examining the body of scholarship in sport management

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