examining the body of scholarship in sport management

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu
Page 6: SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu
Page 11: SMART Online Journal Volume 2, Issu

examining the body of scholarship in sport management

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?