping review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 655579. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.655579
Under the Influence. (2023). Under the Influence with Terry O’Reilly. CBC/Radio-Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/listen/live-radio/1-70-underthe-influence?cmp=DM_SEM_Listen_Titles&gclid=CjwKCAjwhJuk BhBPEiwAniIcNUldy40pLl2mt1GY-HQv2fTcBRko_oOjBSHKqRjm 6X8aFYooaA-CHxoCmK8QAvD_BwE
Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., & Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: A systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 195–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2014. 998695
Wood, L., Snelgrove, R., Legg, J., Taks, M., & Potwarka, L.R. (2018). Perspectives of event leveraging by restaurants and city officials. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 9(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-01-2017-0003
Zeigler, E. (2012). What I have learned : : : (Or “nonagenarian natterings”). Trafford.
Zimbalist, A. (2020). Circus maximus: The economic gamble behind hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Brookings Institution Press.
Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
---
|
n/a
|
1. Fun fact about European Association for Sport Management (EASM) 1993: Chelladurai and I both published the first two papers in the very first issue of the “European Journal for Sport Management,” the predecessor of European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ)! Chella, with his 1993 EASM’s keynote on: “Sport Management, defining the field (Chelladurai, 1994); and I with my conference presentation on: ‘The consumer cost of golf and soccer’” (Taks, Vanreusel, et al., 1994).
2. During my editorship of the European Sport Management Quarterly (ESMQ) from 2009 to 2011, we initiated the adoption of Manuscript Central as our submission platform. Journal of Sport Management had already implemented this system, and I received valuable assistance from Lucie Thibault, who was the editor of Journal of Sport Management at that time. Later on, Dr. Thibault became my Dean and remained a source of inspiration with her exceptional leadership qualities when I assumed my roles as Vice-Dean Research and Associate Vice-Provost Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies at the University of Ottawa.
3. Applying the event leveraging model, Chalip (2018, p. 261) discovered positive participation outcomes for the 1984 Olympic Games in Atlanta. It is worth mentioning that these games were unique as they were not supported with public funds. The unexpected surplus generated from these Olympic Games was reinvested in a newly established fund aimed at fostering sport participation in the region and state of California.
T. Pawlowski, J. Ruseski, & B. Soebbing (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of sports economics (pp. 395–404). SAGE Publications Ltd. https:// doi.org/10.4135/9781526470447.n39
Allende, I. (2022). Violeta. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial.
Anderson, J., & Taks, M. (2019). Urban governance of non-mega sport events: A socio-political discourse analysis. In M. Winand& C. Anagnostopoulos (Eds.), Research handbook on sports governance (pp. 290–310). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/ 9781786434821.00027
Bakhsh, J.T., Taks, M., & Parent, M.M. (2022). Examining monetary valuation methods to analyze residents’ social value from hosting a publicly-funded major sport event. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 823191. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.823191
Bakhsh, J.T., Taks, M., & Parent, M.M. (2023). Residents’ major sport event social value: A systematic review of theory. Event Management, 27(5), 643–658. https://doi.org/10.3727/152599523X16799771985479
Bodin, K., & Taks, M. (2022a). Unpacking the public/government relationship in the context of sport events: An agency theory approach. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 14(4), 657–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2022.2102669
Bodin, K., & Taks, M. (2022b). “We : : : we had fun, we did have fun”: Long-term sport event outcomes and community tensions. Event Management, 26(8), 1745–1763. https://doi.org/10.3727/15259 9522X16419948694810
Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Editions de Minuit.
Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/147750 80601155126
Chalip, L. (2018). Trading legacy for leverage. In I. Brittain, J. Bocarro, T. Byers, & K. Swart (Eds.), Legacies and mega-events: Fact or fairy tales? (pp. 25–41). Routledge.
Chalip, L., Green, B.C., Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: Making it happen. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9(2), 257–276. https://doi. org/10.1080/19406940.2016.1257496
|
The Bare Supervening Necessities of Theory Development in Sport Management
|
Daniel S. Mason Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
|
2024
|
This address explores how we can find theory in new spaces and apply it to our own, unique sporting contexts. It first examines how urban regime theory can inform research on the governance of intercollegiate athletics, then discusses how and why some theories in sport management emerge and are adopted while others are not. Borrowing from Winston’s model of technological diffusion, supervening necessities are what allow some prototypes to transform into inventions; in the social sphere of sport management, they are the drivers of new concepts that are adopted and employed as theories in the field. However, Winston notes that within the social sphere are brakes that serve to slow their emergence. In turn, theories develop in sport management under similar conflicting pressures. It is these contrary forces that slow the diffusion of new ideas in the sport management field.
Keywords: diffusion, suppression, prototypes, urban regime theory
Thank you for the opportunity to make this address. Receiving this award means a lot to me, and I hope that I am able to do right by Dr. Earle F. Zeigler and the previous recipients of this honor. I also recognize that to be here, I have had the good fortune of working with many strong mentors, colleagues, and students that have put me where I stand today. Specifically, I would like to acknowledge my master’s thesis supervisor, Dr. Bim Schrodt, and my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Trevor Slack; the former for getting me excited about the academy and undertaking research. For the latter, it was setting high expectations and giving me the freedom as a student to pursue my own independent research interests. I hope that I have been able to impart these qualities to my own students as they have developed as scholars. I would also like to thank all of the colleagues and graduate students I have worked with over the years; I have learned far more from them than they can possibly know. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Sarah, and our four children—Noelle, Roxy, Wyatt, and Shane.
As I am sure many other recipients of this award did, upon learning that I had won, I proceeded to read all of the previous Zeigler lectures. This time only served to make me more nervous about what I was to present. I think Dennis Howard summed it up perfectly in his own Zeigler address when he said receiving the award left him “flattered but a bit overwhelmed” (Howard, 1999, p. 78). After all, what could I possibly talk about that has not already been more ably articulated by others before me? Previous lectures tackled key issues such as the role of sport management in the academy (Slack, 1996), the development of the discipline (Pitts, 2001), the importance of theory and method (Frisby, 2005), and addressing critical issues such as diversity (Cunningham, 2014), sexism (Fink, 2016), and globalization (Thibault, 2009). Furthermore, it seemed that they all had catchy titles like “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (Frisby, 2005), “No One Whistles a Symphony” (Mahony, 2008), “The Inconvenient Truth” (Thibault, 2009), or “It Takes a Village” (Doherty, 2013b), all with corresponding well-crafted arguments and insights.
It is with this in mind that I arrived at the title of my address. I thought I nailed it—I even had some animated characters that I thought I could use and a theme song that could go with the lecture. However, I was told by someone that the rights holders are extremely vigilant about protecting their properties and that I should avoid this altogether. Hopefully the title will make more sense as the discussion unfolds.
As I often do when I write a paper, I work off some basic assumptions and caveats. Many times, these assumptions and caveats are unwritten, but given the current context, I thought I would be more explicit. The first is that the notion of sport management is very nebulous and, at times, contested. My own version of sport management is a rather narrow one, rooted in a constructivist ontology. As explained by Cunningham et al. (2015), theory in sport management can be divided into four broad categories: managerial, marketing, sociological, and economic. My version of sport management is embedded in the parent disciplines of organization theory, sociology, and political science. Thus, some of the statements I make today about the nature of theory and the field may not fully capture the interests and breadth of everyone reading this. I also want to acknowledge that some of the issues and concerns I raise here have already been discussed and addressed in other scholars’ versions of sport management, particularly those scholars rooted in psychology and marketing. In addition, I recognize that, when it comes to theorizing, I am not very precise. I think some of this lack of precision is due to the eclectic nature of my research program. However, in this address, I may be using terms that have different meanings in other contexts. I apologize for any confusion that arises from this. Furthermore, I tend to work my way through things with my writing and my presenting; as you will see, this address is no exception.
Another assumption that I make is that, indeed, there is something that matters about the sporting context. As Wendy Frisby (2005) stated,
If we think for a moment about the “sport” part of sport management and the good aspects of it, I suspect that it is probably something very positive about sport that drew those of us in sport management into this field in the first place. (p. 3)
It could be, as Chalip (2006) identified, salubrious socialization or, as Washington and Patterson (2011) explained, because “sport is an area that is highly non-traditional along many important dimensions, including competitive models, structure, and performance periods” (p. 10). In the context of my own research,
Do sporting events, however large they might be, matter politically? The answer, in a word, is yes. They matter because international sporting events [and sports facilities] have tremendous symbolic significance and because they influence the allocation of scarce public resources. (Burbank et al., 2001, p. 33)
I have been very fortunate over the course of my career; fortuitous enough that I have been placed in a position where I could receive an award like this. This has made me reflect on my research over the years. I think that one of the things that I have been lucky with is that many of the reviewers that I have had over the years have championed my work. By this I mean that they have seen something in my work that is meritorious and have helped me get the work to where it needs to be to be publishable. As a result of this, I have been able to publish across various disciplines, including economics, marketing, history, tourism, urban affairs, and management. For example, when I was back home for a break from my doctoral studies, I found a paper that I had written as an undergraduate on an early baseball park in Vancouver. I read it and thought to myself, “this isn’t too bad, I wonder if it could be publishable?” I did some research into various journals and found one called Urban History Review that I thought might be a good outlet.
After submitting it, I received some very thoughtful and constructive feedback. In a nutshell, the reviewers liked the paper and thought it could contribute to the literature but felt that it was clearly written by someone from outside the history discipline. As a result, they painstakingly gave me direction as to how to flesh out my literature review and embed the paper within the broader historical literature. The point I am trying to make here is that both reviewers could have easily rejected the paper, as submitted, but both the reviewers and the editor took it upon themselves to bring the paper (Mason, 1997a) up to a standard suitable for the journal. This behavior is something we need more of from our own reviewers. However, I find, at times, that the reviews that I receive in my present role as associate editor of the Journal of Sport Management almost seem as though the reviewer is looking for ways to justify the rejection of a paper rather than looking for the merits of a paper and helping it get to where it needs to go.
As I mentioned, as a scholar, I have been very lucky. We are in a field that has high demand for emerging, capable scholars. We are in a field that has collegiality among scholars—at other conferences and in other fields, scholars seem to take a much more adversarial and territorial approach to their work. For me, it was established scholars like Janet Parks, Dave Stotlar, and Bob Boucher who made me feel welcome as a student attending the conference. We are in a field where a scholar can have a profound impact. I am hoping that it is one that will continue to encourage diverse theories and ways of thinking. But I also acknowledge that my view is skewed by my privilege in many of the ways that have been addressed in some of our critical assessments of our field (see, e.g., Fink, 2016). Within that context, I would like to thank everyone over the years who has accepted/tolerated my idiosyncrasies and made me look forward to coming to North American Society for Sport Management each year. I have not been good at keeping in touch throughout the years, but I am really excited to see everyone each year and feel like North American Society for Sport Management has become my home.
For the purposes of this discussion, I am going to take Dixon’s (2021) advice and stay in my lane and Fink’s (2016) advice to speak about something that I am passionate about. One of the advantages of getting older is that you know more about what you do not know. What I do not know is substantial and, based on the amount of scholarship that our field is producing, growing. My research program is largely driven by my interest in theory and using theory to understand specific (sporting) contexts. Although I call sport management my home, I have also regularly attended the Urban Affairs Association conference and published in urban affairs journals, such as Urban Studies (Soebbing et al., 2016; Wicker et al., 2017), Cities (Sant, Mason, & Chen, 2019), Economic Development Quarterly (Friedman & Mason, 2004), and the Journal of Urban Affairs (Friedman & Mason, 2005). I find that there are many parallels between urban affairs and sport management in that each is driven by an interest in a specific context and guided by multiple parent disciplines. Each has also evolved to develop its own theories that are specific to its context. As a graduate of a “sport management” program, I have drawn from these same disciplines to ground my work, including political science, sociology, management, history, marketing, and economics.
As a recipient of this award, I found it difficult to think of something that would serve as some kind of overview or summary of my research program and/or yield some new insights. To put it nicely, my research is eclectic; a more accurate description is that it is all over the place. I am usually driven by the novelty of a theory and get excited about applying it to a sporting context. A great thing about receiving the Zeigler award is that it makes me reflect on a lot of things: the field and my place in it. As Shaw (2016) noted, reflection is a good thing. One thing I kept returning to was the historic debates in our field over theory, which has loosely divided into two camps: the role of using theory from parent disciplines to employ in a sporting context and the need to develop unique, sportspecific theory (Chalip, 2006). As explained by Funk (2019),
The first perspective highlights how scholars apply theories and concepts from broader disciplines such as sociology, psychology, marketing, and economics into sport contexts. By following this derivative path, scholars can assess whether a general theory is valid in sport management [ : : : ]. The second perspective calls for scholars to develop sport-specific theories to examine the sport management context. Taking this sport-focused path enables scholars to create new midrange theories that are context specific and more limited in scope to sport management. (p. 2)
Both perspectives receive considerable debate in the context of discussions of the legitimacy of our field and the relationship between sport management and other disciplines (Slack, 1996; Zhang, 2015). This discussion got me thinking further about the things that Funk (2019) explored in his Zeigler lecture: Why do some theories emerge and become popular while others seem to die on the vine? Why are some theories and models driving certain areas of research while others, which seem to have the same utility, remain relatively obscure? Funk (2019) extends this by examining strategies to help get one’s ideas out there; I want to push things in as different direction: How do we find theory in new spaces and apply it to our own, unique sporting contexts?
For the purposes of discussion, I am going to use my own research as an example. I do this because I feel I can critique my own work and discuss its shortcomings; I am not particularly interested in pointing out where others may have tried and failed. For example, my own doctoral research adapted agency theory—as developed in the field of organizational economics—to examine the evolution and governance of player agents in the professional hockey industry (Mason & Slack, 2001a, 2001b, 2003). The dissertation took a three paper format, and two were published in Journal of Sport Management and one in Sport Management Review. I have also used agency theory to examine the National Football League (Mason, 1997b), the sports industry more broadly (Mason & Slack, 2005), and the issue of corruption in the International Olympic Committee (Mason et al., 2006). Agency theory is an intuitive, straightforward theory that allows for the development of clear propositions that can be tested in an empirical context (Eisenhardt, 1989). I feel that I was the scholar who first introduced agency theory to the sport management context in the late 1990s (Mason, 1997b; Mason & Slack, 2005). In retrospect, the International Olympic Committee paper appears to be the only paper that gained any traction in the field, and more because of its focus on corruption than the efficacy of the theory itself. Furthermore, a quick search of Google Scholar reveals that, between 2006 and 2015, few papers were published using agency theory to examine sporting contexts, and those published often discussed the theory’s limitations. However, since 2016, agency theory appears to be reemerging and has since been employed more often in our field. So why is agency theory becoming of interest now, years after it was first used in our field? As explained by Funk (2019) in his Zeigler address, an idea takes approximately 9 years to gain traction in the field, and this a function of three things. These things are “[the] article innovation type, the journal in which the article appears, and the author’s social system” (p. 3). The last time I published using agency theory was around 2006, so this would seem to fit. What was lacking in the trajectory of my own research was my ongoing use of it within my network. Thus, as explained by Funk (2019), I have only myself to blame for the lack of more widespread adoption of the theory in sport management.
In the remainder of this address, I am going to go out on a limb at bit by exploring the use of theory from outside our field to develop new theory within the field. Like Funk (2019), I am also going to discuss the diffusion of research in sport management. However, rather than the strategies that can be employed to make research more visible, I focus on the theory itself. A key point I need to make here is that I am not using this lecture to unleash a new theoretical perspective on the field; in fact, I have chosen a sporting context about which I know very little and hope to use the example as a way to get you thinking about your own ideas and theory. In other words, I am more interested in the process of developing new theory than the specific content of a new theory itself.
I hope that the foregoing discussion has established the foundation for the following discussion. The following is going to discuss the process of development of new theory in sport management. In his Zeigler address, Chalip (2006) deftly addressed the major issues facing our field and presented a compelling discussion of the uniqueness of sport and the development of theory in the field. I hope to make a modest contribution to this discussion by walking through the process whereby existing theory can be used to develop new theory that is unique to the sports context. As I have mentioned throughout, there have traditionally been two approaches to theory in sport management—the application of existing theories from parent disciplines and the development of sport-specific theory that is unique to our field.
Before I do so, I need to do a brief overview of theory in sport management. In a discussion on urban affairs in geography, Robinson (2016) noted that
Being open to ideas from elsewhere, while attending to the locatedness of all conceptualization, raises challenging questions about the specificity or limited scope of some concepts, and about the extent to which it is productive to think with ideas across many different experiences. (p. 188)
In the current discussion, I lean on Cunningham et al.’s (2015) and Doherty’s (2013a) discussions of theory in the field. As explained by Doherty (2013a), “The strength of an academic discipline is its distinct body of knowledge that is not covered by another discipline” (p. 5), where scholars “can, should and do invest in theory in sport management research, from borrowing, adapting and extending existing frameworks, to generating new theory from the ground up” (p. 6). I am not going to go into detail as to what theory is and what it is not for two reasons. One is that it has been discussed elsewhere (Chalip, 2006; Doherty, 2013a) with far greater dexterity than I could here. The second is that what theory is really depends on one’s epistemology and ontology. However, I will borrow from Doherty (2013a) to offer the following:
Theorizing is the act of forming or proposing a theory. Further, a concept is an idea or notion, and so conceptual describes something as an idea or notion. Conceptualizing is the act of forming or developing a concept (idea, notion). Taken together, then, one theorizes by conceptualizing various ideas or notions, and how and why they relate to each other. A conceptual framework or model is the structural representation of ideas and notions, whereas a theoretical framework or model is the structural representation of the relationships among the concepts. Again, the theory itself explains why the concepts are related. (p. 7)
To develop new theory, I first must establish the literature on which it is based. To start with, it is important to note that a driving interest for me that led me to urban regime theory (URT) was the need to understand how cities effectively act as strategic entities. In other words, who manages cities and how are they managed? At first, my interest was in franchise relocation and the process whereby cities would fund new facilities to lure or retain professional sports franchises in North America (Friedman & Mason, 2001; Mason & Slack, 1997). My initial interest was related to concern that cities were being fleeced by professional sports team owners who threatened to relocate without significant subsidies. My early reading led me to Begg’s (1999) work on competitive cities that take on the characteristics of firms seeking competitive advantage; I was interested in how sports teams and their facilities were embedded in this competition. Furthermore, I was excited that sports facilities were considered important components of the urban fabric by those outside of sport management. As explained by Judd (1999), “Stadiums and sports arenas are some of the most expensive components of the tourism and recreational complex being subsidized by cities, but boosters consider them to be an essential signifier of ‘big league’ status” (p. 45). There was also a growing body of literature examining subsidies and whether cities were getting their money’s worth for their investment, one that was critical of subsidies in general (Rosentraub, 1999). In addition,
The immeasurable but deeply felt sense of civic pride and sense of competitive place that comes with being the site of a major professional team is palpable in the privatizing discourse surrounding the public support for the infrastructure needed to “play in the majors.” (Perry, 2003, p. 36)
Thus, sports teams and their facilities were deemed important as “the overriding significance of attracting these sports franchises is that it is felt that this maintains or enhances the city’s status as a competitor for growth and its image as a top-tier city” (Keating, 1997, p. 190), something that I corroborated in my own work (Buist & Mason, 2010; Mason et al., 2015). This point was also discussed in the tourism literature wherein sport was seen as a means of civic reimaging (Smith, 2005).
All of this work was bound up in a neoliberal discourse of competition wherein large-scale infrastructure, such as cultural venues, revamped city centers, and sports facilities, was seen as a means of competing (Lambelet, 2019; Russo & Scarnato, 2018). But who was acting on behalf of cities? In other words, who was doing the competing here? For me, the answer to this question was in examining urban regimes. Emerging as early as the 1950s and 1960s in discussions of pluralism (Davies, 2002), “No theory of urban governance has emerged as a serious rival to regime analysis” (Rast, 2015, p. 146), and “Urban politics research in the United States over the past two decades has overwhelmingly been shaped by urban regime theory” (Pierre, 2014, p. 865).
A key to regime theory is its ability to explain how cities develop the capacity to govern (Wood, 1996). As explained by Imbroscio (1997), “two key features constitute the dominant urban regime form: a governing alliance between local public officials and land-based business interests, following an agenda marked by the aggressive pursuit of corporate-center/mainstream policies for growth” (p. 10). The success of stakeholders in a given city to play a proactive role in governing “would still be contingent on the consent of its actions among key players in the local society” (Pierre, 2014, p. 871). These key players function not under a set of explicit contracts or relationships but, rather, a set of arrangements and understandings (Stone, 2002). In a regime model, power is fragmented: “Both local government and business possess resources needed to govern—legitimacy and policy-making authority, for example, in the case of government, and capital that generates jobs, tax revenues, and financing, in the case of business” (Mossberger & Stoker, 2001, p. 812). This point was recognized by pioneers in regime analyses, including Stone (1989) and Elkin (1987). As Stone (1989) explained,
A regime thus involves not just any informal group that comes together to make a decision but an informal yet relatively stable group with access to institutional resources that enable it to have a sustained role in making governing decisions. (p. 4)
As argued by Lambelet (2019), resources might include land, law, financial support, expertise, and democratic support. Furthermore, there are several characteristics that regimes possess. The first is that they are enduring; regimes continue to exist despite the influx of new actors, social change, or conflict (Stone, 1989). In addition, regime actors will continue to maintain membership even when the regime is not working in the actors’ short term interests (Painter, 1997). Regimes must have (a) a capacity to do something, (b) a set of actors to do it, and (c) a relationship among the actors that enables them to work together (Stone, 1989). Stone (1989) characterized the process of resource allocation as one wherein the regime presents small opportunities. For the purposes of discussion, this opportunity could be the construction of a sports facility, providing an opportunity for specific regime actors to be engaged and receive material benefits. In the long run, these small opportunities serve a broader identifying agenda that regime actors subscribe to. Examples might be land-based civic growth or reimaging a city.
In summary, there are several elements that are key to the existence of regimes:
a. an identifying agenda “linked to concrete courses of action through which diverse bases of support are gained and maintained” (Stone, 2002, p. 21),
b. stability but not necessarily static,
c. crosses sectors: “is not the agenda of a single highly cohesive group (‘the elite’)” (Stone, 2002, p. 21),
d. arrangements are informal: “no power of command directs the overall arrangements—hence some form of cooperation plays an important role” (Stone, 2002, p. 21), and
e. arrangements have a productive character—resources are used to support the identifying agenda that would not occur in the absence of the regime.
In using URT, scholars can look to identify regime types by their identifying agenda and the productive character of their arrangements. Regime theorists have sought to identify basic types, such as symbolic regimes that seek to revitalize cities and change their image (Mossberger & Stoker, 2001). I have some experience using URT and applying it to a sports context, examining event hosting strategies (Misener & Mason, 2008, 2009), event leveraging (Sant, Misener, & Mason, 2019), and sports facilities developed in North America (Duquette & Mason, 2008) and China (Xue & Mason, 2017).
As I mentioned earlier, I used URT at various times over the course of my academic career to examine the governance of cities in the context of sport event hosting and the construction of sports facilities. Thus, I have been engaging in drawing from parent disciplines to examine sporting contexts (in the case of URT from political science/urban affairs to examine sports events and facilities). In this section, I would like to go a step further by using URT as a stepping-off point to propose a new theoretical framework for studying the governance of collegiate athletics in the United States. I would like to state at the outset here that intercollegiate athletics is an area that I have no previous research experience in; other than working at the University of Maryland for the first 4 years of my academic career, my ties to “big-time” U.S. college athletics are limited.
However, from my vantage point as a sport management scholar working and living in Canada for most of my professional career, many parallels can be drawn between the governance of cities and universities and the role of sport. This intersection leads to a new set of assumptions: parallels between regimes in cities and possible regimes in the governance of collegiate athletics. First, both public universities and cities have suffered from declines in funding from higher levels of government along with increasing taxpayer skepticism. This change has forced leaders to become more entrepreneurial to secure funds for their respective institutions. Second, athletic programs (and their specific teams), like professional sports franchises in cities, are seen as status symbols that can confer competitive advantages. For cities, this competitive advantage would be the attraction of media attention, tourism, investment, and any economic benefits that might occur. For universities, it is the recruitment of students and faculty and possible funding from alumni and nonalumni boosters/donors. Both cities and universities receive political capital from their respective sports, such as ribbon cuttings and national championships. Cities and universities are governed by networks of stakeholders from both the public and private sectors. In cities, you have city administrators and council on one side and business elites and civic boosters on the other. In universities, you have administrators and boards of governors on one side and business elites and/or alumni and boosters on the other. Both universities and cities create opportunity costs wherein resources spent on sporting pursuits might be better spent elsewhere on the interests of other stakeholders. Both universities and cities are bound up in discourses of competition between similar entities (i.e., universities or cities). Both have been criticized for putting too much emphasis on sport and sports infrastructure. Both may be susceptible to side deals and corruption.
As I discussed earlier, URT research examines the types of regimes that emerge in specific cities and what the implications of this are for civic governance. Thus, I return to the basic tenets of regime theory and discuss them in the university athletics context.
First, like regimes in cities, university regimes have broader goals. One might be to be positioned as a world class university. This goal might be measured by university rankings, endowment, faculty research productivity and awards, a diverse student body, or the success of various athletic teams. However, the extent to which each of these is valued will depend upon the identifying agenda of the regime that governs. In fact, the presence of ongoing small opportunities wherein material benefits are provided to regime members would signal the existence of a regime and an identifying agenda. An example would be a new or renovated stadium built for the football program. This decision would represent an opportunity for key construction companies, facility designers, and boosters to all be rewarded for their alignment with the regime’s identifying agenda.
From a research perspective, the first order of business would be to identify the existence, if any, of a regime in a given university context. Next, a regime type would need to be identified. For example, in my work with Laura Misener, she identified the types of regimes in Edmonton, Canada; Melbourne, Australia; and Manchester, United Kingdom, based on the events strategies that were undertaken in those cities and the types of benefits sought by regime members (Misener & Mason, 2008, 2009). This could be done with university regimes by examining athletics programs and the degree to which resources are allocated to service athletics on campus. One could surmise that some regimes are more interested in the signaling that a strong athletics program may have on a university’s reputation, whereas others might be more interested in how athletics serve as a part of the student or alumni experience at their schools. Each would be using athletics but would serve a different identifying agenda.
At this point, I was going to go into more detail about my proposed theory and introduce propositions for the types of regimes that could exist in U.S. colleges. I was feeling happy with my progress so far. However, in doing so, I thought, “to what end?” My aim was not to introduce a new theory per se, it was to discuss the process of how a new theory emerges and what my process is. Thus, I feel that going into greater detail would be unproductive. This point got me thinking further about my own research program and emergence of theory in our field more broadly; I recalled Funk’s (2019) Zeigler lecture wherein he noted that “getting the idea to spread is likely more important than coming up with the original idea” (p. 1). Thus, should I be talking about $a$ theory (such as collegiate regimes) or return to talking about the emergence of theory? To address this, I turn to a model that I read about some years ago. And at the risk of more overlap with Funk’s (2019) Zeigler lecture, I would like to use this model to revisit a discussion of the emergence of theory in our field.
To start with, I am going to go outside of our field and borrow from the area of media technology. As a younger scholar (and prior to having four kids in sports), I used to read broadly across different academic disciplines. As a result, I used to scope out used bookstores frequently for interesting content. One such book I came across about 20 years ago was by Winston (1998), titled Media Technology and Society. I found this book to be a fascinating and engaging read on a number of levels. One was that he developed his own theory of technological innovation and diffusion. Another was that he borrowed from Saussurean linguistics to do so. In other words, he went outside of his discipline to create theory within his own one (sound familiar?). This approach really resonated with me as I found myself looking to established theories—that may not seem to directly link to sport management—to think about how they might apply. I think that one of the advantages that we have in our field is that, as a student, I was never told what the boundaries to sport management were, which allowed me to cast a wide net in my reading. As Chelladurai (1992) explained, one of the risks of being in sport management is that we have to become experts across a number of areas, which spreads us too thin. Personally, I could be considered guilty of this in my research. I have tried to justify this by publishing in mainstream journals in an attempt to legitimate my ideas, but I recognize this nonetheless.
I also had some practical interest in the development of new technologies. It was during the 2004–2005 National Hockey League lockout, and I was working with some player agents and a colleague, Dr. Bill Gerrard, to develop a tracking-based technology to be used in hockey. At that time, this technology was not widely used by the National Hockey League and was typically seen as a means to enhance the television viewing experience—for example, to show viewers how fast a player was skating or how hard a puck was shot. While involved in this project, I wrote a paper that used Winston’s (1998) model to argue that the approaching wave of analytics in sports would create the need (what Winston called a supervening social necessity) for such technology (Mason, 2006). As many may know, this technology exists today and is widely used in the hockey industry for analytics purposes. My paper, though, was quickly forgotten (a search of Google Scholar reveals that it has been cited a whopping nine times—eight if you exclude self-citations!). However, one thing stuck with me, which is what I want to talk about in this address—how and why do some theories in sport management emerge and become adopted while others are not, and how do we adopt existing theories to study sport management phenomena? Can Winston’s theory of communications technology diffusion be applied to the development of theory in sport management? Furthermore, I thought to myself, “What better way to summarize my career than using a relatively obscure theory from outside of the discipline to talk about something that might only be of interest to me? And after I proposed a new theory whose context is far outside my comfort zone? Perfect!”
Of all the Zeigler lectures, mine draws most from Chalip (2006) and Funk (2019). However, I hope to circle back to several others as the discussion unfolds. First, I need to provide an overview of Winston’s (1998) model. As I mentioned, he borrowed from Saussere’s work on linguistic theory to understand why some technologies are adopted and others are not; what forces created the need for some and what other forces held others back. Thus, in the following discussion, I have been inspired by Winston’s (1998) use of existing theory (that developed by Saussure) to develop a new way of examining the emergence of communications technologies and, by extension, how this can inform our understanding of theory in sport management. Although this activity has been done before both in published research and Ziegler lectures (e.g., Funk, 2019), what is driving my specific interest here is how we can use theory from elsewhere to theorize in our field and how this may possibly lead to new theorization in sport management. In doing so, I also hope that it raises new questions about the nature of research, the restrictions that we have faced, and the opportunities we have in our field.
According to Winston (1998), Saussure uses the notion of utterances as surface expressions of a mental competence. He uses this analogy to explain that, within a social sphere, communications technologies represent performances (“utterances”) by technologists of scientific competence (Winston, 1998, p. 3). Winston defines science as “acquaintance with or mastery of any department of learning” as opposed to “‘a connected body of demonstrated truths’ or ‘observable facts systematically classified’” (Winston, 1998, pp. 3–4). If we take this discussion and apply it to theory in sport management, then we can see that there is a basis of (social) scientific competence that scholars possess within our field. Winston (1998) calls this competence; I call it knowledge. Knowledge is a function of our training and experience and, historically, has represented training in business schools, kinesiology, or similar programs and, in some cases, economics, communication, or other associated departments. This has involved exposure to, and the adoption of, particular ontologies and related theories and methods. It is important to reiterate here that theory may involve those developed in parent disciplines and those developed “in-house,” so to speak.
As explained by Winston (1998), ideation represents the first transformation that moves a technology from scientific competence to the level of technical performance:
Ideation occurs when the technologist envisages the device— gets the idea, formulates the problems involved and hypothesizes a solution. Those mysterious mental forces—creativity, intuition, imagination, “the will to think”—are subsumed by ideation as are the general constraints of culture and the limits imposed by social forces of all kinds on the technologists mind. (p. 5)
In the context of technology, ideation involves the construction of devices that emerge as prototypes. In our sport management theory context, ideation occurs where a scholar recognizes a research problem or identifies an issue that needs to be better understood or problematized but for which a framework or theory does not currently exist or is not applicable in its current form. This results in the development of what I am going to broadly call a notion, which may exist as a way of understanding, problematizing, explaining, establishing relationships between constructs, or predicting a phenomenon (depending on one’s ontology). These notions may initially exist as ideas in the minds of their respective owners but emerge just as prototypes do when they are discussed with colleagues, presented at conferences, or involved in initial exploratory testing.
According to Winston (1998), there are four different kinds of prototypes or, for the purposes of our discussion, notions: rejected, accepted, parallel, and partial. As Winston (1998) explained, these prototypes are “without prejudice to the efficacy of the devices. Except for partial prototypes which simply did not work very well, the other three classes of prototype all work, more rather than less” (p. 8). In the context of theory in sport management, let us assume that notions are all relatively equal in terms of their utility to the field. In other words, they are not rejected due to any shortcomings or limitations to the notions themselves. Thus, what explains the trajectory of each notion?
Winston (1998) explained that we need to keep in mind that these prototypes take place in a particular social sphere, raising some important questions:
Why, for example, are some prototypes abandoned while others are not? Why are some devices classified as “inventions” when they did not work in significantly better ways than did other devices classified as prototypes? Why are many “inventions” created more or less simultaneously by technologists who had no contact with each other? (Winston, 1998, pp. 5–6)
By extension, why are some theories widely used in sport management while others are not? Why are some considered superior to others when their explanatory powers are comparable? Why do different theories emerge simultaneously from scholars who work independently of one another? What takes a notion and transforms it into a theory?
These questions can be explained by broader social forces that Winston (1998) describes as “supervening social necessities” (p. 6). As he argues, supervening necessities are what allow some prototypes to transform into inventions. Thus, by extension, the degree of uptake of a particular theory and its “diffusion, though, depends more on the operation of the supervening necessity transformation than on their efficiency [or, in our case, what I call utility]” (Winston, 1998, p. 8). Thus,
The rejected prototype might work just as well as the device eventually invented but will achieve no measure of diffusion because there is no externally determined reason for its development. The parallel prototype is a similar case. The initial thrust of the technology is directed towards purposes other than those which eventually emerge. (Winston, 1998, p. 8)
Returning to sport management, how often have you submitted a paper for review only to have a reviewer suggest that another, more “suitable” theory or framework be used alternatively? Or suggested a different context to employ your theory? Have you had a concept brewing for years but have struggled to find a use/ application for it in a sporting context? Have you ever found a model or theory that seems to resonate with you but only for a use in an empirical context that is completely different from that in which it is currently used?
For example, Marvin Washington, Ernie Buist, and I published a paper in the Journal of Sport Management in 2015 that examined status and status hierarchies. The paper emerged from Ernie’s master’s thesis work using newspaper framing to examine the construction of major league sports facilities. I am very proud of this paper; I would even consider it to be one of the best papers I have ever written. It is an extension of the status literature, and we inductively developed distinct, testable propositions that can be used in many organizational contexts. However, in looking at Google Scholar, it has been the context (stadiums) that has driven its subsequent use in the field, not the theorizing therein. I am grateful that it is being cited in the field, but not for the reasons I hoped for. Clearly, the field has not seen a need for this particular approach in the ways I anticipated. And although there might be things that I could do to give the paper more visibility—such as publishing it as open access or continuing to undertake more empirical research using the theory—I am not sure that these actions would give me the widespread usage that I had envisioned for the research.
If we return to Winston (1998), the explanation for this example might be apparent:
The least difficult class of supervening social necessity to discern is that occasioned by the consequences of other technological innovation. For instance, it was the railway which transformed telegraphic prototypes into the widely diffused technology. Before railways, there was no demonstrable need for such devices. Single-track systems, however, required, as an urgent matter of safety, instantaneous signals. Similarly, the radio came into its own with the development of the ironclad battleship. With these, for the first time, naval battle plans called for ships to steam out of sight of one another, thus rendering the traditional signaling methods useless. (Winston, 1998, pp. 8–9)
Does this mean that our development of theory on status and status hierarchies in organizations likely needed another theoretical framework to build off of? I am not sure whether this point is, indeed, the case, but it is plausible. Perhaps it needed to be linked to constructs and models that already resonated with scholars in the field. Maybe it needed another research context (such as understanding elite European football) or concept (such as legitimacy) to engage readers regarding the theory. Perhaps the broader issue is that the questions the theory attempts to address are not significantly important to warrant uptake by other sport management scholars. Let us consider, though, that theories are like technologies and that the need for a new theory might be precipitated by the emergence of another theory. Thus, there might not be any expressed need for a second theory until the first theory makes its need apparent. In hindsight, that work was probably too far removed from other sport management research being undertaken at the time.
In addition to inventions that are mediated by other technologies, Winston (1998) identified a second type of supervening necessity, which is a function of “a concentration of social forces working directly on the processes of innovation” (Winston, 1998, p. 9). An example of this function may be new theory that emerged due to external pressures that are a function of changes to the environment, such as the emergence or use of new theory that has attempted to explain the impact of COVID on contemporary sport organizations and processes or the impact that COVID has had on the ongoing delivery of products and services. We see this in the sport management field with the emergence of work on sustainability due to pressures to address growing concern about global warming and other environmental issues.
If we look further at the sport management field, then we can see that there are some “success stories” when it comes to contributions to the field.3 For the purposes of discussion, I would like to discuss Chalip’s (2004, 2014) model (or theory?) of event leveraging. His work has been widely cited and employed by scholars across the tourism and sport management fields. As Winston (1998) might argue, Chalip’s ideas of how stakeholders in communities can maximize the investment in event hosting came at a perfect time—starting in the early 2000s, there was a growing concern over the use of public funds to support event hosting, particularly mega events, and a greater need to justify the use of said funds, providing the requisite supervening necessity for the model. In other words, Chalip’s model checked two important boxes—it was intuitive and had utility for the field, and it also came at a time when there was a need for such a model and an appetite for its application.
Moving forward with our discussion, Winston identified a third necessity:
Strictly commercial, as opposed to these sorts of social, needs for new products and other limited marketing considerations would form a third type of necessity—less certain in guaranteeing diffusion and producing less significant innovation than either the consequences of social change or the effects of other technological advances. (Winston, 1998, p. 9)
By extension, scholars work within the confines of tenure clocks and demands to publish in specific journals (Chalip, 2006); this might encourage the use of new theory but in a safer, more acceptable/palatable manner. Thus, there is a “commercial” component to engaging in scholarly research that involves adhering to existing norms and conventions of publishing. In other words, demands to publish, and publish in a timely manner, may result in theorizing that does not push or challenge the mores of existing work in the field in the same ways that other work might.
It is important to note that, in Winston’s estimation, supervening necessities are accelerators in transforming prototypes into inventions and causing their diffusion. Furthermore, supervening necessities in the social sphere of sport management are the drivers of new concepts that are adopted and employed as theories in our field. In our case, supervening necessities may be through the adoption of theory from parent disciplines and/or the development of sport-specific theory. However, Winston (1998) notes that, just as supervening necessities create the need for inventions, within the social sphere are brakes that serve to slow their emergence. He identifies brakes as the third transformation in his model, a concentration of determining social factors that he describes as the “law” of the suppression of radical potential (Winston, 1998). An example of this might be a journal editor or reviewer who is dismissive of certain types of theories or methodologies. This example is further exacerbated in the field of sport management by the presence of what I would call context experts in addition to theoretical experts. This occurs where the reviewer understands the context that you are studying (e.g., nonprofit youth sports) but not necessarily the approach you are taking to studying the subject (such as institutional logics). The flip side is where the reviewer understands the theory but not necessarily the unique sporting context. This may result in the lack of acceptance of one’s work, which slows the diffusion of new theory. Thus, Winston argued that “understanding the interaction of the positive effects of supervening necessity and the brake of the ‘law’ of the suppression of radical potential is crucial to a proper overview of how communications technologies develop” (Winston, 1998, p. 11). In turn, I argue that theories develop in sport management under similar conflicting pressures. It is these contrary forces that make the diffusion of communications technologies take much longer to occur than one might originally think and also the diffusion of new ideas in our field. This was discussed by Funk (2019) when he noted that:
For new and emerging sport management scholars, success will not only depend on developing a new idea but also getting that idea seen and heard by other academics who will then use it in their research and teaching, as well as industry professionals putting it into practice. Whether the idea is a theory, concept, construct, or method, getting the idea to spread is likely more important than coming up with the original idea. (p. 1)
In his book, Winston (1998) meticulously describes the process whereby certain communications technologies were adopted, when, and what the supervening necessities and suppressors were. He also introduces a fourth transformation in his model:
Supervening social necessity guarantees that the “invention” will be produced. The “law” operates as a constraint on that production. This final transformation thus occasions a tripartite phase of technological performance—production, spin-offs and redundant devices or redundancies, which reflects the effects of the contradictions which are at work. (Winston, 1998, p. 13)
In examining theory in sport management, production could be considered the use of the theory in practice—scholars applying the theory to understand, explain, and/or test according to their ontological positions. Spin-offs would be where scholars find new uses for the theory or tweak and alter the theory to improve its utility. Redundancies would occur where, in the process of using the theory, it was found that other existing theories had greater utility in understanding or explaining the same phenomena. We see this when reviewers identify and suggest the use of other existing theories to examine the same contexts. Please see Figure 1 for a version of Winston’s (1998) model adopted to the sport management theory context.
Thank you for indulging me in my discussion of URT and Winston (1998). To this point, I have discussed the emergence of new theory and used Winston (1998) and Funk (2019) to better understand how and why some theories emerge in our field while others do not. I have chosen to focus on my own work to describe where this has failed, but perhaps you can see some of your own work or ideas in this discussion. I hope that you have found this useful—it is a tricky thing, these Zeigler lectures. On the one hand, I feel pressure to impart my experiences given that this award is given to more senior scholars in the field. On the other, I feel pressure to present something novel and new. However, in attempting this feat, I may have fallen into a trap. As explained by Shaw (2016) in her chapter on theory and qualitative research, “if we spend too much time debating the specialness of sport and devising new tricky ways to produce new theories, then we run the risk of chasing down false alleyways” (p. 27). Gulp. Is not this exactly what I have done here?
This realization made me further reflect on this work and on my career more generally. I found myself returning to Funk’s (2019) Zeigler lecture. I knew I was also interested in the diffusion of theory, but Dan had already deftly described this process and even showed how scholars could have agency in ensuring their ideas reached a wider audience. So what was driving my need to examine Winston (1998) in this context? It was at this point that Winston (1998) allowed me come to an important realization: Why have I been looking at the supervening necessities for theory development in our field when I should have been looking at it in terms of the suppression of radical potential? By extension, my career has been driven by a desire to find new ways to use theory (by finding the supervening necessities for them to get them used in the field). However, as I reflect now, I should have been focusing more on the barriers limiting the radical potential of others.
Figure 1 — A model of diffusion of theory in sport management. Adapted from Media, Technology and Society: A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet, by B. Winston, 1998, Routledge.
Although I have focused my discussion of suppressors, to this point, on things like scholarly gatekeeping or the presence of existing theory that has slowed the uptake of certain theories, there are much bigger issues that have been working against the emergence of new theory and the opportunities that some scholars have to make an impact on the field. These take the form of a lack of diversity (Cunningham, 2014; Jehn et al., 1999), racism (Singer, 2005), sexism (Fink, 2016), the absence of critical analysis (Frisby, 2005) or diverse or even conflicting ontological viewpoints (Newman, 2014), or even the institution of capitalism itself (Chen, 2022). Scholars have been tackling these problems over the past decades within our field; while I have been spinning my proverbial wheels discussing theory development, they have been revealing the critical concerns that are limiting the ability of others to develop their own theories and allow new theories and viewpoints to emerge. It is within these areas that I see the most fruitful and ambitious theoretical developments and where my own work has been lacking.
I have tried to stay in my lane with this address and appreciate you listening to me muddle through things with this address. Like my own research program, I have jumped around to different concepts and theories as I have tried to make sense of things. But as a scholar, I can, and must, do more. As a field, we can, and must, do more. Much of the discourse of the early Zeigler lectures expressed concerns about the field: concerns about the state of research and the quality of scholars being produced. Our concerns today need to follow more recent Zeigler lectures and be about who is able to succeed and removing the barriers that limit others from achieving the same success. I feel confident in my colleagues. As a journal editor, I get to see the quality of work and quality of reviews in our field, and it has never been stronger. New and ambitious scholars are tackling important issues in society specific to our field and beyond. If you leave with anything from this commentary, then I hope that you find, in Winston’s (1998) words, your own radical potential when it comes to theory development. I also hope that you continue to work to identify and develop the supervening necessities for others to reach theirs too.
|
Buist, A.N., & Mason, D.S. (2010). Newspaper framing and stadium subsidization. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(10), 1492–1510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210368081
Burbank, M.J., Andranovich, G.D., & Heying, C.H. (2001). Mega-events and economic Development. In M. Burbank, G.D. Andranovich, & C.H. Heying (Eds.), Olympic dreams: The impact of mega-events on local politics (pp. 33–52). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. Sport tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues, 14, 226–252.
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1123/ jsm.20.1.1
Chalip, L. (2014). From legacy to leverage. In J. Grix (Ed.), Leveraging legacies from sports mega-events: Concepts and cases (pp. 2–12). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management: Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of Sport Management, 6(3), 215–219. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jsm.6.3.215
Chen, C. (2022). Naming the ghost of capitalism in sport management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 22(5), 663–684. https://doi. org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2046123
Cunningham, G.B. (2014). Interdependence, mutuality, and collective action in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 28(1), 1–7. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0152
Cunningham, G.B., Fink, J.S., & Doherty, A. (Eds.). (2015). Routledge handbook of theory in sport management. Routledge.
Davies, J.S. (2002). Urban regime theory: A normative-empirical critique. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(1), Article 111. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-9906.00111
Dixon, M.A. (2021). Finding joy in the journey: Sustaining a meaningful career in sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 36(1), 1– 8. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2021-0243
Doherty, A. (2013a). Investing in sport management: The value of good theory. Sport Management Review, 16(1), 5–11. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.smr.2011.12.006
Doherty, A. (2013b). “It takes a village:” Interdisciplinary research for sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 27(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.27.1.1
Duquette, G.H., & Mason, D.S. (2008). Urban regimes and sport in North American cities: Seeking status through franchises, events, and facilities. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3(3), 221–241.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57–74. https://doi.org/10. 2307/258191
Elkin, S.L. (1987). City and regime in the American Republic. University of Chicago Press.
Fink, J.S. (2016). Hiding in plain sight: The embedded nature of sexism in sport. Journal of Sport Management, 30(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jsm.2015-0278
Friedman, M.T. & Mason, D.S. (2001). “Horse trading” and consensus building: Nashville, Tennessee and the relocation of the Houston Oilers. Journal of Sport History, 28, 271–291.
Friedman, M.T., & Mason, D.S. (2004). A stakeholder approach to analyzing economic development decision making: Public subsidies for professional sport facilities. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242404265795
Friedman, M.T., & Mason, D.S. (2005). Stakeholder management and the public subsidization of Nashville’s coliseum. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2166.2005. 00226.x
Begg, I. (1999). Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 795– 809. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993222
Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.19.1.1
Funk, D.C. (2019). Spreading research uncomfortably slow: Insight for emerging sport management scholars. Journal of Sport Management, 33(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0315
Howard, D.K. (1999). The changing fanscape for big-league sports: Implications for sport managers. Journal of Sport Management, 13(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.13.1.78
Imbroscio, D.L. (1997). Reconstructing city politics: Alternative economic development and urban regimes. SAGE.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G.B., & Neale, M.A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
Judd, D.R. (1999). Constructing the tourist bubble. In D.R. Judd & S.S. Fainstein (Eds.), The tourist city (pp. 35–53). Yale University Press.
Keating, W.D. (1997). Cleveland: The “comeback” city—The politics of redevelopment and sports stadiums amidst urban decline. In M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 189–205). SAGE.
Lambelet, S. (2019). Filling in the resource gap of urban regime analysis to make it travel in time and space. Urban Affairs Review, 55(5), 1402– 1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417740974
Mahony, D.F. (2008). No one can whistle a symphony: Working together for sport management’s future. Journal of Sport Management, 22(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.22.1.1
Mason, D.S. (1997a). Professional sports facilities in developing urban communities: Vancouver’s Recreation Park, 1905-1912. Urban History Review, 26(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.7202/1016664ar
Mason, D.S. (1997b). Revenue sharing and agency problems in professional team sport: The case of the National Football League. Journal of Sport Management, 11(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm. 11.3.203
Mason, D.S. (2006). Moneyball as a supervening necessity for the adoption of player tracking technology in professional hockey. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 8(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-01-2006-B007
Mason, D.S., & Slack, T. (1997). Appropriate opportunism or bad business practice? Stakeholder theory, ethics, and the franchise relocation issue. Marquette Sports Law Journal, 7, 399–426.
Mason, D.S., & Slack, T. (2001a). Evaluating monitoring mechanisms as a solution to opportunism by professional hockey agents. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.15.2.107
Mason, D.S., & Slack, T. (2001b). Industry factors and the changing dynamics of the player-agent relationship in professional hockey. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 165–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1441-3523(01)70074-5
Mason, D.S., & Slack, T. (2003). Understanding principal-agent relationships: Evidence from professional hockey. Journal of Sport Management, 17(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.17.1.37
Mason, D.S., & Slack, T. (2005). Agency theory and the study of sport organizations. Sport in Society, 8(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1743043052000316614
Mason, D.S., Thibault, L., & Misener, L. (2006). An agency theory perspective on corruption in sport: The case of the International Olympic Committee. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.20.1.52
Mason, D.S., Washington, M., & Buist, E.A.N. (2015). Signaling status through stadiums: The discourses of comparison within a hierarchy. Journal of Sport Management, 29(5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jsm.2014-0156
Misener, L., & Mason, D.S. (2008). Urban regimes and the sporting events agenda: A cross-national comparison of civic development strategies. Journal of Sport Management, 22(5), 603–627. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jsm.22.5.603
Misener, L., & Mason, D.S. (2009). Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: An examination of urban regime perceptions. Journal of Sport Management, 23(6), 770–794. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jsm.23.6.770
Mossberger, K., & Stoker, G. (2001). The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization. Urban Affairs Review, 36(6), 810–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780870122185109
Newman, J.I. (2014). Sport without management. Journal of Sport Management, 28(6), 603–615. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2012-0159
Painter, J. (1997). Regulation, regime, and practice in urban politics. In M. Lauria (Ed.), Reconstructing urban regime theory: Regulating urban politics in a global economy (pp. 122–143). SAGE.
Perry, D.C. (2003). Urban tourism and the privatizing discourses of public infrastructure. In D.R. Judd (Ed.), The infrastructure of play (pp. 19– 49). M.E. Sharpe.
Pierre, J. (2014). Can urban regimes travel in time and space? Urban regime theory, urban governance theory, and comparative urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 50(6), 864–889. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1078087413518175
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A defining moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi. org/10.1123/jsm.15.1.1
Rast, J. (2015). Urban regime theory and the problem of change. Urban Affairs Review, 51(1), 138–149.
Robinson, J. (2016). Comparative urbanism: New geographies and cultures of theorizing the urban. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(1), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12273
Rosentraub, M.S. (1999). Major league losers: The real cost of sports and who’s paying for it. Basic Books.
Russo, A.P., & Scarnato, A. (2018). “Barcelona in common”: A new urban regime for the 21st-century tourist city? Journal of Urban Affairs, 40(4), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1373023
Sant, S.L., Mason, D.S., & Chen, C. (2019). ‘Second-tier outpost’? Negative civic image and urban infrastructure development in cities. Cities, 87, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.10.006
Sant, S.L., Misener, L., & Mason, D.S. (2019). Leveraging sport events for tourism gain in host cities: A regime perspective. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 23(4), 203–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14775085.2019. 1711444
Santos, J.M.S., & García, P.C. (2011). A bibliometric analysis of sports economics research. International Journal of Sport Finance, 6(3), 222–244.
Shaw, S. (2016). Importance of theory in qualitative enquiry. In G.B. Cunningham, J.S. Fink, & A. Doherty (Eds.), Routledge handbook of theory in sport management (pp. 21–29). Routledge.
Singer, J.N. (2005). Addressing epistemological racism in sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19(4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.19.4.464
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to the board room: Changing the domain of sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.10.1.97
Smith, A. (2005). Reimaging the city: The value of sport initiatives. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(1), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2004.07.007
Soebbing, B.P., Mason, D.S., & Humphreys, B.R. (2016). Novelty effects and sports facilities in smaller cities: Evidence from Canadian hockey arenas. Urban Studies, 53(8), 1674–1690. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098015576862
Stone, C.N. (1989). Regime politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. University Press of Kansas.
Stone, C.N. (2002). The Atlanta experience re-examined: The link between agenda and regime change. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00295
Thibault, L. (2009). Globalization of sport: An inconvenient truth. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1123/ jsm.23.1.1
Washington, M., & Patterson, K.D. (2011). Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connections between institutional theory and sport management research. Sport Management Review, 14(1), Article 3. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.06.003
Wicker, P., Whitehead, J.C., Mason, D.S., & Johnson, B.K. (2017). Support for hosting the Olympic summer games in Germany: The CVM approach. Urban Studies, 54(15), 3597–3614. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0042098016675085
Winston, B. (1998). Media, technology and society: A history: From the telegraph to the Internet. Routledge.
Wood, A. (1996). Analysing the politics of local economic development: Making sense of cross-national convergence. Urban Studies, 33(8), 1281–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098966655
Xue, H., & Mason, D.S. (2017). Sporting events, urban regimes, and community development: A case study of Nanjing, China. Managing Sport and Leisure, 22(4), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/2375 0472.2018.1470901
Zhang, J.J. (2015). What to study? That is a question: A conscious thought analysis. Journal of Sport Management, 29(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/ 10.1123/JSM.2014-0163
|
I would like to thank Brian Soebbing for reading a previous version of this paper and Marvin Washington for introducing me at the Zeigler address.
|
1. I believe that I am one of the world’s few qualitative economists! See Santos and Garcia (2011).
2. Please see Doherty’s (2013a) discussion of these points.
3. Please see Dan Funk’s (2019) Zeigler lecture for an in-depth examination.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.