This is an era in which academic units in higher education are expected to do more with less. State- and institutionally-appropriated funding streams are generally decreasing or stagnant. Federal grant funding is at its lowest level in years, and unlikely to rebound anytime soon. Institutions are restricting tuition increases to allow greater accessibility to students of limited means as well as to heed public demand for more accountability in the “educational product”. Enrollment growth adds pressure to academic units but rarely results in immediate resources directed to the affected units. To compound this problem, kinesiology is one of the fastest growing majors nationwide. With such mounting pressures on academic units and their leaders, creative entrepreneurial resourcefulness is not only rewarded, but required. This paper presents a series of successful and practical resource-generating strategies from the unique perspectives of units at several different institutions.
Scott E. Gordon, John B. Bartholomew, Richard B. Kreider, Ronald F. Zernicke, and Mary E. Rudisill
Richard B. Kreider and Penny McCullagh
Jason R. Carter, Penny McCullagh, and Rick Kreider
Over the past decade, institutions of higher education have been forced to become more innovative and entrepreneurial, seeking creative solutions to budget challenges. This has been particularly important within kinesiology programs, which represent one of the largest growing sectors of higher education over the past 10–15 years. In preparation for the 2016 American Kinesiology Association (AKA) Leadership Workshop, a survey was administered by the AKA to capture key institutional classifications (i.e., Carnegie classification, institutional size, public vs. private designation) and department chair or designated administrator perceptions on entrepreneurial issues relevant to their unit. Sixty-eight of 881 units surveyed responded, yielding a response rate of 7.7%. The majority of respondents (67%) indicated a unit funding model that was based on the previous year’s level (i.e., historical budget model). While the majority of respondents reported that their unit is provided with “adequate to plentiful” resources (59%), this varied widely based on institutional classification. Specifically, baccalaureate institutions (Chi-square 18.054, p < .001) and institutions with < 5,000 students (Chi-square 10.433, p & .015) had the least favorable perceptions of unit resource allocation. For the majority of entrepreneurial activities and partnerships (5 of 8 targeted questions), ≥ 50% of the respondents reported “no involvement.” There was a significant mismatch between actual vs. expected time spent by the department chair on fundraising activities (Chi-square 4.627, p = .031), with higher expectations than actual time spent on fundraising. In summary, the AKA survey suggests that there is tremendous heterogeneity in perceptions of and participation in entrepreneurial activities within kinesiology, and that there remains strategic areas of opportunity within the field.
Jason R. Carter, Nancy I. Williams, and Wojtek J. Chodzko-Zajko
Building departmental visibility and support is essential to the success of any kinesiology unit. This paper provides an overview of different strategies taken by three American Kinesiology Association member departments to advance their respective units. Each program was faced with unique institutional goals and structures, yet each institutional example highlights the shared theme of building strategic partnerships and cultivating a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Common strategies across the three institutions included a genuine understanding of university priorities and politics, chair and faculty leadership, strong internal and external communication, a willingness to lead and think creatively, and maintaining a focus on academic and educational excellence.
Jason R. Carter and Nancy Williams
://www.americankinesiology.org/SubPages/Pages/About ). Recent topics have included promoting high-quality undergraduate programs ( Templin, Carter, & Graber, 2018 ), advantages and challenges of partnerships ( Templin, 2017 ), innovation and entrepreneurship in kinesiology ( Carter, McCullagh, & Kreider, 2016 ), and the intersection of physical activity and
Alan L. Smith, Karl Erickson, and Leapetswe Malete
.4324/9781410612748 Malete , L. , McCole , D. , Tshube , T. , Ocansey , R. , Mphela , T. , Machuve , J. , Adamba , C. , & Maro , C. ( 2019 ). Effects of a multiport-sport PYD intervention program on life skills and entrepreneurship in youth athletes . Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 41, S77
George B. Cunningham, Janet S. Fink, and James J. Zhang
Svensson et al. ( 2018 ) Sport for development and peace Bjarsholm ( 2017 ) Social entrepreneurship Svensson and Seifried ( 2017 ) Sport for development and peace Yan et al. ( 2018 ) Athlete activism Jensen and Cornwell ( 2017 ) Sport sponsorship Sport Management Review (Australia) Geurin
Jeffrey J. Martin
.R. , McCullagh , P. , & Kreider , R. ( 2016 ). Innovation and entrepreneurship in kinesiology: Survey results from the 2016 AKA Workshop . Kinesiology Review, 5 ( 4 ), 205 – 214 . doi:10.1123/kr.2016-0017 10.1123/kr.2016-0017 Chambers , C. ( 2017 ). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto
Garcia Ashdown-Franks, Angela Meadows, and Eva Pila
-020-01139-9 Cutcliffe , J.R. ( 2003 ). Reconsidering reflexivity: Introducing the case for intellectual entrepreneurship . Qualitative Health Research, 13 ( 1 ), 136 – 148 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302239416 10.1177/1049732302239416 Dickins , M. , Thomas , S.L. , King , B. , Lewis , S