Search Results

Institutional theory has generated considerable insight into fundamental issues within sport. This study seeks to advance Washington and Patterson’s review by providing an empirical review of institutional theory in sport. We follow Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review protocol to identify 188 sport-related institutional studies between 1979 and 2019. Our review provides evidence regarding the state of institutional scholarship within sport via an analysis of authorship, year, journal, methodology, method, study population, and use of institutional constructs (legitimacy, isomorphism, change, logics, fields, and work). Rather than a hostile takeover or a joint venture proposed in Washington and Patterson’s review, the relationship between fields is more aptly described as a diffusion of ideas. By developing an empirical review of institutional studies in sport, we hope to expedite the diffusion of ideas between the two fields and work toward realizing the collective benefits any future joint venture may bring.

A central issue within sport management is the extent to which the field should develop a distinctive theoretical knowledge base. This paper empirically investigates the connectedness within (intrafield) and between (interfield) management and sport management disciplines in one specific knowledge domain—institutional theory. We utilized a database of 188 sport-related institutional studies and conducted a citation network analysis of the aggregated reference lists from these articles. We argue that the fields of management and sport management act like “ships in the night.” That is, as the field of sport management has become more distinctive, the field is becoming less connected with general management literature and contemporary theoretical discussions. Potential implications for sport management scholarship and understanding the nature of the field are discussed, along with how it may be possible (if desired) to bridge the gap between sport and management research.