examining the body of scholarship in sport management

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1EXAMINING THE BODY OF SCHOLARSHIP IN SPORT MANAGEMENT: A CONTENT ANALYSISOF THE JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENTBRENDA G. PITTS, EDD, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY, PAUL M. PEDERSEN, PHD, INDIANAUNIVERSITYKEYWORDS: SPORT MANAGEMENT, ACADEMIA, CONTENT ANALYSISABSTRACTSport management scholars have called forexamination of the literature in sportmanagement to explore its state in relation to itsrepresentation of the field of study and theindustry. The purpose of this study was toexamine the Journal of Sport Management (JSM).Content analysis methodology was used. Findingsreveal that the 52 issues examined in this studycontain 233 peer reviewed empirical researcharticles authored by 435 authors. The field ofstudy, as measured against sport managementcurriculum standards content areas, was found tohave unequal coverage with a high level of contentin Management and Organizational Skills, SportMarketing, and Sport Business in the SocialContext. Additionally, the sport business industryis inequitably represented with a majority ofresearch involving intercollegiate athletics (40%).INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OFLITERATUREMany scholars and academic leaders in the risingacademic discipline of sport management, at itsearly inception and today, note that the professionmust have a comprehensive body of literature witha foundation of knowledge that will prepareindividuals with a solid and appropriate educationfor their career endeavors in the sport businessindustry (Cuneen & Parks, 1997; Fielding, Pitts, &Miller, 1991; Mahony & Pitts, 1998; Parkhouse,Page 33Ulrich, & Soucie, 1982; Parks, 1992; Paton, 1987;Zeigler, 1987). Indeed, a body of knowledge oughtto represent the defined field of study. As Hancherstated, a body of literature should consist of “aminimum body of basic and fundamentalknowledge that is commonly possessed bymembers of the profession” (1944, as cited inFielding et al., 1991, p. 1). The sport managementfield of study and the sport business industry aredefined by the sport management curriculumstandards and sport management textbooks (SportManagement Program Review Council, 1993;2000) (see, for example, Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001;Parks & Quarterman, 2003; Parks, Zanger, &Quarterman, 1998).Nonetheless, sportmanagementscholars have alsopointed out thatthe state of sportmanagementliterature does notsufficiently reflectthe defined field ofstudy or the sportbusiness industry(Olafson, 1990;Paton, 1987; Pitts,2001; Slack, 1996;Soucie & Doherty,1996). ForSport management scholarshave called for examinationof the literature in sportmanagement to explore itsstate in relation to itsrepresentation of the field ofstudy and the industry.THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1instance, Slack stated that “sport managementhas not kept pace with the type of changes thathave occurred in the world of sport” and that “ourresearch is still very much dominated by studies ofphysical education and athletic programs” (p. 97).Pitts (2001) stated that “when one reads thetotality of our literature, one gets the distinctimpression that sport management is nothingmore than the study of managing college athleticsand some professional sports” (p. 3). In a study onone journal, the Sport Marketing Quarterly (SMQ),Pedersen and Pitts (2001) stated that the journalshould make changes in order to ensure itsrelevance to the field of sport managementbecause they found that there are “unevenamounts of coverage of the basic sport marketingcomponents, sport industry segments, anddifferent sports” (p. 23).These statements are supported by findings ofother studies and reviews of the body of literaturein sport management. In the earliest known study,Parkhouse et al. (1982) examined 336 sportmanagement doctoral studies reported inDissertation Abstracts International between 1950and 1980. It was concluded that the studies thatwere conducted dealt almost exclusively withphysical education and athletics at the collegiatelevel. Lambrecht (1991) conducted an examinationof 45 articles published in the Journal of SportManagement (JSM) from 1987-1990. Lambrechtnoted that 35% of the articles focused on college,university, and school issues while the remaining65% covered numerous other topics. However, nosingle topic was represented more often than thecollege, university, and school setting. Paton(1987) conducted an examination of 122 sportmanagement studies reported in CompletedResearch in Health, Physical Education, andRecreation and found that 60% focused on thecollege and university setting. Soucie and Doherty(1996) conducted a study whose stated purposewas “to identify past research endeavors in sportmanagement and examine…the topics and areasof concern that have preoccupied research in thisfield (p. 142).” They examined 288 NorthAmerican Society for Sport Management (NASSM)conference abstracts and 207 sport managementarticles in seven journals from 1983-93. ThePage 34findings revealed that the highest cluster (20%) ofarticles/abstracts focused on sport managementcurriculum and professional preparation issues.In a study by Barber, Parkhouse, and Tedrick(2001) in which 42 empirical studies publishedfrom 1991 to 1995 in JSM were examined, thefindings revealed that most studies focused onpersonnel management, curriculum,organizational structure, and Title IX, gender, andrace issues.In two studies conducted recently, examination ofsingular sport management journals was thefocus. Pedersen and Pitts (2001) investigated theSMQ and Mondello and Pedersen (2003) examinedthe Journal of Sports Economics (JSE). ThePedersen and Pitts study used a sport marketingmanagement model (Pitts & Stotlar, 1996) againstwhich to determine the extent of the coverage ofsport marketing elements. Further, they looked atthe extent of the coverage of the sport businessindustry by using a model designed by Parks et al.(1998). The results showed that the bulk of thesport marketing elements covered in the researchwas marketing management (22%) and consumeranalyses of spectators (17%). The Mondello andPedersen (2003) study revealed that the highestpercentages of articles focused on professionalsport team performance and payrolls (20%) andlabor market research (12.9%).In another study, Mowrey (2003) examinedconference proceedings published in 2000, 2001,and 2002 for the North American Society for SportManagement (NASSM), the European Associationfor Sport Management (EASM), and the SportManagement Association of Australia and NewZealand (SMAANZ). Similar to the two otherstudies, Mowrey’s findings revealed unevencoverage of sport management content areas(Mowrey also used the sport managementcurriculum standards for categorization). Inaddition, Mowrey’s findings showed seeminglydifferent interests in sport industry segmentsbetween the three associations. Whereas EASMpapers were focused on governance and SMAANZpapers were focused on tourism and leisure basedsport management, the NASSM papers werecentered around intercollegiate sport.THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1One fairly consistent finding of these studies wasthat research in sport management has failed toinvolve full representation of sport managementcontent areas and of segments of the sportbusiness industry: There is a disproportionatefocus on intercollegiate athletics and a fewprofessional sports and on some management andsome marketing topics. In relation to thefrequently investigated area of intercollegiateathletics, Pitts pointed out in 2001, and Soucieand Doherty (1996) earlier stated, “This is not tosuggest that in-depth research on some importanttopics is not warranted, but [both pointed out thisphenomenon] simply to make the case that thescope of research options in sport management isalmost limitless” (p. 498). While intercollegiateathletics administration is clearly a segment ofsport management, sport management and itsaccompanying research should be much broaderthan athletics administration.Analyzing the content of the academicpublications in the field of sport management,while not new, is not comprehensive, andtherefore, more research is warranted. While notexcusable, the limited self-examination isunderstandable because of the relatively youngand developing nature of this area of academicstudy. A reflection of this youth is revealed in thefact that the field of sport management has onlyproduced journals over the past two decades whileother disciplines of study have journals datingback to the early part of the twentieth century.Currently, there are over a dozen outlets fortheoretical literature within the field of sportmanagement, most of which began in the 1990’s.These sport management journals, with theirinception dates, are shown in Table 1.The influence of a journal can be far-reaching.According to Danylchuk and Judd (1996),scholarly journals are a significant resource andsource of information for academicians. Thisinformation is most likely used in the classroom,field, and further research. Because scholarsattend the same conferences and read the samejournals, they are, according to Soucie andDoherty (1996), “considerably influenced by whatPage 35other researchers are doing in the same field…andthere is often a temptation to pursue similarinvestigations” (p. 498). Therefore, it is imperativethat literature represents the field of study and itsindustry.Recently, several noted sport managementscholars have challenged their colleagues to assessthe current state of research literature in the field.Scholars such as Parks (1992), Paton (1987), Pitts(2001), and Slack (1993; 1996) have challenged theresearch in the field. Olafson (1990) andChelladurai (1992) questioned and challenged thefrequent lack of scope in the research. There is aneed for sport management scholars to reflect ontheir literature in an effort to determine what hasbeen published, where the field is right now, andwhat future directions might be taken. Criticalself examination such as this reveal the advancesthat have been made, identify the areas within theliterature that could use improvement, anddetermine the extent to which the literatureaccurately reflects the field of study and the sportindustry. As Parks (1992) noted, there is a need toattempt to determine, “what knowledge is neededin sport management” (p. 224). As Pitts (2001)noted, “in the near future, I challenge us tocritically examine the state of our literature andbegin the work toward expansion” (p. 4).Furthermore, Pedersen and Pitts (2001) notedthat, “the advancement of the discipline requiresthat the field of sport management take an inwardlook [at] scholarly publications” (p. 23).In addition, examining the role that gender playsin determining content in academic journals iswarranted (Aitchison, 2001; Spender, 1981). Thereare politics in relation to gender at play in everyboardroom, including editorial boards (Aitchison,2001). Gender has the potential to influence whatis happening with academic journals.JSM was launched in January of 1987 by thescholars of the North American Society for SportManagement (NASSM), which was formed in1985. Parks and Olafson (1987), in their initialcomments regarding the publishing of a new sportmanagement journal stated, “launching a newprofessional publication designed to meet theTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1needs of academicians, practitioners, and studentsis an exhilarating and challenging experience” (p.1). JSM, according to Weese (1995), “garnered ahigh standard of scholarship in a relatively shortperiod of time” (p. 239). Furthermore, Parkhouseand Pitts (2001) stated that the journal, “hasbecome the major source for disseminatingsignificant knowledge in the field” (p. 7).To date, JSM has not been examined to determinethe extent of its coverage of contributions to thesport management literature, its coverage of sportmanagement content areas, its coverage of thesegments of the sport business industry, and othersimilar factors. In an earlier study on the JSM,Barber, Parkhouse, & Tedrick (2001) examinedone aspect of the journal: the researchmethodologies used by authors. Therefore, it wasthe aim of this study to conduct such anexamination. Specifically, an investigation,through content analysis, was conducted into thepublishing history of the JSM. As was the intentof Soucie and Doherty’s (1996) analysis, theintention of this research effort is not, “to dictatewhere research should focus at this time” (p. 494)but rather to stimulate thought and discussionregarding the body of knowledge in the field ofsport management. The ultimate goal was, similarto the quest by Olafson (1990), to determineobjective evidence – and thus support or rejectsubjective opinions – regarding the research (andthose associated with that research) published inthe Journal of Sport Management.Therefore, the purpose of this study was toexamine JSM to provide a research baseddescriptive analysis of the journal. This type ofresearch will reveal the state of this journal andprovide a basis of information that could be usedin regards to future decision-making. For instance,if it is found that there actually is a large andinordinate amount of research on intercollegiateathletics, decisions made by researchers andjournal editors could be guided toward increasingattention to and emphasis on those areas withlittle or no research coverage.Specifically, the following questions guided thisexamination: What is the status of editorship forPage 36this journal? How many and what type of papershave been published? Who are the authors inregards to gender, institutional or organizationalaffiliation, and country? What types of researchmethods have been used? Does the body ofliterature in this journal reflect the range ofcontent areas as outlined in sport managementcurriculum standards? Does the literature in thisjournal reflect the depth and breadth of the sportbusiness industry?METHODOLOGYUsing the content analytic research methodology,this study was an examination of JSM from itsinception in January of 1987 (Volume 1, Issue 1)through the April issue of 2003 (Volume 17, Issue2). Content analysis, also referred to as theanalysis of communication, is an unobtrusive ornon-reactive research method employed by socialscientists. A content analytic method isunobtrusive or non-reactive because it has noeffect on the subject being studied as what is beinganalyzed has been already written or broadcast(Babbie, 1995). While content analysis has beenapplied to virtually every form of communication(books, magazines, periodicals, poems, letters,newspapers, radio broadcasts, and the Internet),this study applied content analysis to the articlespublished in a leading academic journal.RESEARCH DESIGNQuantitative content analysis is the systematicand replicable examination of symbols ofcommunication, which have been assignednumeric values, and the analysis of relationshipsinvolving those values, in order to describe thecommunication and draw inferences about itsmeaning (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 1998). Similarly, ahalf-century earlier, Berelson (1952) stated thatthe aim of content analysis is to objectively,systematically, and quantitatively describe themanifest content of communication. Stempel(1981) suggested a broader view of contentanalysis when he called it, “a formal system fordoing something that we all do informally ratherfrequently, drawing conclusions from observationsof content” (p. 119). Content analysis is simply asystematic and replicable way of formally doingsomething we informally do all the time. A contentTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1Protocol were used (see Sport ManagementProgram Review Council, 2000) (see Table 2). Inaddition, two content area categories were added:“sport management education,” and “other.” Thiswas done because the primary researchers knewthat there were some research articles thatfocused on some aspects of sport managementeducation, such as curriculum and accreditationissues, and some articles that focused on areasthat were outside of the prescribed content areas.SPORT INDUSTRY SEGMENTTo examine the coverage of the sport businessindustry, measures were developed based onindustry segments as delineated by Parks et al.(1998) (see Table 3). Coders were asked to fit eacharticle into the most appropriate (“best fitting”)segment. (Note: Because we limited the sportindustry segments to the Parks et al. work, somesegments were not included, such as, the fitnessindustry, and governing organizations.)Those segments included the following:Intercollegiate Athletics (any affiliation withcollege sports), Professional Sport (any affiliationwith pro sport), Participant Sport, CampusRecreation (i.e., Outdoors, Intramurals, FitnessCenter), Sport Communication (i.e., media, publicrelations), Sport Marketing (i.e., marketingdirector, operations), Sport Event and FacilityManagement (i.e., coordinator, manager), SportsMedicine (i.e., trainer, fitness director,physiologist), Health Promotion (i.e., wellnessdirector, health educator), Sport Tourism (i.e., tourguide, planner, convention specialist), SportManagement and Marketing Agencies (i.e., agent,research), International Sport (i.e., Olympics,Women’s World Cup), and Other (specify/explain).GENDER FOCUS OF ARTICLETo determine if the authors published in JSM arefocusing on women’s or men’s sports or sportbusinesses, we measured the gender focus of thearticles. Because females make up roughly half ofthe population and have made significant gains insports participation rates, spectator rates, asconsumers of sport, as managers and owners ofsport businesses, and in all other areas, weexamined to what extent authors who havePage 38published in JSM reflect this (Pitts & Stotlar,2002; “Female Executive,” 2002). For example, ifan article examined a sport organization such asthe Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA),that article was coded as being focused on femalesports. Similarly, if the article included ananalysis of the National Football League (NFL) ora similar organization, it was coded as beingfocused on male sports.CODERSThis study required four trained individuals (twosport management professors [one female and onemale] and two sport management doctoralstudents [one female and one male]) who workedindependently of each other to code every issue ofthe Journal of Sport Management. Depending ontime and financial constraints, a content analyticmethod can use one, two, or several coders (Riffeet al., 1998). The rationale for using these fourcoders for this study was that the four coders,because of their involvement in the field of sportmanagement and the coding for the pilot study,were comfortable and familiar with the definitionsof the protocol and codebook (Riffe et al., 1998).For this study, the four coders first independentlyexamined five issues of JSM (9.6% of the totalnumber of issues) to test intercoder reliability.This is further explained in the section onreliability below. After intercoder reliability codingwas completed, the entire collection of issues (52)was randomly divided into four groups (one foreach of the four coders).PRE-CODING AND PILOT TESTIn an effort to test the coding system, train thecoders, and determine any problematic areasoverall, a pilot study was conducted usingrandomly selected issues of JSM. For thispreliminary analysis, the four coders each codedfive issues of the journal. This pre-coding processrevealed several problems that were addressedbefore the actual study was performed. Throughthe pilot study process it was determined that fouradditional variables needed to be added to thecodebook. Furthermore, four initial categorieswere modified and two initial categories weredetermined to be too problematic and were thusremoved. Additional pilot study changes involvedTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1For the 158 articles that used quantitative dataanalysis, the majority used various approaches tomultivariate analysis. The highest percentage(21%) of such approaches consisted of researchinvolving factor analysis. There were 33 articlescoded as fitting this category. Twenty-nine articles(18%) used descriptive statistics to summarize thedata. This meant that 29 of the 158 quantitativearticles used univariate and bi-variate analyses (e.g., measures of central tendency, frequencies, z-scores, and similar descriptive statistics). Another18% (29 articles) used t-tests and simple Analysesof Variance (ANOVA). Regression analysis, in itsvarious forms within this approach to multivariateanalysis, was used in 25 articles (16%)while other forms of Multivariate Analyses ofVariance (MANOVA) (9%) were used in 14 articlesand Chi Square (8%) was used in 13 articles. Theremaining quantitative articles consisted ofvarious statistical and methodological categoriessuch as those using measures of relationship suchas correlational analysis (e.g., The Spearman Rhoand Pearson Product Moment), discriminateanalysis, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), andmeta-analysis.SPORT MANAGEMENT CONTENT AREAFOCUSThe results revealed that there was at least onearticle that fit each content area. The highestpercentage of articles (38%) was coded as fittinginto the Management and Organizational Skills inSport content area. Included in these 89 researcharticles were topics ranging from management toleadership, from organizational culture tomotivation, and from organizational theory toorganizational behavior. Sport marketing had thesecond highest percentage (18%) with 41 articles.The only other content area with at least 10% wasSport Business in the Social Context (BehavioralDimensions in Sport). This area had 24 articles(10%). There were 20 articles (9%) on SportManagement Education. This area included topicsthat dealt with such issues as education,curriculum, research, and sport managementgraduates. The complete breakdown of all thecategories can be found in Table 6.Page 42SPORT INDUSTRY SEGMENT FOCUSThe findings show that every segment used in thisstudy had at least one article except for thesegments of Sports Medicine, Sport Tourism, andSport Management and Marketing Agencies.Intercollegiate Athletics (see Table 7) was themost written about segment with 92 articles (40%)of all the articles included in this study. Withinthis segment were topics related to intercollegiateathletics, physical education, interscholasticathletics, coaches, and interuniversity physicaleducational and sport. The second and thirdhighest segments were Participant Sport with 31articles (13.3%) and Professional Sport with 30articles (12.8%). Participant sport articlesincluded such topics as participation, leisureactivities, and health clubs. These segments werefollowed by a miscellaneous section labeled“Other” that included 19 (8%) articles that couldnot be placed in any specific segment (i.e., articledon combined segments, all sports, mass sport at alllevels of competition, general organizationaltheory, employment, women in sport, sport law).Sport Management Education had 16 articles (7%)on such topics as sport management graduates,academic research, curriculum, and scholarship.The coders identified no articles in three distinctsegments of the sport industry (Sports Medicine,Sport Tourism, and Sport Management andMarketing Agencies). While there were most likelyarticles closely related to these segments, thecoders were forced to place each article coded intothe “best fitting” segment in their codebook.Therefore, because there were no articlesidentified in the three above mentioned segments,this meant that any articles related to thosesegments were coded in another better fitting andappropriate segment.GENDER FOCUS OF ARTICLESThe findings reveal that there were 110 articles(47%) that were coded as not having anidentifiable gender focus. However, of those 123articles that did have an identifiable gender focus,38 (31%) were focused on male sports and 14(11%) were focused on female sports (see Table 8).Furthermore, 71 (58%) of the 123 articles withidentifiable gender focus were focused on bothTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1female and male sports. Table 8 also shows howthese results compare to two other studies onsport management journals.CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONBased on the findings of this study, the followingconclusions were drawn. First, this journal hascontributed 233 peer-reviewed empirical researcharticles to the body of literature in sportmanagement since its inception in 1987. Indeed,some have praised the journal stating that it“garnered a high standard of scholarship in arelatively short period of time” (Weese, 1995, p.239) and that it “has become the major source fordisseminating significant knowledge in thefield” (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2001, p. 7). However,the sport management literature, with this journalincluded, has received criticism for its lack of fullrepresentation of sport management content areasand sport business industry segments (Olafson,1990; Paton, 1987; Pedersen & Pitts, 2001; Pitts,2001; Slack, 1996; Soucie & Doherty, 1996). Thefindings of the current study provide empiricalevidence that supports these claims. Althoughthere was at least one article whose content wascategorized into each of the content areasidentified, there was a disproportionate number ofarticles on each area, and a wide margin betweenthe content area with the most number of articles(38% of the articles focused on management andorganizational skills in sport) and the second mostnumber of articles (18% focused on sportmarketing). Beyond those two categories, thepercent of articles focused on a content area was10 percent and lower. Therefore, it can beconcluded that there has been an inequitableamount of focus on the sport management contentareas.Second, the findings of this study are similar tothe findings of other studies on singular journalsin sport management and another study onconference proceedings topics. Taken individually,each study cannot be inferred to the wholepopulation with a high degree of confidence.However, when the findings of all four studies areconsidered together, that degree of confidencerises. Given that four studies represent a greaterpercentage of the whole body of literature, therePage 43is more evidence that the sport managementliterature appears to be heavily lopsided.Therefore, there is increasing evidence to supportthe claims that sport management literature doesnot yet reflect or represent the many differentsegments of the sport business industry, and aredisproportionately focused on intercollegiateathletics and a few professional sports. As noted,the findings of this study are similar to the resultsof the Pedersen & Pitts (2001) study on anothersport management journal, the Sport MarketingQuarterly. However, the current study found aslightly higher focus on “participant sport” (13.3%)than “professional sport” (12.8%). Pedersen andPitts found that the segments of the industry onwhich most articles were focused includedprofessional sport (36%), sport marketing (19%),intercollegiate athletics (12%), participant sport(8%), sport management and marketing agencies(7%), and sport communication (7%). The resultsof the current study show that the largest percentof articles were studies on intercollegiate athletics(92 articles, 40%) and that the next largestpercent was a distant 13.3% and was participantsport, with professional sport at 12.8%. Inaddition, these results are similar to the findingsof Mondello and Pedersen (2003) in their study onanother sport management journal, the Journal ofSports Economics. Yet, the results of that studyshow an overwhelming disparity. Mondello &Pedersen reported that the industry segment focusbreakdown was 80% on professional sports (andthat that broke down into 51.8% on the men’s ‘bigfour’ sports while 28.2% was on other professionalsports) and 7.1% on college athletics.Third, although females make up roughly half ofthe population in general and increasing numbersin sports, the results of this study reveals that thiscannot be said for the gender focus of the articlesin JSM. Of those articles with an identifiablegender focus, more than twice the number andpercent of articles were focused on male sports;however, the largest percent (58%) focused on bothgenders. This finding is also similar to previousresearch findings. Pedersen and Pitts (2001)reported that the gender focus of articles in theSMQ was 28% on male sports and 8% on femaleTHE SMART JOURNAL

The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1sports while 24% focused on both genders.Alarmingly, the results of the analysis of the JSE(Mondello & Pedersen, 2003) show that thedisparity between gender focus was extreme:81.2% on male sports, 14.1% on both genders,4.7% with no gender focus, and zero articles onfemale sports. It is perplexing, if not discouraging,that there is such disparity between the number ofmale sports and female sports as a focus of thearticles because the opportunities to study girls’and women’s sports are numerous.Fourth, in regard to authorship, the followingconclusions can be drawn. The number (andpercent) of peer-reviewed empirical researcharticles authored by female and male authors was36% and 61%, respectively. This finding is similarto the findings of the earlier studies. Pedersenand Pitts, in the study on the SMQ, reported thatthere appeared to be “an alarming disparity in thenumber of authors in relation to gender” (p. 22).Similarly, the findings of the Mondello andPedersen study on the JSE show a much largerdisparity: 95.3% male authors, and 4.7% femaleauthors (Mondello and Pedersen did not commenton this finding). Although there is disparity in thenumber of articles by female and male authors inthe JSM, it is not as great as the journals in theother two studies.The authors of the current study and the authorsof the other two studies did not attempt todetermine the reasons for these disparities.However, it is common knowledge that there is adifference in the number of female and malefaculty in the sport management professoriate.That is, the number of males is slightly higherthan the number of females. Therefore, perhaps apartial explanation of the difference in thenumbers of the genders of authors in thesejournals is that the numbers are somewhatreflective of the gender make-up of theprofessoriate. (It would be interesting if futureresearch could be conducted and offer some actualnumbers and explanations of this.)Fifth, this journal has a more positive record inrelation to gender of editors and reviewers thanthose numbers reported in the two other studies.Page 44In the current study, JSM’s editor makeup hasbeen 50-50 female/male. Compared to the othertwo journals, JSM’s record is tremendous. Thefindings of the studies on Sport MarketingQuarterly and the Journal of Sports Economicsrevealed an alarming number of zero of femaleeditors. In addition, JSM also has a much betterrecord in relation to the gender difference inreviewers. JSM’s gender makeup has been 45%female and 55% male, whereas the SMQ has been35% female and 65% male and the JSE has beenan alarming 3% female and 97% male.Certainly, research is warranted in this area intwo prongs. First, research in needed to examinethe reasons why there is disparity in gendermakeup of editorial staff. Second, research isneeded to determine if there is gender bias inrelation to the types and topics of papers that aresubmitted and that get published. In other words,at first glance at the numbers provided in Tables 6and 7, it could be estimated that there is acorrelation between the gender makeup of editorsand reviewers and the gender of author andgender focus of paper. As Aitchison (2001) notes,“In most cases, there is a close correlation betweenthe percentage of men on the editorial board andthe percentage of articles authored by men” (p.13).IMPLICATIONS AND AREAS OF CONCERNFOR SPORT MANAGEMENTThe implications of the current study have thepotential to be far reaching. The results provideempirical evidence that this journal is falling shortof providing literature representative of the sportmanagement content areas and the sport industrysegments. However, when compared to twojournals included for study in two previousstudies, JSM has made more positive progress.While these statements are based solely on theseresults only, it was not the purpose of this study toattempt to examine why this is so. For instance,the topics in the journal probably reflect theinterests of its authors. Certainly, editors ofjournals have no or little control over authors’research interests and, therefore, no control overmaterial that is submitted. Personal interestsalone, however, does not relieve one’s professionalTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1responsibility to provide the field with anappropriate body of literature. This, then, raises aquestion that begs consideration: Who isresponsible for monitoring and adjusting the sportmanagement body of literature? The stakeholdersin sport management perhaps include academics,students, journal editors/owners, book authors,and industry practitioners. We submit that theprimary responsibility falls on the shoulders ofacademics because they are responsible for sportmanagement education: providing the appropriateeducation for individuals to work in the sportbusiness industry.Journal editors are also academics. However, theyhave the added responsibility as gatekeepers ofsome of the literature. Discourse in the academicsetting is most often shaped by publishing and“involvement with the gatekeeping institutions inpublishing” (Aitchison, 2001, p. 2). Power andcontrol reside with the gatekeepers whomAitchison (2001) and Spender (1981) identified asjournal editors and reviewers and publishingadvisors. These people “set the parameters inwhich individuals are encouraged to work if theywish to be at the center of issues in theirdiscipline” (Spender, 1981, p. 186). Althougheditors have no control over researchers’ interests,editors can influence research in specific areasthat could impact the coverage of topics in thejournal. For example, this can be done with specialtheme issues: journal editors could specify specificthemes that cover the missing or low percentagetopics and invite guest editors to manage thoseissues. This would be far more productive andprogressive than relying on the traditional methodof waiting for submitted ideas for theme issues.There is concern that needs examination inrelation to gender. Even with better numbers thanthe previous studies on other journals, thematerial in JSM does not appropriately reflect theindustry in relation to women in sport. Therecould be much improvement in this area. JSMeditors, as well as the owners of the journal,NASSM, would be wise to investigate this andother gender related issues. As noted by Aichison(2001), “academic associations that have directlinks with academic journals have a duty toPage 45ensure that their journals are accountable to theirmembers” (p. 17).The findings of this study lend empirical evidenceto the accusations and concerns of leaders in sportmanagement in relation to the disparity ofcoverage and representation of sport managementcontent areas, sport industry segments, andwomen’s sports. Therefore, it appears that there isroom for improvement of the depth and breadth ofour research literature. Scholars such as Parks,Paton, Pitts, Olafson, Chelladurai, and Slack havequestioned and challenged the frequent lack ofscope in the research in the field of sportmanagement. There is more often than not animpression given from the literature in our fieldthat the study of sport management is mainly justthe study of managing college athletics and someprofessional sports. Paton (1987) challenged sportmanagement researchers to broaden their scopeafter he reported that the sport managementliterature had a heavy focus on careers in highereducation and college athletics. Slack (1996) addedthat the JSM devoted 65% of its articles to thesubjects of physical education and intercollegiateathletics. A cursory evaluation by Pitts (2001) ofsport management journals, conferenceproceedings, and sport management textbooksonly to further report that little had changed withthis heavy focus on college athletics. Pitts (2001)challenged sport management researchers,publishers, and editors to not ignore collegeathletics and professional sports, but to take onthe responsibility of expanding the scope of theirpublications to include more aspects of the vastunder-explored aspects of the sport managementfield. As Soucie and Doherty (1996) stated, whilemultiple studies on some key topics are warrantedand cause scholars to often feel a strong pulltoward pursuing similar investigations, “the scopeof research options in sport management is almostlimitless” (p. 498).It appears that the body of knowledge in sportmanagement research is in need of researcherswith a vision and scholarship that can enhancethe literature and fill the gaps. This will ensurethat the field’s literature reflects what scholars inthe field claim to be the sport business industry.THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1The literature influences the definitions of a field.Most importantly, the researchers must identifywhere improvements are needed and strive tomake progress.Sport Management was an outgrowth of the fieldof Physical Education. Many early sportmanagement programs were so connected withphysical education and athletics that they werenamed, appropriately, athletic administration. Butthe field of sport management, today, is one that ismuch larger than athletic administration. In fact,this component of sport management is arelatively small part of the $195 billion(Broughton, 2002) sport industry. With this inmind, why does it appear that athleticadministration is still the main emphasis in theprograms of higher learning and academicliterature of sport management? In order foracademia to catch up with reality, there is a needfor this young academic field of sport managementto move beyond the boundaries of athleticsadministration. As Soucie and Doherty (1996)noted, “sport management researchers have onlybegun to scratch the surface and many morepertinent topics and relationships that bear on theefficient and effective management of sport needto be investigated” (p. 498). Furthermore, Barberet al. (2001) also stated, “it does appear that anumber of topics are ripe for exploration” (p. 230).NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCHThere is a need for this study to be replicated in anumber of years and compared to the results ofthis study to look for changes in future issues ofthe journal. Additionally, There is a need forfurther critical self-examination of the otherjournals in this relatively young and developingnature of this area of academic study. The field ofsport management has only produced academicjournals over the past two decades while otherdisciplines of study have journals dating back tothe early part of twentieth century. Currently,there are over a dozen outlets for theoreticalliterature within the field of sport management,most of which began in the 1990’s. With this inmind, in order to determine the advancement ofthe discipline, there is a need for the field of sportmanagement to take an inward look at thesePage 46scholarly publications. In addition to determiningif the current state of literature is reflecting whatsport management scholars believe to be the sportbusiness industry, this critical self-examination isneeded in order to identify what advances havebeen made and where improvements need to bemade.REFERENCESAitchison, C. (2001). Gender and leisure research:The “codification of knowledge.” Leisure Sciences,23, 1-19.Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research(7 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Barber, E. H., Parkhouse, B. L., & Tedrick, T.(2001). A critical review of the methodology ofpublished research in the Journal of SportManagement from 1991 through 1995 as measuredby selected criteria. International Journal of SportManagement, 2(3), 216-236.Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis ofcommunication research. New York: Free Press.Broughton, D. (2002, March 11). Passion that can’tbe counted puts billions of dollars in play.SportsBusiness Journal, 4 (47), 25-26.Budd, R. W., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967).Content analysis of communication. New York:Macmillan.Chelladurai, P. (1992). Sport management:Opportunities and obstacles. Journal of SportManagement, 6, 215-219.Cuneen, J., & Parks, J.B. (1997). Should we servesport management practice or sport managementeducation? A response to Weese’s perspective.Journal of Sport Management, 11, 125-132.Danylchuk, K. E. & Judd, M. R. (1996). Journal ofSport Management readership survey. Journal ofSport Management, 10, 188-196.Female executive is opening doors. (2002, April14). New York Times, p. H2.THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1Fielding, L. W., Pitts, B. G., & Miller, L. K. (1991).Defining quality: Why should educators in sportmanagement programs be concerned aboutaccreditation? Journal of Sport Management, 5, 1-17.Folger, J. P., Hewes, D. E., & Poole, M. S. (1984).Coding social interaction. In B. Dervin & M. J.Voigt (Eds.). Progress in communication sciences,Vol. IV (pp. 115-161). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the socialsciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: Anintroduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.Lambrecht, K. W. (1991). Research, theory, andpractice. In B. L. Parkhouse (Ed.), Themanagement of sport: Its foundation andapplication (pp. 27-38). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.Mahony, D. F. & Pitts, B. G. (1998). Researchoutlets in sport marketing: The need for increasedspecialization. Journal of Sport Management, 12,259-272.Mondello, M.J. & Pedersen, P.M. (2003). A contentanalysis of the Journal of Sports Economics.Journal of Sports Economics, 4 (1), 64-73.Mowrey, R J. (2003). An examination ofinternational sport management research:Content analysis of NASSM, EASM, andSMAANZ conference presentations 2000-2002.Paper presented at the annual conference of theAmerican Alliance for Health, Physical Education,Recreation, and Dance,Olafson, G. A. (1990). Research design in sportmanagement: What’s missing, what’s needed?Journal of Sport Management, 4, 103-120.Parkhouse, B. L. & Pitts, B. G. (2001). Definition,evolution, and curriculum. In B. L. Parkhouse(Ed.), The Management of sport: Its foundationPage 47and application. (pp. 2-14). (3 rd Ed.). Boston:McGraw Hill.Parkhouse, B. L., Ulrich, D. O., & Soucie, D.(1982). Research in sport management: A vitalrung of this new corporate ladder. Quest, 34, 176-186.Parks, J. B. (1992). Scholarship: The other “bottomline” in sport management. Journal of SportManagement, 6 (3), 220-229.Parks, J. B. & Olafson, G. A. (1987). Sportmanagement and a new journal. Journal of SportManagement, 1(1), 1-3.Parks, J.B. & Quarterman, J. (2003).Contemporary sport management. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.Parks, J. B., Zanger, B., & Quarterman, J. (1998).Contemporary sport management. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.Paton, G. (1987). Sport management research –What progress has been made? Journal of SportManagement, 1(1), 25-31.Pedersen, P. M. & Pitts, B. G. (2001).Investigating the body of knowledge in sportmanagement: A content analysis of the SportMarketing Quarterly. The Chronicle of PhysicalEducation in Higher Education, 12(3), 8-9, 22-23.Pitts, B. G. (2001). Sport management at theMillennium: A defining moment. Journal of SportManagement, 15, 1-9.Pitts, B. G. & Stotlar, D. K. (1996). Fundamentalsof sport marketing. Morgantown, WV: FitnessInformation Technology.Pitts, B. G. & Stotlar, D. K. (2002). Fundamentalsof sport marketing (2 nd Edition). Morgantown, WV:Fitness Information Technology.Potter, W. J. & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999).Rethinking validity and reliability in contentanalysis. Journal of Applied CommunicationTHE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1Research, 27, 258-284.Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzingmedia messages: Using quantitative contentanalysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis.Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321-325.Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room to theboard room: Changing the domain of sportmanagement. Journal of Sport Management, 10,97-105.Slack, T. (1993). Morgan and the metaphors:Implications for sport management research.Journal of Sport Management, 7, 189-193.Soucie, D. & Doherty, A. (1996). Past endeavorsand future perspectives for sport managementresearch. Quest, 48, 486-500.Spender, D. (Ed.). (1981). Men’s studies modified:The impact of feminism on the academicdisciplines. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Sport Management Program Review Council.(1993; 2000). Sport management programstandards and review protocol. NationalAssociation for Sport and Physical Education andNorth American Society for Sport Management:Reston, VA.Stempel, G. H. III. (1981). Content analysis. In G.H. Stempel III & B. H. Westley (Eds.). Researchmethods in mass communication (pp. 119-131).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Weese, W. J. (1995). If we are not servingpractitioners, then we’re not serving sportmanagement. Journal of Sport Management, 9 (3),237-243.Zeigler, E. F. (1987). Sport management: Past,present, future. Journal of Sport Management, 1(1), 4-24.Page 48THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1Table 1Sport Management and Related Journals and Dates of InceptionCyber Journal of Sports Marketing — started January, 1997 (ended July, 2000)European Sport Management Quarterly (European Journal of Sport Management) — 1994ICHPER-SD Journal of Research — 2005International Journal of Sport Management — 2000International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing — 2005International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship — 2000International Sports Journal — 1997Japan Journal of the Sports Industry — 1998Journal of Contemporary Athletics — 2005Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport and Physical Activity — 1990Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sport — 2005Journal of Sports Economics — 2000Journal of Sport Management — 1987Journal of Sport Tourism — 1993Korean Journal of Sport Management — 1995Marquette Sports Law Review — 1990Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law — 1990Sport Management Review — 1998Sport Marketing Quarterly — 1992The SMART Journal — 2004 (previously known as SMART Online Journal)The Sports Lawyers Journal — 1993Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Journal — 1994___________________________________________________________________________Table 2Content Areas Used in the Current Study as Identified in the NASPE-NASSM Sport ManagementProgram Standards (2002) and the Added CategoriesSport Business in the Social ContextSport MarketingFinance and SportSport EconomicsEthics in Sport ManagementSport LawCommunication in SportGovernance in SportManagement and Organizational Skills in SportField ExperiencesSport Management EducationOtherPage 49THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1Table 3Sport Business Industry Segments Used in the Current Study as Identified in Parks, Zanger, &Quarterman (1998) and the Added CategoriesIntercollegiate AthleticsProfessional SportParticipant SportCampus RecreationSport CommunicationSport MarketingSport Event and Facility ManagementSports MedicineHealth PromotionSport TourismSport Management and Marketing AgenciesInternational SportSport Management EducationOtherTable 4Country of Authors in JSMCountry of Author f PUnited States 250 58%Canada 118 27%United Kingdom 17 3.9%Australia 15 3.5%South Korea 11 2.5%Japan 6 1.4%South Africa 5 1.2%China 2 0.5%France 2 0.5%Belgium 2 0.5%Nigeria 1 0.2%New Zealand 1 0.2%Greece 1 0.2%Finland 1 0.2%Singapore 1 0.2%India 1 0.2%Unspecified 1 0.2%Page 50THE SMART JOURNAL

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Fall 2005 Volume 2, Issue 1sportsTable 5Gender of Authors, Editors, and Editorial Reviewers: A comparison to the previous studiesJournal Gender of Author: Gender of Editors: Gender of Reviewers:Female Male Female Male Female MaleJournal ofSport Management 36% 61% 50% 50% 45% 55%(current study)Sport MarketingQuarterly 20% 78% 0 100% 35% 65%(Pedersen & Pitts)Journal ofSports Economics 4.7% 95.3% 0 100% 3% 97%(Mondello & Pedersen)Table 6Results: Sport Management Content AreasContent Area f PManagement & Organizational Skills in Sport 89 38%Sport Marketing 41 18%Sport Business in the Social Context 24 10%Sport Management Education 20 9%Finance in Sport 13 6%Governance in Sport 12 5%Sport Economics 10 4%Sport Law 10 4%Ethics in Sport Management 8 3%Communication in Sport 4 2%Field Experience 1

SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu e 1The SMART Journal Volume 2, Issue 1Table 7Results: Sport Business Industry SegmentsContent Area f PIntercollegiate Athletics 92 39.5%Participant Sports 31 13.3%Professional Sports 30 12.8%Other 19 8.2%Sport Management Education 16 6.9%Campus Recreation 13 5.6%Sport Marketing 12 5.2%International Sport 8 3.4%Sport Communications 5 2.1%Sport Event & Facility Management 4 1.7%Health Promotion 3 1.3%Sports Medicine 0 0%Sport Tourism 0 0%Sport Management & Marketing Agencies 0 0%Table 8Results: Gender Focus of ArticleJournalGender Focus of Article:Female Male BothJournal ofSport Management 11% 31% 58%(current study)Sport MarketingQuarterly 8% 28% 24%(Pedersen & Pitts)Journal ofSports Economics 0% 81.2% 14.1%(Mondello & Pedersen)Page 52THE SMART JOURNAL