paper

INTRODUCTION

Gender and Sex Diversity in Sport Organizations: Introduction to a Special Issue

George B. Cunningham & Michael Sagas

Published online: 19 December 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Special Issue on gender and sex diversity in sport organizations. In doing so, we first provide a brief outline of the extant literature, emphasizing the research and theoretical developments at the macro, meso, and micro level of analysis. Based on this framework and review, we allude to the communalities and intricacies in the existing understanding of sex and gender in the sport workplace. Further, we highlight how the contributions in the Special Issue address these voids and can serve as a catalyst to continued scholarly work in the area.

Keywords Sport . Athletics . Masculinity. Stereotypes

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the Special Issue on gender and sex diversity in sport organizations. In doing so, we first briefly outline the role of sex and gender in sport organizations. In recognizing that sport organizations are multilevel entities (Dixon and Cunningham 2006; Kozlowski and Klein 2000), we outline the role of sex and gender at three levels: macro, where the focus is at the societal and/or sport industry level; meso, which is situated at the organizational level of analysis; and micro, where our focus resides on the individual men and women within the sport and physical activity context (see also Benschop 2006). In providing this review, we highlight representative

research and the theories that have predominantly been used. Second, we draw attention to the importance of sex and gender research in sport organizations and highlight some of the communalities and intricacies of the research devoted to the topic. In doing so, we suggest that the papers included in the current Special Issue are not only a reflection of the current state of gender and sex issues in sport organizations, but also serve as a catalyst for future research in this area—research that hopefully encompasses the varied methodologies, frameworks, and contexts seen among these contributions.

Sex and Gender in Sport Organizations

While issues pertaining to gender and sex diversity are prominent in all organizations, they are especially pro- nounced in the sport context. This is true for both men and women and holds across different races, ethnicities, ages, religions, and abilities (Hearn and Collinson 2006; see also Frisby et al. 1997). Various legal mandates, such as Title VII and Title IX, have brought about substantial changes to the sport landscape over the past 40 years. As a result, girls and women enjoy greater access to sport and physical activity than they ever have before (Acosta and Carpenter 2006), and several women hold high-profile positions in organizations such as the International Olympic Committee (Shaw and Frisby 2006).

Nevertheless, sport organizations are often places that still reproduce traditional gender roles and male privilege and dominance (Claringbould and Knoppers 2007; Messner and Sabo 1990; Shaw and Hoeber 2003). Women, as a whole, are under-represented in leadership positions, paid less for their work, and marginalized in the workplace (Acosta and Carpenter 2006; Whisenant et al. 2002). Sport

Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9 DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9360-8

G. B. Cunningham (*) : M. Sagas Laboratory for Diversity in Sport, Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, 4243 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4243, USA e-mail: [email protected]

organizations are contexts where men and masculinity are privileged and where jobs are linked with traditional gender and sex-role stereotypes (Sartore and Cunningham 2007). This phenomenon is not surprising given that organized sport was created by and for heterosexual able-bodied men and boys, and continues to be monopolized by these same persons on most levels (Fink et al. 2001; Knoppers et al. 1991). Indeed, issues related to gender and sex continue to play a significant role in the everyday functioning of sport organizations.

Macro Level Forces

At the macro level, researchers are concerned with the structural and institutional elements that shape the produc- tion and reproduction of gender. Such discussions are oftentimes concerned with variations in the labor market positions men and women hold (Benschop 2006). As one example, there is evidence to suggest that women are under-paid relative to men. According to the US Census Bureau’s 2004 statistics, men educators earn 31% more than do their women counterparts ($956/week and $729/ week, respectively), and similar differences exist for recreation and fitness professionals (24%; $585/week and $473/week, respectively). A slightly different picture emerges when examining the salaries of university athletics coaches. Women coaches of women’s basketball teams are paid more than men who coach those squads (Humphreys 2000), thereby giving rise to some optimism. However, coaches of men’s basketball teams earn almost double what the coaches of women’s teams earn. This is meaningful because, although both men and women serve as the head coach for women’s teams, head coaching positions of men’s teams are, in effect, reserved for men (Knoppers 1992; see Acosta and Carpenter 2006, for statistical support). Thus, the earning potential for women is considerably less than it is for men.

In seeking to justify these discrepancies, some might suggest that because men’s teams generate more monies for their university, their coaches (re: men) should be compen- sated accordingly. Sport economist Andrew Zimbalist (1999) contested this point of view. Specifically, he argued that the salaries coaches of men’s teams earned were substantially greater than what would be expected based on the financial returns their teams generated. Based on this evidence, Zimbalist submitted that differences in men’s and women’s salaries were a function of social factors (i.e., discrimination) as opposed to economic rationale. Of course, these differences are not limited to the coaching context, as such discrepancies are seen in various sport contexts (e.g., the prize monies professional tennis players earn).

The under-representation of women in coaching and leadership positions represents another macro level issue

that has received considerable attention. When Title IX was passed in 1972, women represented over 90% of the coaches of women’s university teams and 2% of the head coaches of men’s teams (Acosta and Carpenter 2006). As of 2006, women represented less than half of the coaches of men’s teams (42.4%)—a statistically significant decline (Sartore and Sagas 2006)—and still represented just 2% of the coaches of men’s teams. When considering all univer- sity athletic teams, men represent 82.3% of the head coaches (Acosta and Carpenter 2006). Similar trends are apparent for administrators of women’s university athletics programs (Acosta and Carpenter 2006), as well as for administrators in sport organizations worldwide (see Cunningham 2007).

Researchers have examined the under-representation in coaching and leadership positions from both supply and demand perspectives. Human capital theory (Becker 1993; Nordhaug 1993) and social capital theory (Seibert et al. 2001) have informed supply-side explanations. From these perspectives, people’s human capital (e.g., education, training) and social capital (i.e., the size and strength of one’s social network) investments should be positively related to their career success. Researchers have shown that this is not the case, however, as women coaches (Cunningham and Sagas 2002) and administrators (Sagas and Cunningham 2004) receive fewer returns for their human capital invest- ments relative to their men counterparts. Demand explan- ations, on the other hand, have received considerable support. Many authors have pointed to discrimination, whether access or treatment, as influencing the under-representation of women in coaching (Knoppers 1992; Lovett and Lowry 1994; Lowry and Lovett 1997; Stangl and Kane 1991; see Aitchison et al. 1999, for examples in the leisure industry). Women have less access to coaching and leadership positions, and when they do obtain such positions, they are treated less well than are their men counterparts. This pattern is especially prevalent as the proportion of women in a sport organization decreases (Acosta and Carpenter 2006). Gender stereotypes also influence the discrimination women experi- ence, as research has consistently shown that people associate quality leaders with men (Schein 1973, 1975), even in the coaching profession (Kane, as cited in Anderson 2001).

Meso Level Forces

At the meso level, research “typically focuses on the organizational level and studies the contributions that organizations make to the (re)production of gender” (Benschop 2006, p. 287). Meyerson and Kolb (2000; see also Shaw and Frisby 2006) outlined four frameworks that have been used to study gender in organizational settings. The first, liberal individualism, assumes that men and women have equal access to opportunities and subsequently

4 Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9

succeed or fail due to their own volition. The goal of such programs, then, is to equip women, through leadership development and other training programs, with the skills necessary to effectively compete with men. The second approach, liberal structuralism, recognizes gender inequal- ities that result from bias and discrimination; thus, the goal is to eliminate structural and procedural impediments to women’s success and advancement in the workplace. The third perspective, termed valuing differences, shifts the focus from eradicating differences between men and women, to embracing and celebrating those variations. The belief here is that traditionally feminine characteristics, such as listening, collaborating, and peacemaking, add value to the workplace. While each of these perspectives is thought to have certain strengths, none of them challenge the prevailing stereotypes and embedded values, assump- tions, and beliefs held by organizational members; hence, the need for the fourth frame, post equity. From this perspective, gender is not solely concerned with women nor is it focused on discriminatory practices. Rather, “gender is an axis of power, and organizing principles that shapes social structure, identities, and knowledge” (Meyerson and Kolb 2000, p. 563). Shaw and Frisby (2006) further add that, within this poststructuralist framework, “the discourses and assumptions that make gendered hierarchies and practices appear normal are disrupted with the aim of creating space for the development of new meanings and understandings to guide the implementation of alternative polices and practices” (p. 490).

Though not used to a significant degree within the sport realm, authors have begun to adopt the fourth frame to guide their research (Hall et al. 1989; Hoeber and Frisby 2001; Shaw 2006; Shaw and Hoeber 2003). For instance, Shaw examined the gendered social processes within national sport governing bodies in the UK. She noted that informal networking, dress codes, and the use of humor all served to privilege men and masculinities within the sport organizations. Shaw and Hoeber observed similar findings with respect to the symbols of success in the sport organizations they examined. These studies, and others like them, have advanced the study of gender equity within the sport context by (a) including men in their analyses, (b) moving beyond the liberal feminist approach, and (c) emphasizing the importance of reflexivity and the taken- for-granted nature of sport organizations’ activities and policies.

Micro Level Forces

With micro level forces, the focus is on the individual coaches and administrators within sport organizations. Psychological (e.g., social cognitive career theory; Lent et

al. 1994), social psychological (e.g., social identity theory; Tajfel and Turner 1979), and human resource management (e.g., organizational support theory; Eisenberger et al. 1986) theories have oftentimes been employed in such examinations. Research among coaches has indicated that women, relative to men, leave the coaching profession at an earlier age (Sagas et al. 2000; Knoppers et al. 1991) and express less interest in becoming a head coach (Cunningham and Sagas 2002; Cunningham et al. 2007). The positions left vacant by women are oftentimes filled by men (Hart et al. 1986), thereby serving to further increase the discrepancies in the proportion of men and women serving as head coaches. In seeking to understand why such differences exist, researchers have pointed to differences between men and women in self-efficacy (Cunningham et al. 2007; Cunningham et al. 2003), the anticipated outcomes associ- ated with being a head coach (Cunningham et al. 2007), support from administrators (Dixon and Sagas 2007), perceived opportunities in the profession (Knoppers et al. 1991), and the Title IX compliance of the department in which the coach works (Sagas and Batista 2001).

Critics of this approach contend that micro level researchers are, in essence, blaming the victim (Knoppers 1987). That is, researchers adopting this perspective may be seen as pointing to the women themselves (e.g., women leave coaching sooner than do men) to explain gender inequality. These researchers are also seen as largely ignoring the influences of societal and structural forces that constrain choices people make (Benschop 2006). While such criticisms are legitimate in some cases, micro level researchers have increasingly acknowledged that human agency is shaped by pressures external to the individual. For instance, Cunningham et al. (2007), in their study of Canadian coaches, examined the influence of head- coaching self-efficacy (i.e., a personal characteristic) as well as the barriers and supports the coaches received (i.e., organizational and industry-level variables). Similarly, Sagas et al. (2006), who adopted a theory of planned behavior approach to their study of assistant coaches, recognized the influence of significant others on coaches’ head coaching intentions. Studies such as these point to the multilevel influences on people’s vocational interests and behaviors.

From a different perspective, sport marketing and consumer behavior researchers have increasingly consid- ered gender in their analyses of sport spectators. Marketing efforts have traditionally been geared toward attracting the “average fan” to the event—that is, the efforts have been aimed at men and attracting them to sport venues and events (Fink et al. 2002). However, women represent a growing segment of the fan base; further, research has shown that, relative to men, women are more likely to purchase team merchandise and are more likely to remain

Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9 55

loyal to the team in the future (Fink et al. 2002). Our review of the literature suggests that much of the sport marketing research that includes gender is a-theoretical in nature. Researchers primarily compare the responses of men to women, potentially because of the ease of which demo- graphic information can be collected. As one notable exception, Swanson et al. (2003) submitted that gender stereotypes influence the motives for sport consumption. Men, who are stereotypically more aggressive and success- oriented, were predicted to value activities that are high in entertainment value, stimulate them, and provide a sense of self-worth when the team succeeds. On the other hand, women, with their presumed emphasis of feminine qualities such as communal concerns, were thought to seek family- oriented activities. These predictions were generally sup- ported, as men’s attendance was largely influenced by the motivation to be emotionally aroused at the event (a concept known as eustress) while women’s attendance was influenced by group affiliation reasons.

Widening the Scope: Contributions of the Special Issue

The preceding review and commentary of the literature devoted to sex and gender in sport organizations suggest that the research questions that been studied and continue to emerge from this body of literature are oftentimes compli- cated and complex in nature. The apparent development of the research streams devoted to addressing a number of research questions at the macro, meso and micro levels is both an indicator of the ongoing development of the work in this area, and a potential gap in the way scholars address the topic. In reflecting on the extant research, we highlight the gaps in the literature and the manner in which the articles included in the Special Issue address these voids.

Multilevel Research

First, we suggest that what is apparent from the previous literature is that most issues pertaining to sex and gender in sport organizations can be viewed as multilevel. Thus, the lack of research that has adopted a multilevel approach is discouraging. Various authors in the Special Issue have specifically addressed this issue. For instance, Claringbould and Knoppers (2008) pointed to the need to examine the interconnectedness between organizational structures and behaviors of organizational members. Cunningham (2008), in his framework for creating and sustaining gender equality in sport organizations, argued that institutional forces (macro), organizational policies (meso), and individ- ual commitment to gender equality and the behavioral manifestations thereof (micro) all contribute to the change process. These works recognize the complexity and

multilevel nature of sport organizations and hopefully serve as a catalyst for future researchers to do the same.

Theoretical Focus

As previously noted, much of the gender research, especially in the area of sport marketing and consumer behavior, is a-theoretical in nature. Many of the studies in this area lack a critical analysis of how gender might influence men’s and women’s reactions to sport and their motivation for consuming it. As a departure from this trend, both Angelini (2008) and Parker and Fink (2008) provide strong theoretical rationale for their study of sport consum- ers. Angelini drew from multiple perspectives, including social identity theory and social cognitive theory, to examine women’s emotional responses to gendered sport portrayals. Parker and Fink also drew from various frame- works—the framing paradigm, the cultural congruence model, and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion— to examine the manner in which commentators influ- enced spectator’s attitudes toward women athletes and women’s sports. Indeed, all of the authors in the Special Issue, irrespective of the focus of the research, adopted a strong theoretical rationale to formulate their research questions or hypotheses. In doing so, the articles address the calls for more emphasis on theory and theoretical development in diversity research (Cunningham and Fink 2006).

Varied Methodologies

In addition to calls for increased theoretical rigor, gender and sport researchers have also been challenged to embrace varied methodological approaches (Cunningham and Fink 2006). Frisby (2005) noted:

The paradigms we operate from as researchers, whether it is positivism, pragmativism, interpretivism, critical social science, post modernism, or a combina- tion of these paradigms, shape the questions that we ask, the methods we use, and the degree to which our findings will have an impact on society (2005, p. 2).

An over-reliance on any one paradigmatic perspective can skew the manner in which a construct or phenomenon is understood. The articles in the Special Issue have adopted varied methodological approaches, including in- depth semi-structured qualitative interviews (Bruening and Dixon 2008; Claringbould and Knoppers 2008; Fielding- Lloyd and Mean 2008; Hoeber 2008; Ross and Shinew 2008), critical discourse analyses (Knoppers and Anthonissen 2008), participant observations (Anderson 2008), survey research (Avery et al. 2008), and laboratory experiments (Angelini 2008; Parker and Fink 2008). The diversity

6 Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9

of approaches to the study of sex and gender in sport organizations provides an encompassing perspective—one that allows for a more complete understanding of gender in the workplace.

Multiple Contexts

Much of the research reviewed earlier has been developed in the US context, likely because of the emergence of the field of sport management in the country and the large influx of pertinent issues infused with the passage and continued interpretations of Title IX. Perhaps the energizing force of Title IX may also explain why a majority of the research on sex and gender in the USA is devoted to college and university athletics (e.g., coaches, administra- tors, spectators). Indeed, many of the studies in the Special Issue focused on this context, examining under-researched areas. Bruening and Dixon (2008), for instance, investigat- ed the ways women coaches negotiated the pressures of work and family, while Avery et al. (2008) researched the effects of mentor–protégé gender similarity on the quantity of mentoring received. Furthermore, few scholars have examined athletes and their perceptions of gender-related concepts. Studies from Hoeber (2008) and Ross and Shinew (2008) address these shortcomings.

Of course, while examination of intercollegiate athletics is important, there is also a need to broaden the under- standing of gender in sport organizations, both in terms of the organizations studied and the location of the research. As the offerings in this Special Issue attest, the issues under study possess numerous cultural issues at the macro, meso and micro levels. Many of the studies examine gender issues beyond the athletics context, including those in national sport organizations (Claringbould and Knoppers 2008; Knoppers and Anthonissen 2008), soccer organiza- tions (Fielding-Lloyd and Mean 2008), and cheerleading (Anderson 2008). Further, the scholarly efforts in the Special Issue framed in the Canadian (Hoeber), Dutch (Knoppers and Anthonissen), and British (Fielding-Lloyd and Mean) contexts are a sign of the global reach of the topic. We contend such extensions represent a necessary development toward understanding the theoretical bound- aries of ongoing and past contributions.

Conclusion

As Fink (2008) notes in her concluding article, “sport is still a powerful mechanism by which male hegemony is constructed and reconstructed.” As such, the continued investigation of gender and sex diversity in sport organ- izations is not only warranted, but paramount. The articles in this Special Issue address the four major needs in this

research stream: the need for multilevel research, varied methodological approaches, greater theoretical focus, and the investigation of gender in multiple contexts. As such, we hope that the contributions reported in this issue will indeed serve as a means for continued integrative and multilevel empirical work and theoretical development.

References

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2006). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal study—twenty nine year update-1977–2006. Unpublished manuscript, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, NY.

Aitchison, C., Jordan, F., & Brackenridge, C. (1999). Women in leisure management: A survey on gender equity. Women in Management Review, 14(4), 121–127.

Anderson, E. (2008). “Being masculine is not about who you sleep with...:” Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Anderson, K. (2001). Where are all the women coaches? Sports Illustrated for Women, 3(1), 86–91 January/February.

Angelini, J. R., (2008). How did sport make you feel? Looking at three dimensions of emotion through a gender lens. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., & Phillips, M. G. (2008). Similarity on sports sidelines: How mentor–protégé sex similarity affects mentoring. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Benschop, Y. (2006). Of small steps and the longing for giant leaps: Research on the intersection of sex and gender within workplaces and organizations. In A. M. Knorad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 273–298). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bruening, J. E., & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Situating work–family negotiations with a life course perspective: Insights on the gendered experiences of NCAA Division I head coaching mothers. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2008). Doing and undoing gender in sport governance. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Claringbould, I., & Knoppers, A. (2007). Finding a ‘normal’ woman: Selection processes for board membership. Sex Roles, 56, 495–507.

Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Diversity in sport organizations. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.

Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Cunningham, G. B., Doherty, A. J., & Gregg, M. J. (2007). Using social cognitive career theory to understand head coaching intentions among assistant coaches of women’s teams. Sex Roles, 56, 365–372.

Cunningham, G. B., & Fink, J. S. (2006). Diversity issues in sport and leisure: Introduction to a special issue. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 455–465.

Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2002). The differential effects of human capital for male and female Division I basketball coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 489–495.

Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2003). Coaching self- efficacy, desire to head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences between NCAA assistant coaches of women’s teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 125–137.

Dixon, M. A., & Cunningham, G. B. (2006). Multi-level analysis in sport management: Conceptual issues and review of aggregation

Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9 77

techniques. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10(2), 85–107.

Dixon, M. A., & Sagas, M. (2007). The relationship between organizational support, work–family conflict, and the job-life satisfaction of university coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 78, 236–247.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Fielding-Lloyd, B., & Mean, L. J. (2008). Standards and separatism: The discursive construction of gender in English soccer coach education. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Fink, J. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding remarks. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., & Riemer, H. A. (2001). Do differences make a difference? Managing diversity in Division IA intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 10–50.

Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consump- tion behavior. Gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8–19.

Frisby, W. (2005). The good, the bad, and the ugly. Critical sport management research. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 1–12.

Frisby, W., Crawford, S., & Dorer, T. (1997). Reflections on participatory action research: The case of low-income women accessing local physical activity services. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 8–28.

Hall, M. A., Cullen, D., & Slack, T. (1989). Organizational elites recreating themselves: The gendered structure of national sport organizations. Quest, 41, 28–45.

Hart, B. A., Hasbrook, C. A., & Mathes, S. A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of female interscho- lastic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57, 68–77.

Hearn, J., & Collinson, D. (2006). Men, masculinities and workplace diversity/diversion: Power, intersections and contra- dictions. In A. M. Knorad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.) Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 299–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoeber, L. (2008). Gender equity for athletes: Multiple understand- ings of an organizational value. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Hoeber, L. & Frisby, W. (2001). Gender equity for athletes: Rewriting the narrative for this organizational value. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1, 179–209.

Humphreys, B. R. (2000). Equal pay on the hardwood: The earnings gap between male and female NCAA Division I basketball coaches. Journal of Sports Economics, 1, 299–307.

Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest, 39, 3–22.

Knoppers, A. (1992). Explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching: Three approaches. Quest, 44, 210–227.

Knoppers, A., & Anthonissen, A. (2008). Gendered managerial discourses in sport organizations: Multiplicity and complexity. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Knoppers, A., Meyer, B. B., Ewing, M., & Forrest, L. (1991). Opportunity and work behavior in college coaching. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 10, 1–20.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic in- terest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). “Good old boys” and “good old girls” clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, 8, 27–35.

Lowry, C. D., & Lovett, D. J. (1997). Women coaches: Does when dictate why they leave? Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 1997, 35–53.

Messner, M., & Sabo, D. (1990). Sport, men, and the gender order. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Meyerson, D. E., & Kolb, D. M. (2000). Moving out of the “armchair”: Developing a framework to bridge the gap between feminist theory and practice. Organization, 7, 553–571.

Nordhaug, O. (1993). Human capital in organizations. New York: Oxford.

Parker, H. M., & Fink, J. S. (2008). The effect of sport commentator framing on consumer attitudes. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Ross, S. R., & Shinew, K. J. (2008). Perspectives of women college athletes on sport and gender. Sex Roles, 58, 1–2.

Sagas, M., & Batista, P. J. (2001). The importance of Title IX compliance on the job satisfaction and occupational turnover intent of intercollegiate coaches. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 16, 15–43.

Sagas, M., & Cunningham, G. B. (2004). Does having the “right stuff” matter? Gender differences in the determinants of career success among intercollegiate athletic administrators. Sex Roles, 50, 411–421.

Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Ashley, F. B. (2000). Examining the women’s coaching deficit through the perspective of assistant coaches. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, 267–282.

Sagas, M., Cunningham, G. B., & Pastore, D. L. (2006). Predicting head coaching intentions of male and female assistant coaches: An application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sex Roles, 54, 695–705.

Sartore, M. L., & Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Ideological gender beliefs, identity control and self-limiting behavior within sport organizations. Quest, 59, 244–265.

Sartore, M. L., & Sagas, M. (2006). A trend analysis of the proportion of women in college coaching. International Journal of Sport Management, 8, 226–244.

Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.

Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.

Shaw, S. (2006). Scratching the back of “Mr. X”: Analyzing gendered social processes in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 510–534.

Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can gender equity be more equitable?: Promoting and alternative frame for sport management research, education, and practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 483–509.

Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). “A strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch”: Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 347–375.

Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches

8 Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9

since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 47–60.

Swanson, S. R., Gwinner, K., Larson, B. V., & Janda, S. (2003). Motivations of college student game attendance and word-of- mouth behavior: The impact of gender differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 151–162.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.) The social

psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Whisenant, W. A., Pederson, P. M., & Obenour, B. L. (2002). Success and gender: Determining the rate of ad- vancement for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 47, 485–491.

Zimbalist, A. (1999). Unpaid professionals. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sex Roles (2008) 58:3–9 99