The decline in federal research grant funding and incentive-based budget models to support a university’s mission has necessitated a paradigm shift in the pursuit of available sources of funding. Programs built around federal funding are once again pursuing funding opportunities from industry. Universities are reevaluating their research funding models and career expectations (tenure, promotion) that support a researcher, laboratories, and a defined research agenda. Kinesiology departments are in a strong position to pursue industry funding for fitness, sports, and performance-related research. While grant funding focuses on empirical data-driven research, industry looks for product exposure, validation (empirical data to support claims), and commercialization. Industry partnerships can provide funding in supporting research, developing sponsor-named facilities that benefit both parties. With these cooperative efforts come some unique challenges (financial, proprietary, data interpretation, etc.) that must be addressed.
David D. Pascoe and Timothy E. Moore
Glynn M. McGehee, Armin A. Marquez, Beth A. Cianfrone and Timothy Kellison
Urban Community Development Impact, Maintaining the Stadium Legacy, Promoting Public–Private Partnerships, Explaining Capital Project Funding Sources, Understanding Effects on Transit, and Unclassified. Comments by the public that did not fit into a theme were labeled Unclassified. Figure 1 —Development
Karen E. Danylchuk and Joanne MacLean
As the new millennium begins, we find intercollegiate sport in Canadian universities at a crossroads. Although the Canadian Interuniversity Athletic Union (CIAU), the governing body for university sport in Canada, has a history of recurring issues and challenges, further change is imminent. This paper provides the perspective of two Canadian intercollegiate athletic administrators and sport management academicians on the future of intercollegiate sport in Canada by focusing on five major areas of concern: (a) diversity, (b) governance, (c) funding of athletics, (d) the role and value of athletics, and (e) the changing environmental context of the university. The authors conclude that university sport in Canada will remain embedded within the non-profit, amateur fabric of the Canadian sporting milieu characterized by a participant rather than spectator focus, men's sport domination, decreased funding sources, and pressures to justify its role and value within a rapidly changing environment. The diversity evident throughout the CIAU will continue to have a compelling impact on the organization.
Alison J. Armstrong-Doherty
Organizational autonomy of the interuniversity athletic department, university responsibility for athletics, and pressure from nonuniversity individuals, groups, and organizations are all concerns related to the department's dependence on various sources in its environment for financial support. The Emerson (1962) power-dependence theory of social exchange relations, and its adaptation to the study of organization-environment relations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Thompson, 1967), guided an examination of funding and control in Canadian university athletics. This study examined whether athletic departments are perceived to be controlled by the funding sources in their environment according to their relative resource dependence upon those sources. Financial resource dependence and perceived control data were obtained from athletic directors (ADs) at 34 Canadian universities. Significant Spearman rank order correlations reveal the resource dependence-based perceived control of the university central administration, corporate sponsors, and provincial/federal sport organizations and ministries (p < .05). Of these, however, only central administration was perceived to have considerable control over the departments. Nevertheless, ADs should be aware of the resource dependence-based control potential of these other sources.
Simon C. Darnell, Richard Giulianotti, P. David Howe and Holly Collison
development goals; the structures (funding sources, organizations, policies) of SDP activity; and the effects (broadly defined and interpreted) of such efforts. Four organizations based in Kingston constituted the bulk of the research focus. We made initial contact with these organizations through
Per G. Svensson, Fredrik O. Andersson and Lewis Faulk
.25 0.00 4.84 Primary funding sources Foundation grants 165 0.49 0.00 1.00 Government/intergovernment funding 165 0.38 0.00 1.00 Funding from another NGO 165 0.30 0.00 1.00 Individual donors 165 0.58 0.00 1.00 Earned revenue/fees 165 0.23 0.00 1.00 Association membership
Gareth J. Jones, Christine E. Wegner, Kyle S. Bunds, Michael B. Edwards and Jason N. Bocarro
subsidies, external grants, and in-kind donations to nonprofit organizations, and increased the competition between CSOs over existing funding sources ( Chikoto & Neely, 2014 ). To understand how these unique environmental characteristics influence SL, this case study utilizes Hitt et al.’s ( 2007
Alison Doherty and Graham Cuskelly
-to-date operations manual about how things are done in the club. .71 0.50 (.19) 0.07 Finance: Alternative sources 0.031 (.86) 1.000 .00 [.00, .08] The club uses a variety of funding sources. .78 0.62 (.11) 0.63 A variety of sources of funding are available to our club. .93 0.87 (.06) 0.87 Our club has access
Gareth J. Jones, Katie Misener, Per G. Svensson, Elizabeth Taylor and Moonsup Hyun
. In addition, many organizations also target the same philanthropic donors and granting agencies to supplement user fees. As Arya and Lin ( 2007 ) indicated, this funding source similarity “creates incentives for partnering organizations to act as resource competitors rather than resource complements
Anna Gerke and Yan Dalla Pria
take the role of an advisor to direct firms with research projects, but insufficient funds toward potential funding sources or research partners. As an employee from a university who acts as a bridge between industry and research explains: Universities have to justify more and more the industrial