This paper is a synthesis of results from five separate studies examining how recent structural and philosophical changes in women’s intercollegiate sport programs may have altered the sport experience of female athletes. Based on both questionnaire and interview data, it was apparent that athletes participating in sport programs characterized by the greatest change (e.g., post-Title IX programs, programs of the 1980s, product-oriented sport models, and Division I programs of recent years) shared somewhat common experiences — with the presence of conflict being one of the most pervasive themes. Four types of conflict were identified: (a) value alienation, (b) role strain, (c) role conflict, and (d) exploitation. Each of these types of conflict is discussed and examples to substantiate the presence of each form of conflict are presented. Based upon the findings, it is suggested that the changing context and emphases of college sport may have exposed female athletes to different sets of circumstances, expectations, and experiences, thus altering the nature of the sport experience and bringing into question the educational legitimacy of college sport.
Elaine M. Blinde and Susan L. Greendorfer
Mallory Mann and Vikki Krane
-accepted masculine, heterosexual male, and feminine, heterosexual female. Because gender and sexuality often are conflated in sport, it is presumed that feminine females are heterosexual and masculine females are lesbian. Female masculinity often confers marginalized status in U.S. college sport, whereas feminine
Vicki D. Schull and Lisa A. Kihl
coaches. Thus, we argue that exploring female college athletes’ constructions of leadership in the context of college sport and the gendered assumptions, beliefs, and ideologies associated with coach leadership may provide nuanced understandings of women’ underrepresentation in sport leadership and
Gashaw Abeza, Norm O’Reilly, Kyle Kashuck, Joshua Law and Alexandra Speck
-related marketing initiatives. College Sport and Reasons for Fans’ Declining Stadium Attendance Arguably, the highest level of college football is the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), which consists of 128 schools ( NCAA, 2015a ). While the majority of FBS teams’ stadia are amongst the largest in
Internet-based sport communication mediums represent a crucial area of scholarly inquiry for the field. The continuing growth in popularity of blogs, message boards, and other Internet-specific types of sport communication presents sport communication scholars with a plethora of avenues for research. This commentary examines one such avenue, through a survey administered to users on 14 college sport message boards. Survey results indicated that message-board users were primarily male (87.8%) and White (90.8%) and possessed at least an undergraduate degree (76.0%). In addition, 42.2% of users reported a household income of $100,000 or more per year. The analysis of the resulting demographic and usage data highlights some of the key aspects of this sample of users, including information relating to race, gender, income, education level, and salience of message-board use by both subscribers and nonsubscribers. These and other factors are presented as potential areas of future scholarly inquiry for sport communication researchers.
Robert Turick, Anthony Weems, Nicholas Swim, Trevor Bopp and John N. Singer
“Fraternal Twins” to approach college sport issues in need of reform, as “both focus squarely on the interrogation of race, racism, and White supremacy in American social institutions” (p. 12). While CRT and SRT as analytic tools were born out of two distinct academic disciplines (i.e., critical legal
Grace Yan, Ann Pegoraro and Nicholas M. Watanabe
-athletes constitute the predominant majority of athletes in revenue sport programs, any unequal treatment is most severely endured by this social group ( Staurowsky et al., 2015 ). In particular, racial inequality is at the heart of the exploitative revenue and labor system of college sport ( Hawkins, 1999 ). To be
Pete Van Mullem and Chris Croft
implementation of trained coach developers is a long-term approach to coach development that operates against the short-term outcome-driven mindset of college sport, the formal training of those serving as coach developers (i.e., head coach or athletic administrators), or the hiring of an external coach