Introduction
Women have remained active in advocating for representation in decision-making across the board. In the past, those who advocated for fair representation of women were branded as “feminists.” However, this attitude has changed gradually. The situation today is very different from the era when women could not vote because the society did not deem them fit to make decisions. In fact, women suffrage was only granted in the early 1920s through the 19th amendment to the US Constitution. Nevertheless, equal rights for women were not been achieved in a short span. The experience was painstaking, spanning centuries, right from the time when the founding fathers upheld the notion that women could not be granted the same rights as men. Fast forward, women empowerment has opened up space for women to compete for positions that were previous perceived to the preserve of men. For the first time in history, the US has a female presidential candidate.
Despite the major strides taken to overcome the suppression of women, the trait has continued to manifest itself in certain areas. The athletic field is one area where women representation has remained consistently low throughout the course of history. Fewer women participate in sports relative to men. Even the amount of media airplay and attention granted to male-dominated sports is much higher relative to the one given to women’s sports. Additionally, women reportedly earn less compared to men from sports. This situation bespeaks of the inequality in the sports sector where women athletes are treated less seriously in relation to their male counterparts. This attitude has trickled down to sports administration. Female employees encounter different experiences from those of men with respect to accessing and rising through the sports administration ladder. The differential treatment of women has resulted in the sports field being branded the “generic preserve of men” since many sports bodies remain male-dominated, particularly regarding their management.
The persistence of this trend in the 21st-century is obviously worrying, if not disturbing. Most women are bound to feel that the spirit of democracy has not trickled down to sports administration. Even more disturbing are female sports people who have no choice but to contend with the male coaches, trainers, and other personnel. This research aims to identify the causes of the disparity observed in sports administration regarding female and male representation in the management. The author will first introduce the research question, which is intended to set the scope of the study. The literature review captures the findings and thoughts of other scholars regarding the subject. In the methodology section, the author will discuss in depth, the manner in which the research will be carried out discussing the population and sample, research design, and data collection methods among other pertinent aspects of the research.
The above expositions bring up the research question, “What is causing the low representation of women in athletic administration?” This question defines the scope of the research and restricts it to the causes of low representation of women in athletic administration.
Review of Literature
The review of literature dwells on narrating how women have continually suffered from gender role stereotypes, perceived role congruity, and career limitation in intercollegiate sports administration. This suffering happens, despite the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) expressly requiring athletic units to create and delegate the senior role of decision-making to a female administrator (Pent, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2007). This section will provide documented findings obtained from previous studies regarding the subject of low representation of women in sports administration.
Low Representation of Women
According to Tiell and Dixon (2008), the common argument is that the sports organization reflects the male attitude of dominance. On the other hand, women are perceived as caring, submissive, and domestic-oriented. They are also viewed as non-aggressive and good communicators. In contrast, men ascend to the position of leadership in the sports field because the society perceives them as being natural leaders with capabilities to oversee the overall strategy of an organization (Tiell & Dixon, 2008).
Despite women having held leadership positions in sports for a long time, the attitude of according them positions that are deemed “appropriate” for them is greatly contributed by the male dominance attitude (Tiell & Dixon, 2008). For instance, roles such as “housekeeping” have historically been deemed as the preserve of women. Therefore, in athletic administration, women are given roles that correspond to “housekeeping.” Housekeeping roles are those positions that are not demanding, regarding proficiency and decision-making. Instead, they focus on empathy and care (Tiell & Dixon, 2008).
The impact of socially defined connotations regarding people’s sexual orientation and supposed robustness or non-fitness for particular duties can also clarify women involvement in athletic supervision. As Galloway (2013) reveals, aggressiveness, dominance, and forcefulness are traits that have traditionally been associated with the male sex, or masculinity. Conversely, femininity is associated with being caring, sympathetic, and kind (Galloway, 2013). The latter set of characteristics is not deemed appropriate for the aggressive and competitive sports field (Galloway, 2013). Because men are expected to be aggressive and dominant, they are assumed to be fitting for administrative roles that call for these characteristics. Effectively, these roles require constant decision-making and strategizing.
On the other hand, because women are expected to be kind and empathetic, the roles deemed fit for them are those that involve giving support and nurturing. If an individual takes up roles that are in line with socially constructed characteristics defined by sex, role congruity is achieved (Hoffman, 2010). On the contrary, role incongruity occurs where an individual assumes a role that does not match the socially constructed responsibilities. Following the assumptions discussed above, Lumpkin, Dodd, and McPherson (2014) argue that individuals who occupy the decision-making roles often propose other parties to take up positions that fall vacant based on their perception of what constitutes congruity.
Hancock and Hums (2016) argue that only a few studies have been dedicated to explaining the low representation of women in athletic leadership. In the US, women represent 36% of the leadership in the intercollegiate sports department (Hancock & Hums, 2016). According to Hancock and Hums (2016), despite women forming a considerable percentage of the sports administration personnel throughout the country, the roles they hold are not even.
Hence, certain roles have more women compared to others. These findings are consistent with those of Galloway (2013) and Burton, Grappendorf, and Henderson (2011) who have found that women are not effectively absorbed in the “serious” positions. Only 20% of the women hold the position of sports director in all the three NCAA Divisions (Hancock & Hums, 2016). Division I, which incurs considerably much higher operating expenses relative to the other two divisions [divisions I and II], has the lowest female representation. Only 11% of the female representatives are directors at Division I (Hancock & Hums, 2016).
Within athletics, certain operating units are largely directed by women while others are mostly male-dominated (Corwin, 2015). Corwin (2015) reveals that the representation of either sex depends on the role in question. In other words, one position can show a low percentage of women occupying the position while another shows a higher percentage of women. For example, two areas that are dominated by males are operations and sports information (Corwin, 2015). Operations directors are responsible for coordinating and managing athletic facilities. In all the three divisions of the NCAA, namely, I, II, and III, males dominate these two areas. About 88% of information directors and 87% of operations directors are male (Corwin, 2015).
Corwin (2015) found that about 62% of the academic advisers across the three divisions of NCAA were female dominated. Additionally, females constituted 54% and 72% compliance directors and life skills coordinators respectively across the entire association (Hartzell, 2015). Therefore, dominance in athletics is subject to the role or position in question (Hartzell, 2015). Women dominate certain units of athletic administration, although they are largely absent in others (Hartzell, 2015). While these findings may be true, they do not explain the reason why there are fewer women in athletic administration overall compared to men.
Lumpkin et al. (2014) have established that women hold only a third of the administrative positions, rather than the positions being distributed equitably. This finding is an indication of a ‘glass ceiling’ that limits the intake and ascension of women to administrative positions (Lumpkin et al., 2014). The researchers have found that men dominate the positions of athletic director, assistant athletic executive, and associate directors in NCAA (Lumpkin et al., 2014). In institutions without a football team, the number of female directors may be high, if not higher compared to men (Lumpkin et al., 2014). According to Lumpkin et al. (2014), “glass ceiling” refers to a consistent attitude that bars women from rising to top positions of leadership.
Lumpkin et al. (2014) acknowledge the presence of this attitude within NCAA ranks before blaming it for the disproportionately low percentage of women in management. Burton et al. (2011) invoke the social role theory to explain the low female representation in athletics. This theory suggests that biased hiring occurs because of the disparity between the expectations about male or female roles as leaders in NCAA (Burton et al., 2011).
Pent et al. (2007) identify the experience as a major factor that determines career advancement in athletics administration. This situation holds in financial decision-making and budget handling (Pent et al., 2007). Pent et al. (2007) reveal that women in NCAA do not engage a lot in financial management roles, a situation that limits their career advancement. Pent et al. (2007) reveal a large drop in the percentage of women roles in NCAA between 1972 and 2006, despite the installation of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) post within NCAA in 1981. Women’s programs had a 90% representation in 1972. However, the figure fell to only 18.6% in 2006, indicating that the position of SWA, which was put in place in 1972, has not had much impact on improving women representation.
The above literature has shown that the representation of women in athletics administration is low. However, the authors have not conclusively identified the reasons for this trend. This research seeks to identify the distinct cause of the low representation, which has persisted, despite measures being put in place to reverse the trend.
Methodology
The study to establish the causes of low representation in athletic administration will be conducted through an online survey. Online surveys are instrumental when collecting information that is personal or sensitive in nature. The researcher felt that the officials of NCAA could be unwilling to grant an interview on the subject of female representation for fear of reprisal because the question of equality at NCAA has been the subject of varied discussions for a while. Therefore, an online survey will offer anonymity to the participants. By offering anonymity, subjects will be more likely to participate freely, thus providing accurate and reliable data.
The research will target both male and female officials of the NCAA with the intention of obtaining their views regarding the causes of disparity in women representation. The study will be guided by previous studies in terms population and sample selection, research design, and data collection methods. The researcher chose to conduct an online survey because the existing findings have not conclusively addressed the subject matter of this study. As a result, the prevailing information gap can only be filled by an extensive collection of quantitative data. Specific software will be designed to enable participants to respond to the preset questions. The software will help the researcher to measure the significance of the results in the general population. Additionally, the research will be able to observe and measure the change of attitude, opinions, and behavior by the respondents.
Terms and Assumptions
The researcher assumes that the southern states are generally more conservative compared to the northern ones. Further, the researcher assumes that inequality in NCAA administration between men and women would be more pronounced in the conservative south relative to the liberal north.
Population and Sample
The population of this study shall be obtained from a single NCAA station in a south state. The choice of this location is informed by perceived male dominance in NCAA in the “red states” in comparison with the more liberal north states of the country. A sample of 300 women will be used be included in the survey. The study targets women occupying both high-level and low-level positions of administration at NCAA. Anonymity will be assured for participants in a bid to eliminate censoring of information due to fear of reprisal.
Research Design
The researcher will use descriptive research design in this study. The participants will provide responses to predetermined questions. Each question will consist of four multiple choices from which the subjects will be required to pick their response for every question. Quantitative description is meant to help researchers to focus on aspects such as magnitude, size, and other measurable attributes of a phenomenon (Polit & Beck, 2013).
Data
This research will rely on continuous data obtained from the responses of participants. Different variables will be used to classify this data.
Data Collection
Data will be collected by way of survey responses. The NCAA Guide to SWA will be used to inform the variables to be used in the study.
Instruments
Data will be collected through an online survey. Special software will be designed that will contain specific questions and multiple-choice responses. The software will contain 25 questions and ten demographic items. The software to be used is based on the NCAA guide to SWA, designed in 2002. This instrument will be helpful in identifying the role played by female employees in each capacity.
Reliability and Validity of the Instruments
Online surveys are important in collecting sensitive information, especially where the identity of the participants should be kept anonymous. Using questions with multiple choices ensures that the responses of the participants are quantifiable. In this research, the researcher will stand a better chance to measure the extent of a phenomenon.
Reliability and Validity of the Methodology
The methodology of this study is quantitative. It will assist the researcher in determining the extent to which the identified causes influence women representation at NCAA.
Data Analysis
SPPS version 14.0 will be used to analyze data obtained for this study. Descriptive statistics will be calculated by using cross-tabulations to present the percentage disparities between the independent and dependent variables. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) will then be employed to statically analyze frequencies for each category by gender.
Limitations of the Study
This study is limited regarding generalizability. The researcher intends to involve only participants from one station located in the South. However, the attitudes toward women in leadership differ considerably between the north (liberal) and south (conservative) states. Thus, it is the researcher’s belief that this study may not be freely generalizable to all parts of the country.
Conclusion
Despite women having made major strides to match men in all fields, their representation in the athletic administration has remained consistently low. Indeed, Pent et al. (2007) found that the number of women in the management of female sports has drastically reduced from 90% in 1972 to only 18.6% in 2006. The results obtained from this study will be compared with the findings from previous studies to establish consistency.
While previous studies have found a low representation of women in this field, few of them have been dedicated to establishing the cause of this trend. Lumpkin et al. (2014) and Burton et al. (2011) reveal how the perception of role congruity and incongruity plays a key role in determining the gender of officials being hired to take up positions at NCAA. By engaging participants who are officials within NCAA, the researcher hopes to establish the true position regarding this finding. For instance, questioning members of the appointing board on the criteria used to fill positions that fall vacant may help to explain the diminished representation of females.
The researcher will interview SWA officials to establish whether they encounter any opposition from male counterparts while exercising their duties. This information will explain why the number of female NCAA officials has remained either low or diminished over the years. The assumption is that opposition by male counterparts could cause SWA officials to be disappointed, thus relinquishing their positions. Pent et al. (2007) assert that SWA officials do not effectively participate in decision-making, as it would be expected of senior NCAA officials. Because of the assured anonymity, participants may be willing to confide in the researcher regarding sensitive information such as being suppressed by seniors. The questions of the online survey shall be structured in a manner that elicits quantifiable data regarding the extent to which biasness influence appointments and role assignment at NCAA. This information will hopefully establish a strong link or nullify the perception that role congruity is a key cause of bias at NCAA.
In line with Hancock and Hums’ (2016) arguments, career advancement is an important determinant of female representation in any field. Previous research indicates that career advancement is based on the experience and competence of the official. The findings of this study will be used to examine how competence is determined by NCAA. Is there bias in determining who should be promoted to a higher rank? There is the likelihood that women are hardly promoted to higher positions of management. As a result, career stagnation may cause female officials to quit their jobs.
Additionally, career stagnation may discourage other women from seeking an appointment at NCAA in the first place. Either way, the result is a low representation of women. Acosta and Carpenter (2014) reveal how female representation at the higher levels of management is worse in the higher-level positions relative to the lower ranks. Accordingly, the research anticipates frustration because career stagnation is a major cause of low representation of women. The researcher has taken this opinion as a rationale for explaining why the number of women occupying top positions remains low, despite the NCAA allotting senior positions for women Advisors (SWA).
A major limitation of this study is that the sample that the author intends to use will not conclusively represent all the female NCAA administrators. As a result, generalizing the study may result in inconsistencies. Despite the fact that women captured in this study have worked in various regions of the country, they are currently located in one station in a south state.
Professional Implications
The findings of this study are expected to influence future appointments at the NCAA. As a result, the number of females occupying higher-level positions should increase.
Reference List
Burton, L. J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Perceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing role congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), 36–45.
Corwin, D. M. (2015). NCAA female athletic directors’ reported barriers, pathways, and mentoring. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech.
Galloway, B. J. (2013). The glass ceiling: Examining leadership perceptions within the domain of athletic administration. Ypsilanti, Michigan: Eastern Michigan University.
Hancock, M. G., & Hums, M. A. (2016). A “leaky pipeline”? Factors affecting the career development of senior-level female administrators in NCAA Division I athletic departments. Sport Management Review, 19(2), 198-210.
Hartzell, A. C. (2015). Understanding the career trajectories of mid-career female athletics administrators: A life course approach. Austin, UT: University of Texas.
Hoffman, J. (2010). The dilemma of the Senior Woman Administrator role in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3(1), 53-75.
Lumpkin, A., Dodd, R. K., & McPherson, L. (2014). Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Intercollegiate Athletics? Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 8(1), 33-46.
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more? An analysis of NCAA Senior Woman Administrators’ participation in financial decision-making. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 1(2), 157-174.
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2013). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Tiell, B., & Dixon, M. (2008). Roles and tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in intercollegiate athletics: A role congruity perspective. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2(3), 339-361.