Doctoral programs in the United States provide students with an environment to actively participate in knowledge creation through a comprehensive understanding of their chosen field of study (Frick et al., 2016). The doctoral journey predominately utilizes an apprenticeship model with faculty members and depends upon the relationship networks within the doctoral student’s university (Motshoane & McKenna, 2014). Doctoral education in the field of sport management is no different and relies heavily upon the student’s interaction with and guidance from faculty (Jisha & Pitts, 2004).
Sport management academic departments, like the majority of sectors of sport, are male-dominated (Jones et al., 2008). Barnhill et al. (2018) found the majority of sport management students in their study to be White, middle-class males. With a specific focus upon doctoral programs, the demographic data reveal that approximately 60%–70% of the sport management doctoral student population in the United States is male (Grappendorf & Morin, 2005; Guerin-Eagleman & McNary, 2014; Jisha & Pitts, 2004). In addition, Guerin-Eagleman and McNary (2014) found the percentage of male doctoral students with graduate assistantships (91.8%) is much higher than the percentage of female doctoral students with graduate assistantships (75.0%). The aforementioned statistics are cause for concern, specifically considering research highlighting the skill mismatch of women graduating with sport management degrees and requirements of the sport sector (Leberman & Shaw, 2015). Research shows that there is a disconnect between the preparation provided by sport management programs and the skills required for women to be leaders in sport, which causes women to leave the sector more frequently than men (Leberman & Shaw, 2015). Coupled with research showing sport management students’ preference for male faculty over female faculty (Sosa & Sagas, 2008), women are at a distinct disadvantage in the sport management faculty job market.
While research reports improvements in the treatment of women in academia (Monroe et al., 2008), rates of sexual discrimination and harassment in the academic workplace are still substantial (De Welde & Laursen, 2011; Jagst et al., 2016). Despite an overall reduction in reported experiences with blatant gender discrimination, women continue to report subtle and ambiguous prejudices, or gender microaggressions, based on their gender (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). A legacy of male chauvinism, either subconscious or preconscious, persists in academia, as male faculty often do not realize their remarks or behavior are patronizing or sexist (Monroe et al., 2008). The prevalence of sexual discrimination, harassment, and gender microaggressions often results in an erosion of women’s commitment to careers in male-dominated industries (Hall & Gettings, 2020). Female sport management faculty report feeling treated differently because of their gender and face incivility in the classroom (Taylor et al., 2017).
Research supports that the most difficult academic transition for women’s retention in academia occurs after completion of the doctorate degree (Shaw & Stanton, 2012). While sport management doctoral students are completing their degree, they are often also teaching, researching, and working in the industry while fulfilling their degree requirements. Along with these roles, sport management doctoral students can be placed into a unique environment of sex discrimination, as research reports that such environments exist in the classroom (Barthelemy et al., 2016), as well as the academic workplace (De Welde & Laursen, 2011; Jagst et al., 2016). Rosenthal et al. (2016) surveyed graduate students across an array of academic disciplines, and female students reported experiencing higher rates of sexual harassment from both fellow students and faculty than male graduate students across all disciplines. Taylor et al. (2018) found that 14 of 14 female sport management faculty members in a study reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment or sexism during their time as a graduate student or faculty member. It is evident sexual harassment and sexism are present in the academic environment, and it is important to explore experiences of those affected in sport management programs to better understand the issues and push for change in the future.
Limited research has evaluated perceptions of sex discrimination in doctoral programs (Rosenthal et al., 2016), and no known studies have evaluated sport management doctoral programs specifically. Given the current landscape of American culture and the decline of blatant expressions of sexism and sexual discrimination in the American workplace (Basford et al., 2014), it is perhaps more effective to examine the perceptions of gender microaggressions in the sport management doctoral program workplace. It is also necessary to evaluate the experiences of doctoral students in sport management, as this population is preparing to represent the future of sport management academia. Better insight into their experiences has the potential to aid in improving the environment of doctoral programs to enhance the development and retention of women faculty in the field, as 34% of the membership of the North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), the professional organization for sport management faculty, identify as female (North American Society for Sport Management, 2017). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the differences in the experiences of gender microaggressions and stereotype threat by gender in sport management doctoral students.
Literature Review
Doctoral Programs and the Student Experience
Although sport management as an academic discipline and field of study is comparatively new, sport management education is a fast-growing area (Brown et al., 2016; Pitts, 2001; Spahr & Wiegand, 2012). There are currently 38 sport management doctoral programs in the United States (NASSM, 2021), an increase from 13 identified by NASSM in 2003 (Grappendorf & Morin, 2005), a growth of 277% in the last 17 years. Guerin-Eagleman and McNary (2014) reported that a strong majority (82.7%) of 81 surveyed sport management doctoral students were full time and the majority of doctoral students (85.1%) held assistantship positions at their respective universities. This unique academic setting of full-time students allows and encourages integration into academic departments and the development of scholarly skills (Ampaw & Jaeger, 2012), as full-time doctoral students often rely heavily upon their relationships with peers and faculty to succeed (Ellis, 2001).
The issue of sex discrimination is of particular concern, especially in the traditionally masculine academic environment of sport management (van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). In the academic setting, women in male-dominated academic departments have higher chances of experiencing gender harassment than women in balanced or female-dominated academic departments (Kabat-Farr & Cortina, 2013). In contrasting, being in the minority does not have the same effect for men in academia, but inversely, underrepresentation of men in an academic department actually lowers the chances of men experiencing gender harassment (Kabat-Farr & Cortina, 2013).
Male doctoral students appear to have less concern about the classroom environment than female doctoral students (Ellis, 2001). As such, women report feeling the need to do more to succeed than their male counterparts, often feeling the burden of responsibility for the hegemonically masculine institutional culture (Monroe et al., 2008). Doctoral students experiencing the power of patriarchy in their academic experience report feelings of alienation, emotional detachment, and professional rejection (Rapp, 2001).
Potentially fueling this hegemonically masculine institutional culture is the skewed gender ratio of students enrolled in sport management doctoral programs. Most notably, the make-up of students receiving financial support via graduate assistantships suggests that more male doctoral students are receiving institutional financial support to fund their studies. Guerin-Eagleman and McNary (2014) found that the percentage of male doctoral students in sport management with assistantships (91.8%) is much higher than the percentage of female doctoral students with assistantships (75.0%). This discrepancy in percentages may have an impact on female doctoral students’ ability to succeed academically, as graduate assistantships come with benefits like tuition waivers, health insurance, and other work-related benefits (Gittings et al., 2018). The financial strains associated with the pursuit of a doctoral degree are shown to have a significant impact on the student experience (Thomas, 2002), and graduate assistantships provide financial relief.
Socialization is integral to the success of the doctoral student, as the process allows the newcomer to be accepted into the academic community while simultaneously socializing into the graduate student experience (Austin, 2002; Reich & Reich, 2006). Socialization is an ongoing process through the individual’s academic career and provides the student with the academic knowledge, pedagogical training, and skills in research necessary for success in the role as a future faculty member (Russell et al., 2016). Despite the need for socialization experiences in doctoral programs, women report alienating cultures, low faculty mentor support, and unfriendly environments among other doctoral students (Cabay et al., 2018). There have been improvements made over the past three decades both socially and professionally for women in academia; however, many women still lack encouragement and are not provided the professional social environment necessary to find success in leadership roles (Rochon et al., 2016).
Gender Microaggressions and Sex Discrimination in Academia
Microaggressions are defined as brief, subtle, often unintentional, everyday interactions and exchanges that send belittling and disparaging messages to an individual based on group membership (Sue, 2010). Such groups can include minority memberships and identity markers based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, among others (Barthelemy et al., 2016). Gender microaggressions, specifically, typically reference social or cultural differences rather than biological differences (Young et al., 2014). Gender microaggressions can sometimes be presented in a considerate or helping manner and present attitudes that reflect benevolent sexism (Cabay et al., 2018). In addition, women in the workplace tend to detect more gender microaggressions than men, particularly when such instances are subtle and covert in nature (Basford et al., 2014). Although gender microaggressions are often covert and expressed as unintentional forms of sex discrimination (Lewis, 2018), women are faced with evaluating the intention of the action or message, and gender microaggressions are found to negatively affect a woman’s performance and quality of life (Sue, 2010).
When comparing microaggressions to overt and hostile sexism and sex discrimination, microaggressions are often more difficult to identify, isolate, and confront (Barthelemy et al., 2016). Basford et al. (2014) found women to be significantly more likely to perceive workplace gender microaggressions than men. In another study, women reported one to two experiences with sexism per week, ranging from traditional gender role stereotypes to demeaning or derogatory comments to sexual objectification (Swim & Campbell, 2003). Similarly, Nadal and Haynes (2011) presented three categories within which gender microaggressions can exist, including gender microassaults, gender microinsults, and gender microinvalidations. Microassaults are overt and blatant, whereas microinsults are often presented unintentionally and convey negative messages about women, and microinvalidations are also unintentional, but negate a woman’s thoughts or feelings (Nadal & Haynes, 2011). In congruence with prior research on gender microaggressions (see Barthelemy et al., 2016; Sue, 2010), narratives fall into seven subthemes: (a) sexual objectification, (b) second-class citizenship, (c) sexist language and assumptions of inferiority, (d) restrictive gender roles, (e) denial of reality of sexism, (f) invisibility, and (g) sexist jokes. In the context of the aforementioned categories, microaggressions include both direct and indirect incidents and cultural expectations.
Microaggressions can lead to negative emotions and mental health problems, and can evolve into an acceptance of microaggressions as part of daily life (Nadal & Haynes, 2011). The experiences women have with sexism and gender microaggressions can negatively impact social and personal development, leading women to develop low self-esteem (Nadal & Haynes, 2011). This is of major concern, as sport management doctoral programs are dominated by men throughout the United States (Barnhill et al., 2018). Gender microaggressions, although subtle and covert in nature, can highlight the negative stereotypes and the assumption of inferiority women often face in sport (Kaskan & Ho, 2016).
Treatment discrimination refers to job-related limitations and invalid differential treatments of subgroup members (Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Such discrimination often results in slower promotion rates, the assignment of less appealing and/or challenging job tasks, lower and/or less frequent salary increases or raises, and fewer opportunities for training and development (Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Sex discrimination, therefore, exists with respect to treatment discrimination in the workplace, particularly when the workplace is male dominated (Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Sex discrimination is systemic, and although the number of women in the workforce has increased, women still report their tasks and skills are devalued in the workplace (Newman, 2014). Women who experience sex discrimination also report experiencing job dissatisfaction which leads to an increase in turnover intention (Kim et al., 2016).
Women are more frequently the targets of sex discrimination than men, leading women to have greater sensitivity to gender microaggressions (Basford et al., 2014). Sex-based harassment and discrimination is typically male perpetrated (Kabat-Farr & Cortina, 2013), and sex discrimination can occur on both the organizational and individual level and can impact work experiences, job satisfaction, and the retention of employees (Kim et al., 2016). Not only does sexual harassment and sex discrimination make women feel uncomfortable in the workplace, they too precipitate the breakdown of crucial work relationships and present barriers to work privileges (Moyer et al., 1999).
Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (2019) indicate that the presence of women in academia decreases dramatically and disproportionately when compared with men at each ascending step of academia. In 2018, 56% of instructor positions across the United States were filled by women, followed by 52% of assistant professor positions, 46% of associate professor positions, and 33% of full professors (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Women report feeling a sense of responsibility in academia to change in order to fit into the man’s world (Monroe et al., 2008). In addition, women report negative repercussions if they push for change, as change can threaten male coworkers and colleagues (Monroe et al., 2008). Female faculty have also reported an increase in reported marginalization as they moved up the ladder, as tenured female faculty reported feeling invisible and excluded from promotions to positions of departmental power (MIT, 1999).
Student perspectives of faculty differ by gender. Students exhibit gender bias by evaluating male faculty higher than female faculty (Hoorens et al., 2020). Research suggests students present favoritism of male faculty over equally qualified female faculty to teach sport management courses (Sosa & Sagas, 2008). In addition, research supports course evaluation bias, judging female faculty more closely than male faculty (Bennett, 1982). Students rate male-identified teachers higher than female-identified teachers (MacNell et al., 2015), a cause for alarm given the weight placed upon teaching evaluations on promotion and tenure, or in the case of a doctoral student, which courses are awarded to them in the future.
It is critical to the success of the student to prepare them with the navigation tools necessary for the realities of the postgraduation work force (Leberman & Shaw, 2015). Female sport management faculty have shown significantly lower overall job satisfaction than their male counterparts (Stokowski et al., 2018). Women report being pigeon-holed in lines of research and devalued for accomplishments, often discouraged by a lack of professional support (Rapp, 2001). In addition, women’s accomplishments in service or teaching are often dismissed by male colleagues (Monroe et al., 2008). Women faculty also often spend more time on less institutionally recognized forms of service than male faculty (Babcock et al., 2017). Research has brought to light the many underlying psychological factors involved in occupational sex discrimination (Terborg & Ilgen, 1975). Every female sport management faculty participant in the Taylor et al. (2018) study reported experiencing some type of sexual harassment or sexism during their time as a graduate student or faculty member. A study by Ellis (2001) reported female doctoral students feeling as though they would be afforded better opportunities if they could be part of the “good ole boy” network.
A 2014 report on job announcements in sport management academia indicated the most frequently requested area of expertise to be sport finance (Guerin-Eagleman & McNary, 2014). Gender microaggressions that lead to the assumption of female sport management faculty being inferior in the discipline of sport finance could impact opportunities to teach courses that may be useful in the job application process. For instance, if female doctoral students are not provided opportunities to collaborate on sport finance research or teach sport finance, they may not apply to job announcements requesting finance experience. Research suggests women only apply to positions if they match 100% of the criteria, compared with men applying if they match 60% of the criteria (Desvaux et al., 2008). In addition, women are underrepresented in sport management faculty and experience difficulty obtaining positive perceptions from students (Sosa & Sagas, 2008).
As there are fewer female PhD students with graduate assistantships than male PhD students (Guerin-Eagleman & McNary, 2014), female PhD students have less opportunity to teach during their graduate studies. When women do teach, they are often segregated by gender into classroom environments linked to feelings rather than hard, abstract, math-based subjects (Ecklund et al., 2012). Such feelings-based classes less often match job descriptions for sport management positions (Guerin-Eagleman & McNary, 2014). Although there are other opportunities to garner teaching experience, like adjunct teaching and providing teaching assistance, female sport management doctoral students have less opportunity to be assigned courses to prepare them appropriately for the job market. A lack in female representation in the sport management classroom is compounded by the patriarchal and masculine characteristics of the sport management course system structure that ignores relevance to inclusion and gender diversity (Moore & Huberty, 2014).
Although it is not as blatant as it was in the past, women are now experiencing more covert sexual discrimination (Basford et al., 2014). Until fairly recently in American history, sex discrimination was an overt practice and basic social norm in the United States, particularly in the labor force (Danzinger & Katz, 1996). Although such deliberate acts of sexism have seemingly decreased as a whole in American society, potentially due to increased legislation regarding sexual harassment and sexism in the workplace, such ideals continue to exist in the form of gender microaggressions (Sue, 2010).
Stereotype Threat in Academia
Stereotype threat is defined by Schmader (2002) as “a psychological predicament in which individuals are inhibited from performing to their potential by the recognition that possible failure could confirm a negative stereotype that applies to their in-group and, by extension, to themselves” (p. 194). Stereotype threat involves the feeling when a person is likely to confirm negative stereotypes in the eyes of others and has been shown to influence performance (Schmader, 2002). Particularly, stereotype threat has limited women’s performance in male-dominated areas of academia (Steele et al., 2002). The more an individual identifies with their domain, the more debilitating the stereotype threat (Steele, 1997). Schmader found women to show poorer performance than men on stereotype-relevant tasks when their social identity affected the performance.
Categories like age, gender, sexual orientation, and level of education, among other organizational affiliations, identify individuals, both to themselves and to others (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Such categories are classified and identified by prototypical characteristics associated with the members within such groups (Turner, 1985). Regardless of whether an individual identifies personally with such prototypical characteristics, they are systematically assigned to the individual affiliated with the group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In addition, the individual within the group often defines themselves by salient characteristics of groups to which they belong (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), also referred to as self-categorization.
Association with a group impacts an individual’s behavior toward both those associated with the group (in-group members) and those not associated with the group (out-group members; Tajfel et al., 1971). Social comparisons between in-group and out-group members rely upon the distinctively positive attributes of the in-group, as an individual strives to enhance and protect the positive characteristics of the in-group (Hogg, 2001). The need for positive social identity within an in-group causes members to protect and/or enhance distinctiveness and legitimacy (Hogg, 2001). Stereotype threat can result in women feeling an expectation to adhere to traditional gender roles (Nadal & Haynes, 2011).
The effects of stereotype threat can produce a decrease in performance or execution due to the negative stereotypes pertaining to a group (Steele & Aronson, 1995) and can have a disproportionately negative impact on the performance of female doctoral students in sport management. When members of stigmatized groups, like women in sport management, are in situations where negative stereotypes impact the interpretation of their behavior, the possibility of being judged by such stereotypes can disrupt performance and career aspirations (Spencer et al., 2016).
Stereotype threat impacts women in many sectors of the sport industry. Grabow and Kühl (2019) found that women’s European football players who were reminded of stereotypes about their inability to play scored significantly less than those not reminded. McDowell and Carter-Francique (2017) found that societal and occupational stereotypes challenged African American women athletics directors at National Collegiate Athletic Association institutions to find identity and authority. Maass et al. (2008) found women’s chess players to perform drastically worse when they were reminded of gender stereotypes compared with the control group. Harrison et al. (2009) found female college athletes to perform poorly when their academic identities were linked to their athletic identities. Stereotype threat undermines academic achievement in the short term by inducing anxiety that negatively impacts academic performance and in the long term by causing students to devalue their academic interests and goals (Aronson et al., 2002).
Stereotype vulnerability, or a person’s susceptibility to stereotype threat, is an indicator of an individual’s tendency to both perceive negative stereotypes as part of the world and to be affected by such stereotypes (Aronson & Inzlicht, 2004). Vulnerability requires individuals to have both the knowledge of stereotypes linked to their identities and the negative impact of being linked to such stereotypes (Davis et al., 2005). Stereotype vulnerability reflects perceptions of judgments of others on the basis of the stereotyped characteristics of one’s own identity (Weber et al., 2018).
Research Questions
A better understanding of the experiences of doctoral students in sport management has the potential to aid in improving the environment of doctoral programs to enhance the development and retention of women faculty in the field. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the differences in experiences of gender microaggressions and stereotype threat by gender in sport management doctoral students. The research questions guiding this study are as follows:
RQ1: How do sport management doctoral students experience microaggressions differently by gender?
RQ2: How do sport management doctoral students experience stereotype threat differently by gender?
Methodology
Procedure
Qualtrics online data collection software (Qualtrics, LLC, Provo, UT, Seattle, WA) was used to distribute a survey to current sport management doctoral students. A link to the survey was sent via email to the NASSM Listserv, an email list containing approximately 700 members, in January 2019. In February 2019, the researchers reached out directly to 31 doctoral program advisors in the United States to ask that they share the survey link with their doctoral students. The list of doctoral programs was obtained from the NASSM website. From websites of each respective institution, a doctoral program chair was identified and emailed directly. The initial email invitation included a summary of the nature of the research project, institutional review board–mandated information (e.g., benefits, risks), and a link to the survey. The survey was open for approximately 2 months, and 71 usable surveys were obtained during that time. Of the usable number of surveys, 30 reported their gender identity as male, and 27 reported their gender identity as female. Although the option to self-describe gender identity was available to the participants in the survey, 14 participants did not specify a gender identity.
Measures
A survey was used as a data collection instrument to capture the experiences of current doctoral students. Similar methods have been used in previous research on the subject (see Guerin-Eagleman & McNary, 2014). The survey was developed by the researchers to capture the doctoral student experience at the respective institutions of participating doctoral students. The instrument was uploaded to Qualtrics Online Survey Software, where doctoral students were encouraged to participate in a web-based survey that collected quantitative data, with the addition of a qualitative, open-ended question to provide participants with a space to provide additional information with their experiences with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat.
Gender Microaggressions
In order to identify which gender microaggressions sport management doctoral students may experience, researchers asked the respondents to address how often they experienced the eight different types of microaggressions identified and defined by Barthelemy et al. (2016). See Table 1 for the eight types of microaggressions. Questions to assess the occurrence of each microaggression were worded according to how Barthelemy et al. defined each microaggression. Furthermore, each of the eight categories was represented in questions asking separately about faculty and fellow doctoral students, for example, “How often have you been sexually objectified by your program faculty?” and “How often have you been sexually objectified by your other doctoral students?” The participants were given a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time) to describe their experiences.
Types of Microaggressions (Barthelemy et al., 2016)
| Title | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sexual objectification | Reducing women to their physical appearance or assuming their bodies should be controlled and commodified by men |
| Second-class citizenship | Treated as a lesser person or group, or the belief that women should not have the same access to resources or opportunities as men |
| Sexist language | Language that infers superiority to men |
| Assumption of inferiority | The assumption of the inherent inability of women to do certain tasks |
| Restrictive gender roles | The belief that women must play certain roles |
| Denial of the reality of sexism | Not believing that sexism exists |
| Invisibility | Not including or recognizing women in the workplace or world |
| Sexist jokes | Crude jokes about women, rape, or domestic violence |
Stereotype Vulnerability Scale
To measure stereotype threat, eight items from Spencer’s (1993) Stereotype Vulnerability Scale were adapted to measure the degree to which students feel threatened because of negative stereotypes leading to expectations of intellectual inferiority in sport management academia (Steele et al., 2002). This scale has had relatively good internal consistency in previous studies by Spencer (Cronbach’s alpha = .67), Steele et al. (2002; Cronbach’s alpha = .84), and Cadaret et al. (2017; Cronbach’s alpha = .91). Within the current sample, the stereotype vulnerability scale exhibited good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). This survey included questions beginning with “Because of your gender . . .” and followed up with eight specific questions from the Stereotype Vulnerability Scale, including “Some people believe you have less ability,” and “You are not fully accepted into your program.” The participants were given a 7-point scale to record their answers, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Open-Ended Question
The researchers included one open-ended question at the end of the survey that asked participants, “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your doctoral student experience?” The participants were not required to participate in answering this question. Of the 71 survey participants, 19 provided a response to the open-ended question, resulting in a 26.8% completion rate. Of the 19 provided responses, 14 were provided by participants who identified as female, and five were provided by participants who identified as male.
Data Analysis
To examine the quantitative data, SPSS Statistics (version 25.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) was utilized. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the mean scores for the gendered microagressions and stereotype vulnerability scale. To address Research Question 1, a series of t tests was utilized to examine gender differences across the different types of gendered microagressions. To address Research Question 2, a t test was utilized to identify differences in stereotype vulnerability between male and female doctoral students. The data did not meet the assumption of normality. However, t tests are robust to violations of normality when the sample size >25 (Beasley et al., 2009).
Qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014; Morgan, 1998) was performed to identify themes and patterns in the data collected from the open-ended question at the end of the survey. Categories were identified based on the scales for both gender microaggressions and stereotype threat in the quantitative portion of the study. The data were categorized into four of the eight categories established from the gender microaggressions scale and three of the eight categories established from the stereotype vulnerability scale. The data were hand coded by two researchers independent of each other to ensure intercoder reliability. The coded data were cross-referenced, and Cohen’s kappa (.81) was calculated for interrater reliability.
Participants
The sample consisted of 57 current doctoral students, 30 men and 27 women. The 14 participants who did not indicate their gender were removed from the analysis. The average age of the participants was 30.0 (SD = 5.23) years. Although the sample size is relatively low, it is difficult to determine the number of sport management doctoral students across the United States. However, there are 36 sport management doctoral programs, with various doctoral student body sizes. The majority of participants self-identified as White (64.9%), with 12.3% self-identifying as Black, and <10% self-identifying as Asian (8.7%), Middle Eastern/North African (7.0%), Biracial (3.5%), and other (3.5%). The largest portion of the respondents self-identified as heterosexual (93.0%), with 3.5% self-identifying as gay/lesbian or not specified. Approximately 29 indicated they were all-but-dissertation (50.9%), 46 were full time (80.7%), 40 had a graduate assistant position (70.2%), and 22 were working outside their program (38.6%). The majority of the respondents indicated they were in the third year of the program (36.8%), with 10.5% in their first year, 26.3% in their second year, 12.3% in their fourth year, 7.0% in their fifth year, and 5.3% in their sixth year or more, and 1.8% did not specify. Approximately 86.0% had industry experience with an average years’ experience of 7.5 (SD = 5.73) years. The participants indicated having experience in coaching, collegiate athletics, facilities and events, fitness, hospitality, legal, outdoor adventure sports, professional sports, recreation, sales and marketing, sporting goods, and youth and community sport.
See Table 2 for a list of research topics of interest, as reported by the participants. The majority of the participants indicated desiring a tenure track position (78.9%), with 1.8% desiring a nontenure-track academic position, 12.3% desiring a professional position in sport but outside academia, and 5.2% desiring other; one participant did not specify. Almost half (49.1%) of the participants indicated wanting to work at an institution with a hybrid focus on research and teaching, 12.3% indicated wanting to work at a research-intensive institution, 14.0% indicated wanting to work at a teaching-focused instruction, 5.3% did not care, and 19.3% did not specify.
Areas of Research Interest Reported by Participants
| Area of research |
|---|
| Academics |
| Career development |
| Coaching |
| Collegiate athletics |
| Communication |
| Consumer behavior |
| Diversity |
| Facilities and events |
| Family in sport |
| Organizational behavior |
| Player development |
| Recreation |
| Service learning |
| Social justice |
| Sociocultural |
| Sport and religion |
| Sport ethics |
| Sport finance |
| Sport for development |
| Sport history |
| Sport law |
| Sport policy |
| Sustainability |
| Youth sport |
Results
The results from this study indicate that women in sport management doctoral programs have significantly more experiences with gender microaggressions than men in sport management doctoral programs. In addition, women in sport management doctoral programs have significantly more experiences with stereotype threat than men in sport management doctoral programs. The open-ended question results are also discussed.
Research Question 1
In order to assess Research Question 1—How do sport management doctoral students experience microaggressions differently by gender?—the gender microaggressions scale was utilized. See Table 3 for the means and SDs. The t tests were utilized to examine scales across gender. Of the 16 items, 10 were statistically significant based on participant (i.e., student) gender, with female students scoring higher on all 16 items. Women were statistically more likely to be sexually objectified, treated like second-class citizens, be restricted to a certain role due to their gender, and be excluded by their program faculty. In addition, they were statistically more likely to hear their program faculty use sexist language and deny the existence of sexism, as well as have program faculty assume their abilities were inferior due to their gender. Furthermore, women doctoral students were statistically more likely to be treated like second-class citizens and restricted to certain roles because of their gender by other doctoral students, as well as have other doctoral students assume their abilities were inferior due to their gender. See Tables 1 and 2 for additional statistics.
Gender Microaggressions by Gender
| Male | Female | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How often have you . . . | M | SD | M | SD |
| Been sexually objectified by your program faculty? | 1.10 | 0.305 | 1.74 | 1.534* |
| t(55) = −2.241, p = .029 | ||||
| Been treated like a second-class citizen by your program faculty due to your gender? | 1.10 | 0.403 | 2.30 | 1.66* |
| t(55) = −3.828, p < .001 | ||||
| Heard your program faculty use sexist language? | 1.47 | 0.860 | 2.48 | 1.649* |
| t(55) = −2.955, p = .005 | ||||
| Had program faculty assume you have inferior abilities due to your gender? | 1.07 | 0.254 | 2.26 | 1.631* |
| t(55) = −3.955, p < .001 | ||||
| Been restricted to certain roles by your program faculty because of your gender? | 1.13 | 0.434 | 2.33 | 1.617* |
| t(55) = −3.914, p < .001 | ||||
| Had program faculty deny the existence of sexism? | 1.47 | 0.973 | 2.26 | 1.893* |
| t(55) = −2.017, p = .049 | ||||
| Been excluded by program faculty due to your gender? | 1.07 | 0.371 | 2.07 | 1.412* |
| t(55) = −3.700, p = .001 | ||||
| Been told by program faculty sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you? | 1.20 | 0.610 | 1.63 | 1.043 |
| Been sexually objectified by other doctoral students? | 1.30 | 0.750 | 1.85 | 1.46 |
| Been treated like a second-class citizen by other doctoral students due to your gender? | 1.13 | 0.346 | 1.93 | 1.542* |
| t(55) = −2.742, p = .008 | ||||
| Heard other doctoral students use sexist language? | 2.07 | 1.143 | 2.19 | 1.442 |
| Had other doctoral students assume you have inferior abilities due to your gender? | 1.20 | 0.610 | 1.93 | 1.492* |
| t(55) = −2.449, p = .018 | ||||
| Been restricted to certain roles by other doctoral students because of your gender? | 1.13 | 0.434 | 1.81 | 1.52* |
| t(55) = −2.325, p = .022 | ||||
| Had other doctoral students deny the existence of sexism? | 1.67 | 0.959 | 2.00 | 1.593 |
| Been excluded by other doctoral students due to your gender? | 1.30 | 0.794 | 1.81 | 1.415 |
| Been told by other doctoral students sexual stories or jokes that were offensive to you? | 1.53 | 0.819 | 1.89 | 1.528 |
*Statistically significant difference.
The data from the qualitative responses to the open-ended question were analyzed by eight categories based on the gender microaggressions scale. The data were categorized into four categories referring to gender microaggressions: second-class citizen, inferior ability, restricted roles, and exclusion (Barthelemy et al., 2016). Of the 19 open-ended responses, seven fit the gender microaggressions categories. All seven responses were provided by participants who identified as female. An example of a comment falling into the category is “All of my decisions and suggestions are second guessed or disregarded as not important.” An example comment falling in the inferior ability category is “My husband (without a masters degree but was a professional athlete) was hired as an adjunct before I received my own class (meaning the head teacher) while in the doctoral program. I was very frustrated.” A participant discussed how doctoral students often face restricted roles, indicating, “The program chair is favorable towards [male] students and has said he is uncomfortable working with female students.” Another participant expressed feeling excluded from work-related projects, saying, “Some male students (my co-workers) told me that they prefer to work with male counterparts as they tend to communicate what they want and expect more clearly (in research projects), as compared to female counterparts.”
Research Question 2
In order to assess Research Question 2—How do sport management doctoral students experience stereotype threat differently by gender?—the stereotype vulnerability scale was utilized. A t test was utilized to examine scales across gender. The results found a significant difference based on gender, with female students scoring significantly higher, males = 1.86, females = 3.12, t(55) = −4.045, p < .001. See Table 4 for the means and SDs for the individual items.
Stereotype Threat by Gender
| Male | Female | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| As a doctoral student, because of your gender . . . | M | SD | M | SD |
| Some people believe you have less ability | 2.03 | 1.351 | 4.11 | 2.063 |
| If you are not better than average, people assume you are limited | 2.07 | 1.311 | 4.19 | 2.001 |
| Professors expect you to do poorly | 1.77 | 1.223 | 2.70 | 1.683 |
| Professors are less likely to encourage you | 1.80 | 1.095 | 2.78 | 2.154 |
| You are not fully accepted into your program | 1.63 | 1.245 | 2.78 | 1.987 |
| If you ask a simple question, people will think it is because of your gender | 1.93 | 1.337 | 2.52 | 1.718 |
| If you perform poorly on an exam, people will assume it is because of your gender | 1.60 | 0.968 | 2.19 | 1.415 |
| People of your gender face unfair evaluations because of their gender | 1.93 | 1.387 | 4.33 | 2.038 |
Further information about experiences with stereotype threat was provided by the qualitative responses to the open-ended question. The data from the qualitative responses were analyzed by eight categories based on the stereotype vulnerability scale. The data were categorized into three categories referring to stereotype threat: limited, poor expectations, and low acceptance (Spencer, 1993). Of the 19 open-ended responses, five were categorized into the stereotype threat categories. All five categorized responses were provided by participants who identified as female. Feeling limited in her ability to meet her full potential, one participant said, “Female students who are quant have an easier time [as a doctoral student] than female students who do qualitative research.” One participant explained how she felt she placed poor expectations upon herself, saying, “As a woman, I find that I doubt myself more. I am less confident than my male counterparts. I believe I do not give myself enough credit. I do believe all of this is based on my gender identity.” Not feeling accepted was a major theme, as one female participant explained, “. . . not being in the [in-crowd] affects [PhD students].”
Discussion
The current study aimed to examine the experiences of gender microaggressions and stereotype threat by gender in sport management doctoral students. The results from this study indicate there are significant differences in male and female doctoral student experiences by gender in the field of sport management with both faculty and fellow doctoral students. The results indicate a significant difference in female doctoral students’ experiences with stereotype threat compared with male students.
The differences in the means and SDs in both the gender microaggressions and stereotype threat surveys indicated some interesting findings. For example, in the gender microaggressions survey, the differences in the mean scores by gender were on the lower end of the scale; however, the differences in SD were much higher. This may indicate a high variation between values, which may mean female doctoral students in the survey may experience gender microaggressions, in some circumstances, a lot more often than male doctoral students. Frequency is of concern, particularly when experiences with gender microaggressions are positively related to depression, stress, and posttraumatic stress symptoms (Gartner, 2019). Women have been reported to experience one to two experiences with sexism per week in the workplace (Swim & Campbell, 2003), and while this study did not explore frequency, it is also likely women in sport perceive sexism as part of their job (Hindman & Walker, 2020).
The results indicated female students experience feeling excluded, feeling like a second-class citizen, and being placed in restrictive roles by program faculty due to their gender more frequently than male students. Informal workplace interactions in male-dominated fields, such as those with fellow doctoral students in sport management academe, often take a highly sexualized form and can create powerful processes, producing inequalities and gender segregation in the workplace (Wright, 2016). Occupational gender segregation is one of the most defining elements of gender inequality in the United States (Cohen, 2013).
Faculty in male-dominated academic fields are known to exhibit bias against female students (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012). This bias further augments negative perceptions of cross-gender mentoring in sport studies. In addition, this bias causes female students to be placed in restrictive task-segregated roles. Task segregation occurs in the workplace when the time of a group is disproportionately allocated to specific tasks, which results in unfavorable and inequitable implications (Chan & Anteby, 2016).
The qualitative results from the open-ended question asking “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your doctoral student experience?” provided context to support the quantitative results of the study. Although the results were limited in quantity and quality, and the usable responses pertaining to gender microaggressions and stereotype came just from participants who identified as female, the responses provided additional substance to accompany the quantitative results. The lack of responses to this question may have occurred due to the ambiguous wording of the question instead of asking specifically for examples of experienced microaggressions. In addition, the lack of responses from participants who identified as male also supports the quantitative findings from the study, indicating female sport management doctoral students are more likely to experience microaggressions and stereotype threat. The lack of responses from male participants may be a result of their lack of experience with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat.
The assumption of inferiority felt by female doctoral students from their male counterparts perpetuates the concept of women as the weaker and inferior sex, long relied upon in the perpetually hypermasculine and patriarchal setting of sport power relations (McKay et al., 2000; Sailors, 2016). In addition, the results indicated female sport management doctoral students experience sexual objectification by program faculty members, as well as the use of sexist language by program faculty. This is of particular concern, as Taylor et al. (2018) found these experiences with colleagues and superiors to persist for women in sport management through the ranks of full-time faculty.
The organizational culture present within sport management academic departments is similar to that of the sport industry in that gender inequalities exist and therefore perpetuate the masculine structures and gendered homogeneity of the academic environment (Jones et al., 2008; Moore & Huberty, 2014). The male-dominated environment of sport management academia can create a hostile environment for female faculty, where they face harassment and discrimination (Taylor & Gregg, 2019). For instance, the participants were asked how agreeable they found the statement, “As a doctoral student, because of your gender . . . . People of your gender face unfair evaluations because of their gender” to their experiences through the stereotype vulnerability scale (Spencer, 1993). The female students scored significantly higher (M = 4.33, SD = 2.038) than the male students (M = 1.93, SD = 1.387). It is important to note that the male students, although much less likely, reported experiencing both gender microaggressions and stereotype threat to some degree. Male dominance in sport management doctoral programs is substantial and disproportionately impacting female students.
Research by Dashper (2012) evaluated sex integration of female participants to Olympic-level equestrian. Although men possess no biophysical advantages in the sport, women still faced subtle and insidious oppression and gender inequality. Similarly, although the continued integration of female students into sport management doctoral programs is important and necessary to breaking barriers, the results from the present study indicated it has not curbed discriminatory hypermasculine behaviors of male students and faculty members. Regardless of sport industry sector, wider and more vast changes to gender norms and expectations are needed to create a space of greater gender equality in sport management doctoral programs.
Although it is not as blatant as it was in the past and such deliberate acts of sexism have seemingly decreased as a whole in American society, covert gender microaggressions continue to exist (Sue, 2010). Such acts negatively impact the male-dominated organizational culture and experiences of women doctoral students in sport management. As gender microaggressions are often more difficult to identify, isolate, and confront than overt, hostile sexism and sex discrimination (Barthelemy et al., 2016), covert microaggressions may be more problematic, as it is difficult to pinpoint/prove an event occurred. If a female doctoral student were to want to report an experience with sexism, it might be difficult for them to gain support from their supervisor or the administration without concrete, overt evidence. It may also be difficult to report an experience with sexism if the perpetrator is the supervisor of the student.
Implications
Sport environments have consistently shown a prioritization of heterosexual male power (Burton, 2015) as women in sport face stereotypes and biased perceptions of their potential for success (Grappendorf & Burton, 2017). Implications from the present study shed light on how those stereotypes affect female sport management doctoral students while training to be the future faculty of sport management programs across the country. Experiences with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat at the doctoral stage could have a negative impact on the recruitment, development, and retention of women in the profession.
This study has implications not just within the realm of sport management academe, but within doctoral programs across all male-dominated academic disciplines, such as computer science and technology, finance, and music media (Lawson et al., 2017). Female students in male-dominated academic majors are no less identified with their field of study than male students (Steele et al., 2002). Yet, as this study shows, female sport management doctoral students experience gender microaggressions and stereotype threat that can drain the cognitive resources women need to perform (Kaskan & Ho, 2016).
The experiences with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat while a female doctoral student studies sport management may lead to the decision of women PhDs to leave the industry and pursue jobs outside of academia. The experiences of women with sexual discrimination, harassment, and gender microaggressions can lead to an erosion of commitment to or interest in careers in a male-dominated industry (Benson & Thomson, 1982), such as sport management doctoral programs in the United States. This erosion can further impact the pipeline, thus creating a larger gender skew within sport management faculty.
One of the first steps to take to improve the sport management doctoral environment is to increase awareness of the use and impact of gender stereotypes in sport management doctoral programs by both faculty and students. Online programs and surveys like the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Understanding Prejudice, 2021) or the Individual Differences Research Labs (IDR) Sexism Test (IDR Labs, 2021) are available to self-examine gender bias. Surveys provide feedback to participants to increase awareness of gender stereotypes in the workplace, and sensitivity training has shown to improve workplace social relations and atmospheres (Karaatmaca et al., 2020).
Another step to improve the environment is to improve leadership and the promotion of an inclusive workspace in sport management academic departments. Leaders play a significant role in how an organization functions (Aaron et al., 2011), and a priority should be placed on creating inclusive spaces for all sport management doctoral students. Leaders in academia can promote inclusivity by, for example, conducting diversity training sessions, hosting family-friendly events, and requiring diverse representation on tenure and promotion committees (Bartels et al., 2021).
Another step to improvement is to provide mentorship and sponsorship opportunities for female doctoral students. It is important to empower women to recognize biases and provide tools to overcome them (Grappendorf & Burton, 2017). Mentorship is a valuable means of support, and protégés appreciate a mentor’s ability to share advice and empathy (Ransdell et al., 2018). In addition, male colleagues need to identify and address their roles in advocating for gender equity in the workplace (Windsor & Thies, 2021). Women do not need to be rescued by men; however, efforts toward gender equity will be better assisted by men who engage in supportive efforts as allies (Cheng et al., 2018).
Gaines (2017) recommended networking, affinity groups, and better communication practices as a means to improve workplace equality in male-dominated fields, which can also be beneficial to many women graduate students in sport management programs. This may coincide with increasing advocacy for women students by faculty through providing equitable mentorship (Bower, 2009), supporting the development of affinity groups for women students, and/or creating spaces and practices for increased communication between women students, male peers, and faculty members. Gaines also recommended shifting the organization’s male-centered mindset, which would entail a cultural transformation of the narrative of industry expectations and beliefs.
This study provides a more focused picture of the present and perpetual issues affecting female doctoral students in the male-dominated space of sport management academia. An awareness of such issues needs to be present in faculty, administrators, and students to provide equitable experiences for women in sport management doctoral programs. Without improvements, it is likely women in sport management academia will follow other women in the sport sector who leave more frequently than men (Leberman & Shaw, 2015).
Limitations
There are a few notable limitations to the study. The survey was circulated online through avenues with the highest likelihoods of reaching the doctoral student population; however, it is possible the survey did not reach all sport management doctoral students in North America and therefore may not have captured the voices of all. The survey emails provided indication of its purpose before the participants began, and it is possible that male doctoral students did not complete the survey. Furthermore, it is possible, given the wording of several of the questions on the survey, that the participants indicated hearing microaggressions, although they were not directly targeting the participant. For example, a male participant could have heard sexist language being directed at a female colleague and indicated hearing sexist language from faculty in their program, although the commentary was not directed at the male participant. This, in turn, could have increased the frequency reported by the participant. One could argue, however, that witnessing microaggressions could have a negative impact on organizational or program culture through the perpetuating of sexism and/or creating a hostile environment. In addition, the demographic data collected were limited to the student taking the survey and did not capture data on the department of the student, the faculty, or fellow doctoral students.
Another limitation is that, although the researchers received 71 usable surveys, only 19 participants provided feedback on the open-ended question. The decision to focus the majority of the survey to better understand the doctoral student experience with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat through quantitative analysis was made by the researchers. A deeper understanding through qualitative inquiry was limited with the single open-ended question. Furthermore, the small size provides problems in generalizing the data to the larger population, especially as certain demographics are homogeneous in the sample (e.g., race, sexual orientation, desired position postgraduation). The recognition of other gender identities was not captured in the study, as 14 participants did not specify a gender identity. This presented as a limitation, as the study did not capture the experiences of nonbinary doctoral students with gender microaggressions.
Future Research
Intersectionality explains how women of color have unique experiences based on the merging of multiple marginalized identities, such as their gender and race (Crenshaw, 1991). Thus, women of color experience their race differently than their male counterparts, and womanhood differently than White women. Two of the 19 open-ended answers addressed intersectionality. The first example is as follows:
Not only gender, but also race, and not being in the crowd affects PhD students.
As a female second-language speaker I guess most of pressure for me came through my race and being a non-English speaker. Racism has negatively affected my studies and my career opportunities inside and outside university so much.
In the academy, where Black women represent <12% of all professors in the academy (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2019), a better understanding of how intersectionality impacts the experiences of doctoral students in sport management can also aid in recruitment, retention, and inclusion efforts for this growing field of study. Studying the experiences of international doctoral students through the lens of intersectionality would aid in retention and belonging for women in this marginalized population as well. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to study the experiences of LGBTQ+ doctoral students to evaluate how sexual orientation and gender identity intersect with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat.
The results from the study indicated that, although much less likely, men reported experiences with gender microaggressions and stereotype threat. Future research evaluating the frequency and consistency of such experiences of both male and female students would be useful in examining the full picture of the sport management doctoral student experience. In addition, evaluating how gender microaggressions and stereotype threat impact doctoral student performance and program satisfaction would aid in better serving the population.
References
Aarons, G.A., Sommerfeld, D.H., & Willging, C.E. (2011). The soft underbelly of system change: The role of leadership and organizational climate in turnover during statewide behavioral health reform. Psychological Services, 8(4), 269–281. PubMed ID: 22229021 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026196
Ampaw, F.D., & Jaeger, A.J. (2012). Completing the three stages of doctoral education: An event history analysis. Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 640–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9250-3
Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2004). The ups and downs of attributional ambiguity: Stereotype vulnerability and the academic self-knowledge of African American college students. Psychological Science, 15(2), 829–836.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Austin, A.E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777132
Babcock, L., Recalde, M.P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability. American Economic Review, 107(3), 714–747. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141734
Barnhill, C.R., Czekanski, W.A., & Pfleegor, A.G. (2018). Getting to know our students: A snapshot of sport management students' demographics and career expectations in the United States. Sport Management Education Journal, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2015-0030
Bartels, L.K., Weissinger, S.E., O’Brien, L.C., Ball, J.C., Cobb, P.D., Harris, J., . . . Feldmann, M.L. (2021). Developing a system to support the advancement of women in higher education. The Journal of Faculty Development, 35(1), 34–42.
Barthelemy, R.S., McCormick, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Physical Review of Physics Education Research, 12(020119), 1–14.
Basford, T.E., Offerman, L.R., & Behrend, T.S. (2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420
Beasley, T.M., Erickson, S., & Allison, D.B. (2009). Rank-based inverse normal transformations are increasingly used, but are they merited? Behavioral Genetics, 39(5), 580–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-009-9281-0
Bennett, S.K. (1982). Student perceptions of the expectations for male and female instructurs: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.170
Benson, D.J., & Thomson, G.E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29(3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/800157
Bower, G.G. (2009). Effective mentoring relationships with women in sport: Results of a meta-ethnography. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 29.
Brown, C., Willett, J., & Goldfine, B. (2016). Sport management internships: Requirements and policies. Journal of Physical Education and Sports Management, 3(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.15640/jpesm
Burton, L.J. (2015). Underrepresentation of women in sport leadership: A review of research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2014.02.004
Cabay, M., Bernstein, B.L., Rivers, M., & Fabert, N. (2018). Chilly climates, balancing acts, and shifting pathways: What happens to women in STEM doctoral programs. Social Sciences, 7(23), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7020023
Cadaret, M.C., Hartung, P.J., Subich, L.M., & Weigold, I.K. (2017). Stereotype threat as a barrier to women entering engineering careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.002
Chan, C.K., & Anteby, M. (2016). Task segregation as a mechanism for within-job inequality: Women and men of the Transportation Security Administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 184–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839215611447
Cheng, S., Ng, L., Trump-Steele, R.C.E., Corrington, A., & Habl, M. (2018). Calling on male allies to promote gender equity in I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.88
Cohen, P.N. (2013). The persistence of workplace gender segregation in the US. Sociology Compass, 7(11), 889–899. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12083
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Danzinger, L., & Katz, E. (1996). A theory of sex discrimination. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00864-5
Dashper, K. (2012). Together, yet still not equal? Sex integration in equestrian sport. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 3(3), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2012.721727
Davis, P.G., Spencer, S.J., & Steele, C.M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.276
Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Meaney, M.C. (2008). A business case for women. McKinsey & Company.
De Welde, K., & Laursen, S.L. (2011). The glass obstacle course: Informal and formal barriers for women Ph.D. students in STEM fields. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 3(3), 572–595.
Dipboye, R.L., & Colella, A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In R.L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 17–43). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ecklund, E.H., Lincoln, A.E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender segregation in elite academic science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212451904
Ellis, E.M. (2001). The impact of race and gender on graduate school socialization, satisfaction with doctoral study, and commitment to degree completion. Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(1), 30–45.
Frick, L., Albertyn, R., Brodin, E., McKenna, S., & Claesson, S. (2016). The role of doctoral education in early career academic development. In M. Fourie-Malherbe, C. Aitchison, E. Blitzer, & R. Albertyn (Eds.), Postgraduate supervision: Future foci for the knowledge society (pp. 203–219). SUN Press.
Gaines, J. (2017). Women in male-dominated careers. Cornell HR Review, from Cornell University, ILR School site. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/chrr/96
Gartner, R.E. (2019). From gender microaggressions to sexual assault: Measure development and preliminary trends among undergraduate women. (Doctoral dissertation, UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations). University of California at Berkeley.
Gittings, G., Bergman, M., Shuck, B., & Rose, K. (2018). The impact of student attributes and program characteristics on doctoral degree completion. New Horizons in Adult Eductaion & Human Resource Development, 30(3), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20220
Grabow, H., & Kühl, M. (2019). You don’t bend it like Beckham if you’re female and reminded of it: Stereotype threat among female football players. Frontiers in Psychology, 28, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01963
Grappendorf, H., & Burton, L.J. (2017). The impact of bias in sport leadership. In L.J. Burton, & S. Lieberman (Eds.), Women in sport leadership: Research and practice for change (pp. 47–61). Routledge.
Grappendorf, H., & Morin, T. (2005). Sport management doctoral students: Where do they stand in relation to other academic disciplines? Research Quarterly For Exercise and Sport, 76(1), A124–A125.
Guerin-Eagleman, A.N., & McNary, E. (2014). The changing climates of the sport management academic job market and doctoral students’ career expectations. Sport Management Education Journal, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2011-0003
Hall, E.D., & Gettings, P.E. (2020). “Who is this little girl they hired to work here?”: Women’s experiences of marginalizing communication in male-dominated workplaces. Communication Monographs, 87(4), 484–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2020.1758736
Harrison, C.K., Stone, J., Shapiro, J., Yee, S., Boyd, J.A., & Rullan, V. (2009). The role of gender identities and stereotype salience with the academic performance of male and female college athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 33(1), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723508328902
Hindman, L.C., & Walker, N.A. (2020). Sexism in professional sports: How women managers experience and survive sport organizational culture. Journal of Sport Management, 34(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2018-0331
Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hoorens, V., Dekkers, G., & Deschrijver, E. (2020). Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: Students’ self-affirmation reduces the bias by lowering evaluations of male professors. Sex Roles, 84(1–2), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01148-8
Individual Differences Research Labs. (2021). Ambivalent sexism test. https://www.idrlabs.com/ambivalent-sexism/test.php
Jagst, R., Griffith, K.A., Jones, R., Perumalswami, C.R., Ubel, M.D., & Stewart, A. (2016). Sexual harassment and discrimination experiences of academic medical faculty. JAMA, 315(19), 2120–2121. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.2188
Jisha, J., & Pitts, B.G. (2004). Program choice factors of sport management doctoral students in North America. Sport Management and Other Related Topics Journal, 1(1), 2–14.
Jones, D.F., Brooks, D.D., & Mak, J.Y. (2008). Examining sport management programs in the United States. Sport Management Review, 11(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(08)70104-9
Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L.M. (2013). Sex-based harassment in employment: New insights into gender and context. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 58–72. PubMed ID: 23914922 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000045
Karaatmaca, C., Altinay, F., Altinay, Z., & Dagli, G. (2020). The role of sensitivity training for managing diversities in sustainable smart societies. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(3), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n3p13
Kaskan, E.R., & Ho, I.K. (2016). Microaggressions and female athletes. Sex Roles, 74(7–8), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0425-1
Kim, K.Y., Longacre, T.E., & Werner, S. (2016). The effects of multilevel signals on sex discrimination experiences among female employees. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 995–1013.
Lawson, K.M., Kooiman, L.Y., & Kuchta, O. (2017). Professors’ behaviors and attributes that promote U.S. women’s success in male-dominated academic majors: Results from a mixed methods study. Sex Roles, 78(7-8), 542–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0809-0
Leberman, S., & Shaw, S. (2015). ‘Let’s be honest most people in the sporting industry are still males’: The importance of socio-cultural context for female graduates. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 67(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2015.1057212
Lewis, J.A. (2018). From modern sexism to gender microaggressions: Understanding contemporary forms of sexism and their influence on diverse women. In C.B. Travis, J.W. White, A. Rutherford, W.S. Williams, S.L. Cook, & K.F. Wyche (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (pp. 381–397). American Psychological Association.
Maass, A., D’ettole, C., & Cadinu, M. (2008). Checkmate? The role of gender stereotypes in the ultimate intellectual sport. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(2), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.440
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A.N. (2015). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
Massachusetts Institution of Technology. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. MIT. http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.pdf
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Erstveröffentlichung.
McDowell, J., & Carter-Francique, A. (2017). An intersectional analysis of the workplace experiences of African American female athletic directors. Sex Roles, 77(5–6), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0730-y
McKay, J., Messner, M.A., & Sabo, D. (2000). Masculinities, gender relations, and sport. Sage Publications.
Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., & Alexander, A. (2008). Gender equality in academia: Bad news from the trenches, and some possible solutions. Perspectives on Politics, 6(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080572
Moore, M.E., & Huberty, L. (2014). Gender differences in a growing industry: A case of sport management education. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 3(9), 19–25.
Morgan, D.L. (1998). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 362–376. PubMed ID: 10558337 https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239800800307
Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science facutly’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109
Motshoane, P., & McKenna, S. (2014). More than agency: The multiple mechanisms affecting postgraduate education. In E.M. Bitzer, R.M. Albertyn, B.L. Frick, B. Grant, & F. Kelly (Eds.), Candidates, supervisors, and institutions: Pushing postgraduate boundaries (pp. 185–202). SUN Media.
Moyer, A., Salovey, P., & Casey-Cannon, S. (1999). Challenges facing female doctoral students and recent graduates. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 607–630.
Nadal, K.L., & Haynes, K. (2011). The effects of sexism, gender microaggressions, and other forms of discrimination on women’s mental health and development. Women and Mental Disorders, 2, 87–101.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and academic rank: Fall 2015, fall 2017, and fall 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_315.20.asp
Newman, C. (2014). Time to address gender discrimination and inequality in the health workforce. Human Resources for Health, 12(25), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-12-25
North American Society for Sport Management. (2017). 2017 pre-conference executive committee meeting reports. https://www.nassm.org/sites/default/files/2017%20Pre-Conference%20Meeting%20Reports%20-%20Denver.pdf
North American Society for Sport Management. (2021). Sport management programs: United States. NASSM. https://www.nassm.com/Programs/AcademicPrograms/United_States
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
Ransdell, L.B., Nguyen, N., Hums, M.A., Clark, M., & Williams, S.B. (2018). Voices from the field: Perspectives of U.S. kinesiology chairs on opportunities, challenges, and the role of mentoring in the chair position. Quest, 70(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2017.1371047
Rapp, D. (2001). The implications of raising one’s voice in educational leadership doctoral programs: Women’s stories of fear, retaliation, and silence. Journal of School Leadership, 11(4), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460101100402
Reich, S.M., & Reich, J.A. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method of respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38(1-2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9064-1
Rochon, P.A., Davidoff, F., & Levinson, W. (2016). Women in academic medicine leadership: Has anything changed in 25 years?. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1053–1056.
Rosenthal, M.N., Smidt, A.M., & Freyd, J.J. (2016). Still second class: Sexual harassment of graduate students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316644838
Russell, J., Gaudreault, K.L., & Richards, K.R.R. (2016). Doctoral student socialization: Educating stewards of the physical education profession. Quest, 68(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1234963
Sailors, P.R. (2016). Not forgetting sex: Simon on gender equality. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 43(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2015.1112239
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194–201.
Shaw, A.K., & Stanton, D.E. (2012). Leaks in the pipeline: Separating demographic inertia From ongoing gender differences in academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 279, 3736–3741. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.0822
Sosa, J., & Sagas, M. (2008). Assessing student preconceptions of sport management faculty: Where do women and Latinos stand? Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708317671
Spahr, K., & Wiegand, S. (2012). Library collections for the support of academic sport management programs. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 17(3), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2012.686150
Spencer, S. (1993). The effect of stereotype vulnerability on women's math performance (Publication No. [UMI]AAI9332169) [Master's thesis, University of Michigan]. UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Spencer, S.J., Logel, C., & Davies, P.G. (2016). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 415–437. PubMed ID: 26361054 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235
Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. PubMed ID: 7473032 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
Steele, J., James, J.B., & Barnett, R.C. (2002). Learning in a man’s world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male-dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00042
Stokowski, S., Li, B., Goss, B.D., Hutchens, S., & Turk, M. (2018). Work motivation and job satisfaction of sport management faculty members. Sport Management Education Journal, 12(2), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2017-0011
Sue, D.W. (2010). Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestation, dynamics, and impact. Wiley & Sons.
Swim, J.K., & Campbell, B. (2003). Sexism: Attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. In R. Brown & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 218–237). Blackwell.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R.P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Sport Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of group behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Burnham.
Taylor, E.A., & Gregg, E.A. (2019). The history of women in sport management academe and the treatment of female faculty members in sport management higher education. In N. Lough & A.N. Guerin (Eds.), Routledge handbook of the business of women’s sport (pp. 65–80). Routledge.
Taylor, E.A., Smith, A.B., Rode, C.R., & Hardin, R. (2017). Women don’t know anything about sports: Contrapower harassment in the sport management classroom. Sport Management Education Journal, 11(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2016-0013
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. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.2017-0038
Terborg, J.R., & Ilgen, D.R. (1975). A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90056-2
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: The role of institutional habitus. Journal of Education Policy, 17(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930210140257
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (pp. 77–121). JAI Press.
Understanding Prejudice. (2021). The ambivalent sexism inventory. https://secure.understandingprejudice.org/asi/
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). The Condition of Education 2019 (NCES 2019-144), Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty.
Weber, S., Kronberger, N., & Appel, M. (2018). Immigrant students’ educational trajectories: The influence of cultural identity and stereotype threat. Self and Identity, 17(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1380696
van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507–524.
Windsor, L.C., & Thies, C.G. (2021). Mentorship: “Men in the middle” and their role as allies in addressing gender bias. Political Science & Politics, 54(3), 502–504.
Young, K., Anderson, M., & Stewart, S. (2014). Hierarchical microaggressions in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 8(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038464
