KNH272 Sport Leadership Research Project FORMAT FOR THE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT PAPER NOTES:Please follow the format specified below when writing the summary/abs

KNH272 Sport Leadership Research Project FORMAT FOR THE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT PAPER

NOTES:Please follow the format specified below when writing the summary/abstract of your assigned research article.See example summary/abstract provided on the next page.Also, it is very important that you do not plagiarize when writing your summary/abstract.That means that your summary/abstract must be written in your own words.DO NOT JUST “Copy and Paste” from the research article you were assigned to summarize!Your summary/abstract will be evaluated on-line for plagiarism.

Bibliographic Information:Provide all author name(s), title of article, journal name, volume number, and page numbers.Use APA style (exactly!).See example on next page.

Study Purpose(s):Explain clearly and completely what the purpose(s) of this study was/were. This information is most typically found in the paragraph(s) just before the methods section starts.

Study Hypothesis/Hypotheses (if any are stated in the article):State clearly the hypothesis (hypotheses) that the authors offered in their review of the literature.NOTE:An hypothesis is a statement that explains what the researchers thought they were going to find in their study.In some articles, no hypotheses are forwarded.If that is the case for your study, just state that.

Study Design:Explain what type of study this was (field study, field experiment, lab experiment).

Study Procedures:Explain how study was conducted and/or how data were collected.If you do this well, the reader will see exactly how the study was done.

Study Participants:Describe the participants in terms of the number, age, gender, and any other relevant characteristics.Also explain how participants were selected or recruited.

Study Instruments;Describe the instruments that were used to measure the study variables.

Results:In 1-2 paragraphs, explain the main results from this study.Be complete enough that the reader gets a clear idea as to what was found.

Discussion:Write a summary of the discussion section from this article.In particular, you should include the following things:

a.the main “take-away” message the authors suggest

b.possible directions/topics for future research

c.recommendations/suggestions for practitioners

d.limitations to the current study

FINAL NOTE:Be sure that you are providing a clear and complete description of the study in your summary/abstract.After reading your summary/abstract, the reader should have a very clear idea as to what the study was about and what was found.If there is a lack of clarity, points will be deducted. Sport Management Review 15 (2012) 304–317
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Sport Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr
‘‘They cannot seem to get past the gender issue’’: Experiences of young
female athletic trainers in NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics
Laura J. Burton a,*, John Borland b, Stephanie M. Mazerolle a
a
b
University of Connecticut, United States
Springfield College, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 28 July 2011
Received in revised form 3 January 2012
Accepted 3 January 2012
Within Division I intercollegiate athletics, women hold 46.4% of graduate assistant and
47% of assistant athletic trainer positions, yet hold only 18.8% of head athletic trainer
positions. The purpose of this study was to explore whether issues of power and gender
stereotyping contribute to the lack of women in head athletic training positions in
intercollegiate athletics. Data were gathered from 14 female athletic trainers at Division I
universities through semi-structured interviews and follow-up questions based on those
interviews and were analyzed using post-structural feminism as the theoretical
framework. The findings revealed that male coaches used gender stereotypes to challenge
the professional competence of our participants along with formal and informal work
practices to reinforce power over the professional lives of our participants.
ß 2012 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Gender stereotyping
Power
Post-structural feminism
Intercollegiate sport
1. Introduction
The field of athletic training has experienced significant increases in the number of women entering the profession the
past 20 years. Data reported in 2010 at the Division I intercollegiate level in the United States indicated that women
represented 46.4% of graduate assistant athletic trainers and 47% of assistant or associate athletic trainers. Concurrently, the
number of women advancing in the field, specifically to head athletic trainer positions within Division I, has not increased
significantly. In 2010, the percentage of women holding the head athletic trainer position was 18.8% (Irick, 2010); this is a
mere 2.7% increase from 1996 when the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) first collected these demographics
data. Within Division II, women hold 29.6% of head, 57.3% of assistant and 46.8% of graduate assistant athletic training
positions. At the Division III level, women hold 39.7% of head, 59.3% of assistant and 48% of graduate assistant athletic trainer
positions (Irick, 2010). Comparing the three divisions, women hold the lowest percentage of head and assistant athletic
training positions at the Division I level. Emerging research within the field of athletic training has attempted to explore the
disparity in the number of women entering the field, working at the graduate assistant and assistant athletic training
positions, and the lack of representation in leadership positions (i.e., head athletic trainer) in athletic training in Division I
intercollegiate athletics. This research has explored work–family conflict, mentoring, and gender role stereotyping of athletic
trainers (Goodman et al., 2010; Kahanov, Loebsack, Massucci, & Roberts, 2010; Laurent & Weidner, 2001; Mazerolle,
Bruening, Casa, & Burton, 2008; O’Connor et al., 2010; Pitney & Ehlers, 2004).
* Corresponding author at: Dept. of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, 2095 Hillside Rd., U-1110, Storrs, CT 06269, United States.
Tel.: +1 860 486 3095; fax: +1 860 486 1123.
E-mail address: laura.burton@uconn.edu (L.J. Burton).
1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.01.001
L.J. Burton et al. / Sport Management Review 15 (2012) 304–317
305
Female athletic trainers have experienced gender stereotyping, specifically when working within intercollegiate athletics
(Ohkubo, 2008; Walk, 2000). Women working in athletic training have had to overcome gendered stereotypes that constrain
them to the prescribed feminine roles of either mothers or sisters responsible for caring for male athletes. In addition, female
athletic trainers have also experienced benevolent sexism when male coaches have refrained from using profanity or making
overtly sexist remarks in their presence (Ohkubo, 2008; Walk, 2000). Shingles (2001) reported that some female athletic
trainers assumed a daughter role to the older, male coaches to negotiate the hegemonic masculinity that marks athletic
departments (Fink, Pastore, & Riemer, 2001). Female athletic trainers have also been subjected to sexual harassment from
both male athletes and coaches (Ohkubo, 2008; Walk, 2000). Experiences of sexual harassment and gender stereotyping
have had negative impacts on the ability of female athletic trainers to successfully carry out the duties and responsibilities of
their profession.
There has been a paucity of research that explores whether the organizational practices operating within Division I
athletic training programs are influenced by gender, and if so, how these organizational practices differentially impact the
experiences of male and female athletic trainers (Acker, 1990). There is a developing line of research within athletic training
that has examined women’s attrition from athletic training positions in Division I. This research has considered how
challenges of work–family balance and the stereotypes of women as primary caregivers have contributed to this attrition
(Goodman et al., 2010; Mazerolle et al., 2008). Although this research has begun to highlight potential contributing factors
for the lack of women in head athletic training positions at the Division I level, there has not been an exploration of how
organizational practices and power demonstrated by coaches and athletic administrators influence the experiences of
women and contribute to attrition.
To further examine the gendering of organizational practices in athletic training and call attention to how athletic
administrators and those in supervisory roles can influence these gendered organizational practices we followed Shaw and
Frisby’s (2006) challenge to go beyond a liberal feminist approach to understanding gender issues in sport, and to engage in a
fourth frame of research based on post-structural feminism. This fourth frame, developed by Ely and Meyerson (2000),
proposed that researchers explore the complexities of gender issues and provide a ‘‘platform upon which an alternative frame of
gender equity’’ (Shaw & Frisby, 2006, p. 490) can be developed. The current research utilized this approach to better understand,
through the experiences of female athletic trainers, if organizational practices within athletic training are gendered.
1.1. Post-structural feminist frame guides research
There is a gap in the literature within the domain of athletic training that has explored the attrition of women from
positions at the Division I level. Current literature follows a liberal feminist approach to examine gender inequity in sport
organizations, specifically athletic training, that does not allow a critique of how sport organizations operate (Shaw & Frisby,
2006; Sibson, 2010). Instead, a liberal feminist approach focuses on increasing women’s involvement in sport by removing
structural barriers, valuing differences between men and women, and developing women’s skills in a leadership context
(Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Following post-structural feminism, the fourth frame approach to
examining gender equity within sport organizations allows for researchers to analyze, disrupt and challenge discourses and
assumptions which make gender hierarchies appear as normal (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Consent for these gender hierarchies is
explained through masculine hegemony theory. Masculine hegemony is a pattern of practices that subordinate women and
other groups that do not represent dominant masculinity (e.g., gay men) (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Using a poststructural feminist approach, ‘‘prevailing structures, practices, discourses, and values . . . taken for granted in sport
organizations are critiqued’’ (Sibson, 2010, p. 380).
1.2. Understanding how gendered organizations operate
As noted in the introduction, the number of women holding head and assistant athletic trainer positions is lowest in
Division I. Research has begun to explore reasons accounting for why women leave assistant or associate athletic training
positions failing to advance to head athletic trainer positions (Goodman et al., 2010; Kahanov et al., 2010). This attrition
(Goodman et al., 2010; Mazerolle et al., 2008) combined with the disproportionate number of women practicing athletic
training at the assistant and graduate assistant levels in comparison to women working as head ATs in Division I settings
(Irick, 2010) makes it worthwhile to explore whether Division I athletic training departments are organized around gender.
Acker (1990) describes the gendering of organizations, ‘‘to say that an organization . . . is gendered means that advantage and
disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through and in terms of a
distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine’’ (p. 146). Organizations are gendered if, the construction of
the division of work falls along gender lines, and there are symbols and images created, including language, ideology, and
dress, that express, reinforce, or at times oppose, those divisions (Acker, 1990). In addition, organizations are gendered if
there are processes that produce gendered social structures, including interactions that ‘‘enact dominance and submission’’
(p. 147) between men and women. Finally, organizations are gendered if these organizational processes as described by
Acker (1990) produce gendered components of individual identity within the organization, whereby individuals have an
understanding of the existence of the other three aspects of gender within the organization as described above, including the
selection of appropriate work for each gender, language use within the organization, clothing, and the presentation of self as
a gendered member of an organization.
306
L.J. Burton et al. / Sport Management Review 15 (2012) 304–317
The fourth frame approach (Shaw & Frisby, 2006) provides an opportunity to conceptualize gender as an ‘‘axis of power’’
(p. 491) that shapes organizational structures, identities, and dominant forms of knowledge that become truths within the
organization (Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). One way gender operates along an axis of power is evident through gender
stereotypes, which can result in some occupations deemed more appropriate for men or for women (Ely & Meyerson, 2000;
Ely & Padavic, 2007). Social role theory is used to understand gender stereotyping within organizational practices, as this
framework explains that there are qualities and behavioral tendencies believed to be desirable for each gender, as well as
expectations of the roles women and men should occupy (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Social role theory holds that in all areas of
society women are expected to exhibit more communal characteristics, including being affectionate, sympathetic, nurturing
and gentle (Eagly, 1987; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). However, men are typically expected to display more agentic
characteristics, including aggressiveness, dominance, and self-confidence (Eagly, 1987; Eagly et al., 2000). Subsequently,
prescriptive gender role stereotypes suggest women should exhibit more communal characteristics and roles, while men
should display more agentic qualities (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
1.3. Stereotyping influences selection, competence of workforce
Gender typing of managerial roles through gender role stereotyping was evidenced in evaluation of positions in athletic
administration and revealed a perception that masculine managerial roles were more important for the position of athletic
director, a position held predominantly by men, compared to the position of life skills director, a position held predominantly
by women (Burton, Barr, Fink, & Bruening, 2009). In addition, athletic administrators perceived a woman as less likely to be
hired as an athletic director even though she was perceived equally as likely to be successful for that position when
compared to a man (Burton, Grappendorf, & Henderson, 2011). Sibson (2010) examined the structure of a volunteer
grassroots sport organization board of directors and determined that men and women held positions appropriated based on
gendered assumptions. Women on the board were responsible for clerical work and home/kitchen duties while the men
handled facility management and maintenance (Sibson, 2010). When considering coaching positions, gender of coaches
appeared to influence placement of coaches to particular teams, though this selection process appeared to be an informal
practice within the organization (Greenhill, Auld, Cuskelly, & Hooper, 2009). Female coaches have also experienced less
organizational support for career progression based on gendered assumptions that questioned their ability to coach at a high
level and also devalued their coaching qualifications in comparison to their male counterparts (Claringbould & Knoppers,
2008; Shaw & Allen, 2009; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003).
Gender stereotyping has also influenced perceptions of competence for women; specifically, when women perform male
gender-typed work they are perceived as less competent when compared to men (Heilman, Block, & Martell, 1995; Spence &
Buckner, 2000). There is also support for the influence of gender stereotypical perceptions of female incompetence within
sport; when evaluated for entry-level positions in sport management, men were perceived as more competent than women
with equal qualifications (Burton, Grappendorf, Henderson, Field, & Dennis, 2008). In addition, when women are perceived
as physically attractive they are subsequently perceived as less competent (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009; Heflick, Goldenberg,
Cooper, & Puvia, 2011). Objectification theory posits that within Western culture women’s competence, but not men’s, is
based on physical appearance. When individuals are asked to focus on physical appearance, women are perceived as less
competent, warm, and moral, when compared to men (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009; Heflick et al., 2011). As noted by Heflick
et al. (2011), this is particularly challenging for women, as women are more often evaluated on their physical appearance
compared to men, and ‘‘women face unique detrimental consequences’’ (p. 580) in the form of dehumanization and
objectification as a result.
1.4. Confluence of gender and power within organizations
Any discussion of objectification, gender typing and perceptions of competence must parallel a discussion of where and
how power is concentrated in organizations. Power and gender are linked structurally (Ely & Padavic, 2007). Power within
organizations exists through external functions in formal policies and procedures, and also through informal work practices
in norms, language, and symbolic expression (Ely & Padavic, 2007). Power, within a post-structural research framework, is
conceptualized in one of two ways, as a limited commodity or as an energy generated by relationships (Foucault, 1980 as
cited in Sibson, 2010; Rao, Stuart, & Kelleher, 1999). When considering power as energy, it is ‘‘a product not only of position
but also of information, relationship, and spirit’’ (Rao et al., 1999, p. 6). Power is exclusionary when it is not shared nor used to
build inclusive relationships with all individuals in the organization.
Ely and Padavic (2007) indicate that power is linked to gender within organizations in at least three different ways. First,
power connects to gender in the structure of organizations, as men who are overrepresented in higher status jobs have
higher pay and more status within organizations. In addition, power is demonstrated through social practices that perceive
men as powerful and women as compliant, and therefore positions and tasks are constructed to favor men. Finally, power can
be used in the process of gender identity formation within the organization such that external forces of power ‘‘endorse
particular meanings of gender, and internal pressures dictate the degree of one’s compliance’’ (Ely & Padavic, 2007, p. 1131).
This results in men being overrepresented in leadership or higher status occupations, and provides men with more formal
organizational power and positional power (Ely & Padavic, 2007; Rao et al., 1999). Positional power derives from being in a
position of authority (i.e., head athletic trainer, senior athletic administrator). This type of power can be used to exclude
L.J. Burton et al. / Sport Management Review 15 (2012) 304–317
307
individuals from an organization but can also be used to include individuals (Rao et al., 1999). Positional power can also be
used to facilitate change processes within an organization. As Rao et al. (1999) noted, ‘‘the potential of positional power as
domination is entrenched in the hierarchy and control structure of organizations and become manifest in the male
dominated, authority based cultures . . .’’ (p. 7). Men hold positional power within Division I athletics, including athletic
training. In Division I, men hold 90% of the director of athletics positions and approximately 70% of both the associate and
assistant athletic director positions (Irick, 2010).
1.5. Formal and informal uses of power
In a gendered organization, power operates externally through formal practices and policies used within an organization
which may appear as neutral to men and women, but those practices and policies have different impacts on men and women
(Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Thus, organizational practices are influenced by gender and therefore must be
examined as gendered practices. Greenhill et al. (2009) noted that the formal practices of recruitment and promotion of elite
sport coaches, including position advertisements and selection criteria, were less likely to attract female coaches compared to
male coaches. Sibson (2010) noted that power was demonstrated in the formal discussions observed during Board of Director
meetings. The three female members of the board participated less in discussions compared to the three male members, and
when the female members did raise issues, those issues were ‘‘glossed over’’ or sometimes completely ignored (Sibson, 2010).
In addition, power operates in gendered organizations through informal practices (e.g., meeting times, informal systems
of rewards, types of work valued), which also have differential impacts on the men and women working in the organization
(Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). Exclusionary power within a sport organization was demonstrated by the
informal practice of allowing retiring board members to be immediately reappointed to the board, thereby allowing certain
male board members to establish themselves as dominant members of the board as a result of continuous service (Sibson,
2010). Within the coaching domain, female coaches reported significant role strain and work–family conflict when trying to
meet the formal and informal obligations of coaching. Female athletic trainers also experience work–family conflict in trying
to balance their roles as both an athletic trainer and mother (Goodman et al., 2010; Mazerolle et al., 2008); in some cases it
has influenced their decisions to remain within the collegiate setting (Goodman et al., 2010). Th…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment