Week 1 Discussion
bkmorgan
QuietCompetenceWritingWomenIntotheHistoryofU.S.SportandExercisePsychology.pdf
349
PROFILES
Krane is with the School of Human Movement, Sport, and Leisure Studies, Bowling Green State Univer- sity, Bowling Green, OH. Whaley is with the Dept. of Educational Psychology/Applied Developmental Science, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
The Sport Psychologist, 2010, 18, 349-372 © 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Quiet Competence: Writing Women Into the History of U.S. Sport
and Exercise Psychology
Vikki Krane Bowling Green State University
Diane E. Whaley University of Virginia
To read the written history of U.S. sport and exercise psychology, one easily could assume that women were absent from the field. Yet, indisputably women have assumed influential leadership roles through their research, leadership in profes- sional organizations, editing major journals, and mentoring graduate students and novice professionals. Based on life history interviews, grounded in standpoint and feminist cultural studies perspectives, we present the collective contributions of 8 women who greatly affected the development of the field of sport and exercise psychology in the U.S. Although traveling different paths and having varied strengths and weaknesses, certain attributes distinguished their journeys; most notably, they were driven, selfless, dignified, humble, competent, and passionate about developing the field. Their legacy includes generations of students who have carved their own careers in sport and exercise psychology; lines of research that have established the field as rigorous, theory-based, practical, and relevant; and caring and competent leadership in our professional organizations.
To read the written history of U.S. sport psychology one easily could assume that women were absent from the field. Not surprisingly, this seems to be a common theme across the history of numerous scientific fields. For example, Kass-Simon (1993) expressed that “for women in science to be remembered, not only must their work be thought right, but usually it must have such impact upon scientific thought that exclusion is impossible” (p. xiii). Bonta (1991) also highlighted how the important work of women in natural history has been overlooked, as did Gürer’s (1995) treatise on women in computer science. Trescott (1993), discussing women in the development of engineering, noted the irony that while overlooked in recorded history, women “were highly visible during their careers due to their extreme underrepresentation” (p. 148). Referring to psychology, Furumoto and Scarborough (1986) pointed out that women “have been largely overlooked in
350 Krane and Whaley
histories of the discipline” (p. 35). The field of sport and exercise psychology is no different in terms of the telling of our history.
Indisputably, women have assumed influential leadership roles in developing the field of sport psychology1 through their research, leadership in professional organizations, editing major journals, and mentoring graduate students and novice professionals. However, most introductory textbooks that have a chapter on the history of sport psychology, at best give only cursory acknowledgment to women in the field (e.g., Anshel, 2003; Weinberg & Gould, 2007). An exception is Richard Cox (2007), who acknowledges that “women were also instrumental in the early development of sport psychology in North America” (p. 6). In fact, women such as Dorothy Harris, Tara Scanlan, Diane Gill, and Jean Williams, have been presenting their research since the early meetings of North American Society for the Psychol- ogy of Sport and Physical Activity (NASPSPA; e.g., Landers & Christina, 1977; Wade & Martens, 1974) and wrote chapters for early sport psychology texts (e.g., Silva & Weinberg, 1984; Straub, 1980; Straub & Williams, 1984). Yet their work has not received the same recognition as their male peers.
Other literature highlighting exemplars in the field followed a similar pattern. For example, Straub and Hinman (1992) profiled 10 leading sport psychologists from the 1980s. Included in their article were: Daniel Gould, Daniel Landers, Rainer Martens, Robert Nideffer, Bruce Ogilvie, Terry Orlick, Tara Scanlan, Robert Singer, Ronald Smith, and Robert Weinberg–only one woman. As recent as 2005, in an article with a brief overview of the history of applied sport psychology in North America, Zaichkowsky and Naylor point out books written by Bryant Cratty and Bob Singer as well as the research and teaching of clinical psychologists Bruce Ogilvie, Robert Nideffer, and Ron Smith. Interestingly, they also highlight a research article authored by educational psychologists Roland Tharp and Ron Gallimore (1976) considered highly influential. Yet, they did not mention a single female, including Dorothy Harris and Jean Williams who authored early prominent applied sport psychology books (Harris & Harris, 1984; Williams, 1986).
When women are mentioned in the history of sport psychology, typically the focus is on contributors to early history, before the formal recognition of the disci- pline of sport psychology (e.g., Celeste Ulrich) or women from psychology whose work has made a major impact on sport psychology (e.g., Carolyn Sherif, Carole Dweck, Susan Harter). Likely, and as pointed out by Robin Vealey (2006), reviewing the published literature reflects a gender bias in which women’s contributions were not recognized. While women were not absent in early sport psychology, finding them in our written history takes substantial effort. Publications by Diane Gill (1995), Carole Oglesby (2001), and Robin Vealey (2006) are notable exceptions.
Vealey’s (2006) pursuit of a comprehensive history of the field resulted in a far-reaching review of the historical literature in sport psychology. She inserted the accomplishments of a number of significant women, past and present, in her “timeline of events influencing sport and exercise psychology” (p. 135, 139, 142). Even still, little has been written about the accomplishments of these pioneering female sport psychologists beyond their areas of research and positions in profes- sional organizations. This invisibility of women in sport psychology has been recognized by contemporary professionals. Roper, Fisher, and Wrisberg (2005) interviewed eight anonymous women in sport psychology who had at least 10 years of professional experience. One prominent theme in their findings was about
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 351
“women’s status in the field.” Their participants noted the lack of women in the written history of the field, although personally they noticed a “sizeable number of strong female professionals in the field of sport psychology” (p. 39).
To begin to remedy this absence in the formal history of our field, in this paper we “replace” them in their rightful, historical place. Borrowing from Janis Bohan (1990), we
use the term re-placing women to depict the process by which women can assume their rightful place in the history of the field. To place women in psychology would be a misnomer, as they were never without a place in the discipline. (p. 214, emphasis in original)
While Bohan was referring to our parent discipline of psychology, her words ring true for sport and exercise psychology as well. To replace exceptional women into the annals of sport and exercise psychology, we use a life history approach.
Life histories may be viewed as a resource for transforming historical under- standing and analysis. Here, a central place is given back to the people who made and experienced history, thus re-addressing their previous absence in dominant (and elite) historical documentation. (Goodley, 1996, p. 334)
This study is grounded in feminist standpoint perspective and feminist cultural studies (cf. Krane, 2001). Both of these perspectives acknowledge that knowledge is socially situated and individuals in minority or marginalized social groups have different experiences than people in dominant social groups. As our goal is to understand the experiences of trailblazing female sport psychologists, it is impor- tant to understand the world from their unique perspective, or standpoint. These women had to understand the world of academe and sport psychology from the dominant (i.e., male) perspective as well as operate within this world as a minority member (cf. Dewar, 1993). We evoke feminist cultural studies as we contextual- ize the participants’ experiences within the common social practices shaping their careers. Standpoint perspective and feminist cultural studies consider social power dynamics and privilege in framing individual experiences, allowing a holistic examination of the circumstances surrounding these female sport psychologists. We do not pose specific research questions. Rather, consistent with a life history approach, our goal is to tell the stories of women identified as trailblazers in U.S. sport and exercise psychology.
Method Employing life history methodology, we explore and validate the experiences of our participants, while gaining a comprehensive understanding of the social influences and contextual backdrop framing them (Cole & Knowles, 2001). The participants helped us understand the complexities of negotiating their personal and professional lives as well as their interpretation of being a trailblazing female in sport psychol- ogy. Our approach also borrows concepts from oral history, which emphasizes the need to understand the social context within “historical stories” (Anderson, Armitage, Jack, & Wittner, 2004). There have been great social changes affecting women in sport and academe, and the women interviewed in this project came of age in a very different culture than we now experience. As such, it is important to allow them to describe in vivid detail the social circumstances in which they lived.
352 Krane and Whaley
Participants Joyce Tang, in her 2006 book about women pioneers in science said, “while it might be difficult to become a pioneer, it is relatively easy to recognize one” (p. 1). As shown by Tang and others (e.g., Kass-Simon, 1993; McGrayne, 2001), there is no single path to becoming a pioneer, or what we call a trailblazer; rather a variety of experiences and accomplishments can result in trailblazing. Hence, the selection criteria for defining a trailblazer, are necessarily subjective and without a tangible precedent. The criteria we used to select participants for this study included: (a) quantity and significance of scholarly publications, (b) leadership in sport psychol- ogy professional associations, (c) influence on a substantial number of graduate students who remained in the field and have contributed to the body of knowledge and professional service, and (d) 25 years of professional involvement in sport psy- chology. With the exception of years as a professional, we did not create arbitrary cut-offs for these criteria such as a precise number of graduate students mentored. Rather, the totality of women’s accomplishments were considered; while each of the selected women attained high quality in each area, some had, for instance, a greater number of publications while others may have had more leadership positions.
To identify trailblazers in U.S. sport psychology, first we developed a list of potential participants. Then, to ensure that inadvertently we had not overlooked anyone, we asked each participant to identify women she felt significantly influenced sport psychology and who fit these criteria. We also informally polled about 15 sport and exercise psychology professionals, asking them who they would consider trailblazing women in the field. In all cases, their responses affirmed our selection of the eight trailblazers who participated in this study: Joan Duda, Deborah Feltz, Diane Gill, Penny McCullagh, Carole Oglesby, Tara Scanlan, Maureen Weiss, and Jean Williams. Table 1 provides a summary of their academic backgrounds and select accomplishments.
Procedure The participants committed a substantial amount of time to our study and engaged in a series of interviews and follow-up processes. The acquisition of life history data involved: (a) the assessment of participants’ curriculum vitae, (b) a background and biographical interview, (c) a focus group interview, and (d) a process of collabora- tive representation. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The focus group was video-recorded as well.
Background and Biographical Interviews. These initial interviews were unstructured (Kvale, 1996), lasted 5–8 hours (averaging about 6 hours), and were conducted in the interviewees’ home or at a conference site before a national meeting. In following with our life history approach, we posed a few broad, guiding questions that were given to the participants before the interview (Cole & Knowles, 2001). Sample questions included: tell me about your experiences in college and graduate school that led to becoming an academic and please describe your experiences as an assistant professor through gaining tenure. In all, broad questions were posed to learn about participants’ experiences in sport, academe, sport science, and sport psychology. Probing questions were interspersed as necessary to gain additional details or clarification (Kvale). Participants were
353
Ta bl
e 1
E du
ca tio
na l B
ac kg
ro un
d an
d S
el ec
t A cc
om pl
is hm
en ts
o f t
he T
ra ilb
la ze
rs
Ed uc
at io
n (y
ea r
re ce
iv ed
P h.
D. )
M en
to r
A ca
de m
ic
Po si
tio ns
Pr of
es si
on al
A
ss oc
ia tio
n B
oa rd
s Ed
ito ria
l B oa
rd s
M aj
or A
w ar
ds Fe
llo w
Jo an
D ud
a B
.A . (
Ps yc
h) R
ut ge
rs U
ni v.
M
.S . P
ur du
e U
ni v.
Ph
.D . U
ni v.
o f I
lli no
is
(1 98
1)
G ly
n R
ob er
ts
U C
L A
Pu
rd ue
U ni
v.
U ni
v. o
f B
ir m
in gh
am
Pr es
id en
t A
A SP
1 S
P A
ca de
m y2
O th
er O
ffi ce
A
PA D
iv . 4
7 I
nt ’n
at . A
ss oc
. o f P
E a
nd
S
po rt
fo r G
ir ls
a nd
W om
en
I SS
P3
N A
SP SP
A 4
A us
tr al
ia n
Jo ur
na l o
f Sp
or t a
nd E
xe rc
is e
P sy
ch ol
og y
IJ SP
5
JA SP
(E di
to r)
JS E
P
A us
tr al
ia n
In te
rn at
io na
l S po
rt
Ps yc
ho lo
gy S
ch ol
ar
R Q
E S6 O
ut st
an di
ng W
ri tin
g A
w ar
d
A A
SP
A A
K PE
7
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m
D eb
F el
tz B
.S . (
PE ) S
U N
Y B
uf fa
lo
M .S
. P en
n. S
ta te
U ni
v.
Ph .D
. P en
n. S
ta te
U ni
v.
(1 98
0)
D an
ie l L
an de
rs
M ic
hi ga
n St
at e
U ni
v. Pr
es id
en t
A A
K PE
N
A SP
SP A
O
th er
O ffi
ce
A A
K PE
A
PA D
iv . 4
7 N
A SP
SP A
G ro
up D
yn am
ic s
JS E
P
M ea
su re
m en
t i n
P E
&
E xe
rc is
e Sc
ie nc
e R
Q E
S (s
ec tio
n ed
ito r)
M ab
el L
ee Y
ou ng
P ro
fe s-
si on
al A
w ar
d, A
A H
PE R
D
N A
SP SP
A E
ar ly
S ch
ol ar
O
ut st
an di
ng D
is se
rt at
io n
A w
ar d,
S P
A ca
de m
y R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
S ch
ol ar
R
Q E
S O
ut st
an di
ng W
ri tin
g A
w ar
d
A A
K PE
A
PA D
iv 4
7 R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
D ia
ne G
ill B
.S . (
PE ) S
U N
Y C
or tla
nd
U ni
v.
M .S
. U ni
v. o
f I lli
no is
Ph
.D . U
ni v.
o f I
lli no
is
(1 97
6)
R ai
ne r M
ar te
ns
U ni
v. o
f W at
er lo
o U
ni v.
o f I
ow a
U ni
v. o
f N or
th
C ar
ol in
a at
G
re en
sb or
o
Pr es
id en
t A
PA D
iv 4
7
N A
SP SP
A
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m
O th
er O
ffi ce
A
PA D
iv . 4
7 N
A SP
E 8
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m
A m
er ic
an J
ou rn
al o
f H
ea lth
P ro
m ot
io n
JA SP
(s ec
tio n
ed ito
r) JS
E P
(E di
to r)
Q ue
st (E
di to
r) M
ea su
re m
en t i
n P
E &
E
xe rc
is e
Sc ie
nc e
R Q
E S
(s ec
tio n
ed ito
r) TS
P 8
W SP
A J10
N A
G W
S11 P
at hfi
nd er
A w
ar d
N A
K PE
H E
12 D
is tin
gu is
he d
Sc ho
la r A
w ar
d N
A K
PE H
E H
om an
s L
ec -
tu re
r,
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m
M cC
lo y
L ec
tu re
r R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
S ch
ol ar
A A
K PE
A
A SP
A
m er
ic an
Ps
yc ho
lo gi
ca l
So ci
et y
A PA
D iv
. 3 5
A PA
D iv
. 3 8
A PA
D iv
. 4 4
A PA
D iv
. 4 7
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m (c
on tin
ue d)
354
Ed uc
at io
n (y
ea r
re ce
iv ed
P h.
D. )
M en
to r
A ca
de m
ic
Po si
tio ns
Pr of
es si
on al
A
ss oc
ia tio
n B
oa rd
s Ed
ito ria
l B oa
rd s
M aj
or A
w ar
ds Fe
llo w
Pe nn
y M
cC ul
la gh
B .S
. ( Sp
or t S
ci en
ce )
B ro
ck po
rt U
ni v.
M
.S . U
ni v.
o f W
as hi
ng to
n D
an ie
l L an
de rs
Ph
.D . U
ni v.
o f W
is co
ns in
(1
97 6)
Fr
an ce
s C
um be
e
U ni
v. o
f C A
- D
av is
Sa
cr am
en to
S ta
te
U ni
v.
U ni
v. o
f C
ol or
ad o
Sa n
Fr an
ci sc
o St
at e
U ni
v.
Pr es
id en
t A
PA D
iv 4
7
A A
SP
N A
SP SP
A
O th
er O
ffi ce
A A
SP
A PA
N
A SP
SP A
R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
JA SP
JS
E P
Q
ue st
R
Q E
S (s
ec tio
n ed
.) TS
P
N A
SP SP
A P
re si
de nt
’s A
w ar
d R
Q E
S O
ut st
an di
ng W
ri tin
g A
w ar
d
A A
K PE
A
A SP
A
PA D
iv . 4
7 R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
C ar
ol e
O gl
es by
B .S
. ( PE
) U C
L A
M
.S . U
C L
A
Ph .D
. P ur
du e
U ni
v. (1
96 9)
M
ar gu
er ite
C lif
to n
&
H op
e Sm
ith
Ph .D
. T em
pl e
U ni
v.
(C ou
ns el
in g,
1 99
9)
U ni
v. o
f M as
s Te
m pl
e U
ni ve
r- si
ty
C al
S ta
te -
N or
th ri
dg e
Pr es
id en
t A
IA W
13
N A
G W
S S
P A
ca de
m y
W
om en
’s S
po rt
I
nt er
na tio
na l
O th
er O
ffi ce
A
A SP
I
C H
PE R
14
N A
G W
S
A lli
an ce
S ch
ol ar
, A A
H PE
R D
C
ha rl
es H
en ry
A w
ar d
H on
or A
w ar
d, A
A H
PE R
D
P. N
. B ak
er S
ch ol
ar -R
es ea
rc h
A w
ar d,
IC SS
PE 15
R . T
ai t M
cK en
zi e,
A
A H
PE R
D
R ay
m on
d A
. W ei
ss D
is tin
- gu
is he
d L
ec tu
re r,
A A
H PE
R D
A A
SP
N A
G W
S
Ta ra
S ca
nl an
B .S
. ( PE
) U ni
v. o
f I lli
no is
M
.S . U
ni v.
o f I
lli no
is
Ph .D
. U ni
v. o
f I lli
no is
(1
97 5)
R
ai ne
r M ar
te ns
U C
L A
Pr es
id en
t A
A SP
N
A SP
SP A
JS E
P A
us tr
al ia
n In
te rn
at io
na l S
po rt
Ps
yc ho
lo gy
S ch
ol ar
N
A SP
SP A
S en
io r L
ec tu
re r
fo r S
po rt
P sy
ch ol
og y
W ill
ia m
E va
ns V
is iti
ng
Fe llo
w , U
ni v.
o f O
ta go
A A
K PE
A
A SP
Ta bl
e 1
(c on
tin ue
d)
355
Ed uc
at io
n (y
ea r
re ce
iv ed
P h.
D. )
M en
to r
A ca
de m
ic
Po si
tio ns
Pr of
es si
on al
A
ss oc
ia tio
n B
oa rd
s Ed
ito ria
l B oa
rd s
M aj
or A
w ar
ds Fe
llo w
M au
re en
W
ei ss
B .A
. ( Ps
yc h
& P
E ) U
ni v.
o f
C A
, S an
ta B
ar ba
ra (U
C SB
) M
.A . U
C SB
Ph
.D . M
ic hi
ga n
St at
e U
ni ve
rs ity
(1 98
1)
D an
ie l G
ou ld
U ni
v. o
f O re
go n
U ni
v. o
f V ir
gi ni
a U
ni v.
o f
M in
ne so
ta
Pr es
id en
t A
A SP
A
A K
PE
N A
SP SP
A
S P
A ca
de m
y (A
A H
PE R
D )
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m
O th
er O
ffi ce
N
A SP
SP A
Y
ou th
S po
rt C
oa lit
io n
P re
si de
nt ’s
C ou
nc il
on
P
hy si
ca l F
itn es
s an
d
S po
rt s
Sc ie
nc e
B oa
rd
JS E
P (s
ec tio
n ed
.) Pe
di at
ri c
E xe
rc is
e Sc
ie nc
e R
Q E
S (E
di to
r & se
ct io
n ed
.) TS
P
C .H
. M cC
lo y
D is
tin gu
is he
d L
ec tu
re r
H al
l o f F
am e
A w
ar d,
N A
SP E
H
on or
A w
ar d,
A A
H PE
R D
M
ab el
L ee
Y ou
ng P
ro fe
s- si
on al
A w
ar d
N A
G W
S H
on or
A w
ar d
R ay
m on
d A
. W ei
ss
D is
tin gu
is he
d L
ec tu
re r
R Q
E S
O ut
st an
di ng
W ri
tin g
A w
ar d
(4 ti
m es
)
A A
K PE
A
A SP
R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
Je an
W
ill ia
m s
B .A
. ( E
ng lis
h) U
ni v.
o f
Io w
a M
.A . U
ni v.
o f I
ow a
Ph .D
. F lo
ri da
S ta
te (1
97 5)
R
ob er
t S in
ge r
Sa n
Jo se
S ta
te
U ni
v.
U ni
v. o
f A ri
zo na
Pr es
id en
t A
A SP
S
P A
ca de
m y
O
th er
O ffi
ce
A A
SP
U S
A m
at eu
r F en
ci ng
JA SP
Jo
ur na
l o f C
lin ic
al
Sp or
t P sy
ch ol
og y
Jo ur
na l o
f I nt
er di
s- ci
pl in
ar y
R es
ea rc
h in
P E
TS
P
A us
tr al
ia n
In te
rn at
io na
l S po
rt
Ps yc
ho lo
gy S
ch ol
ar
R es
ea rc
h C
on so
rt iu
m S
ch ol
ar
R Q
E S
O ut
st an
di ng
W ri
tin g
A w
ar d
A A
K PE
A
A SP
R
es ea
rc h
C on
so rt
iu m
1 A ss
oc ia
tio n
fo r A
pp lie
d Sp
or t P
sy ch
ol og
y (A
A SP
); 2 S
po rt
P sy
ch ol
og y
A ca
de m
y, N
at io
na l A
ss oc
ia tio
n of
S po
rt a
nd P
hy si
ca l E
du ca
tio n
(N A
SP E
) i n
th e
A m
er ic
an A
lli an
ce fo
r H
ea lth
, P hy
si ca
l E du
ca tio
n, R
ec re
at io
n an
d D
an ce
(A A
H PE
R D
); 3 I
nt er
na tio
na l S
oc ie
ty fo
r S po
rt P
sy ch
ol og
y (I
SS P)
; 4 N or
th A
m er
ic an
S oc
ie ty
fo r t
he P
sy ch
ol og
y of
S po
rt a
nd
Ph ys
ic al
A ct
iv ity
(N A
SP SP
A );
5 I nt
er na
tio na
l J ou
rn al
o f S
po rt
P sy
ch ol
og y
(I JS
P) ; 6 R
es ea
rc h
Q ua
rt er
ly fo
r S po
rt a
nd E
xe rc
is e
(R Q
E S)
; 7 A m
er ic
a A
ca de
m y
fo r K
in es
io lo
gy a
nd
Ph ys
ic al
E du
ca tio
n (A
A K
PE );
8 N at
io na
l A ss
oc ia
tio n
fo r S
po rt
a nd
P hy
si ca
l A ct
iv ity
(N A
SP E
); 9 T
he S
po rt
P sy
ch ol
og is
t ( T
SP );
10 W
om en
in S
po rt
a nd
P hy
si ca
l A ct
iv ity
J ou
rn al
(W
SP A
J) ; 11
N at
io na
l A ss
oc ia
tio n
fo r G
ir ls
a nd
W om
en in
S po
rt (N
A G
W S)
; 12 N
at io
na l A
ss oc
ia tio
n fo
r K in
es io
lo gy
a nd
P hy
si ca
l E du
ca tio
n in
H ig
he r E
du ca
tio n
(N A
K PE
H E
);
13 A
ss oc
ia tio
n fo
r In
te rc
ol le
gi at
e A
th le
tic s
fo r
W om
en (
A IA
W );
14 I
nt er
na tio
na l C
ou nc
il fo
r H
ea lth
, P hy
si ca
l E du
ca tio
n an
d R
ec re
at io
n (I
C H
PE R
); 15
I nt
er na
tio na
l C ou
nc il
of
Sp or
t S ci
en ce
a nd
P hy
si ca
l E du
ca tio
n (I
C SS
P E
)
356 Krane and Whaley
encouraged to “tell stories” that relayed important issues or experiences (Cole & Knowles, p. 28). Depending on the setting and length of these initial interviews, about half were conducted in a single day (with breaks as needed) while the others were split across two days of discussion.
Focus Group Interview. A focus group interview, with seven of the eight trailblazers, was conducted before a national conference at the conference site. The group discussion lasted about 3 hours. Upon reading transcripts of the individual interviews, we developed the focus for the group interview. Not surprisingly, these trailblazers were very humble and in individual interviews tended to avoid direct responses to questions about what they felt were their personal contributions to the field. Therefore, a primary component of the focus group discussion was their response to: “What are the most important contributions of [name] that have gone unnoticed”? Together, they provided a rich history of each person, one-by-one (including the person unable to be at the discussion). The individual who was unable to attend received a video-recording of the interview and also had opportunities to review and add to written reports (e.g., draft presentations and manuscripts) using data from that interview.
Collaborative Representation. The process of collaborative representation encompassed negotiating confidentiality and verifying the authenticity of our findings through continuous interactions with the trailblazers. In describing their life experiences, we anticipated that the interviewees may discuss socially, professionally, or politically sensitive information. To encourage forthright and complete expression of their experiences as women in sport psychology, we negotiated confidentiality with the participants. That is, some biographical information describing each woman’s unique contributions to sport psychology is linked to her identity, whereas other portions of the interview data remain confidential. Further, our process of collaborative representation stipulated that we provided each participant drafts of all documents derived from this project (e.g., presentation materials, manuscripts to be submitted for publication) before making them public. We asked participants to authenticate that their experiences were accurately presented and to verify that they were comfortable with what information was linked with their names and what remained masked. We honored any requested changes, hence collaboratively representing their life experiences in a manner that encouraged openness in the interviews and that guaranteed accurate portrayal of their life experiences in a format with which the participants were satisfied.
Trustworthiness and Credibility In accordance with our feminist standpoint, feminist cultural studies, and life history foundation, we engaged several strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of this study. We employed historical situatedness (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) by considering all data within the social historical context of each woman’s life and used collaborative representation as an adaptation of member checking. In addition, each researcher acted as a critical friend (Ely, 1991) when reviewing the transcripts of interviews conducted by the other researcher. While rapport and professional respect already was in place with the interviewees, involving them in the process of
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 357
collaborative representation strengthened their trust in our credibility as researchers as well as allowed them to feel secure in sharing potentially sensitive information.
As reflexivity is crucial in feminist research, we critically reflected upon our role in the research process and how we potentially influenced the course of the research (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000). First, we both have long-term and on-going professional relationships with the trailblazers, such as being on professional committees and editorial boards with them. Further, the trailblazers have been role models and mentors to us. Presumably, this background provided the foundation for their initial agreement to participate and share their life stories with us. Second, we are positioned as both insiders and outsiders to the world of sport psychology inhabited by the participants. Our insider status applies to our participation in contemporary sport and exercise psychology as professionals since 1990/1997. We are outsiders to the previously male-dominated contexts of sport, academe, sport science, and sport psychology. We also acknowledge our somewhat privileged stance as White academics, yet recognize the sexism and heterosexism inherent in sport psychology. In all, we were very careful not to let our experiences or views color the interviews or be imposed on our interpretations of the data and collaborative representation provided the avenue to scrupulously ensure that all biographical and historical facts presented are accurate.
Data Analysis First, we developed a biographical profile of each participant in her own voice (i.e., primarily based on quotes from her individual interview). Each participant read and verified her profile. Then, through cross-case analysis, we examined the data for commonalities across all participants by using open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Through open coding we sought patterns and themes in the data and labeled each data category with an initial code. As the data were coded, we compared our interpretations until we were satisfied with the categorization of the data. Higher order themes emerged via axial coding by organizing the initial codes into related clusters. At this stage of the data analysis, interpretation of the data occurred by developing a coding paradigm that examined the conditions, context, and consequences noted in the data (Strauss & Corbin).
Results To provide context, we first present an overview of how our eight trailblazers made their way into sport and academia. Following that, the women’s contributions that have cemented their place in the history of the field of sport psychology are shared. Finally, we discuss the qualities that we believe characterize a trailblazer.
Early Sport Experiences Each of the trailblazers was highly active as a youngster. At that time it was unusual for girls to be involved in sporting activities, yet none of the trailblazers’ parents discouraged their active lifestyles. A common sentiment was shared by Jean Wil- liams, “it wasn’t like they either gave encouragement or discouragement. If I had the time and I wanted to go out to play, I certainly could do so.” In some cases,
358 Krane and Whaley
parents or siblings actively promoted their sporting interests. Carole Oglesby stated, “I was actually encouraged; it was part of my intimate relationship of play with my parents.” Several of the trailblazers also acknowledged that their physical education teachers or coaches actively encouraged their interest in sport.
All of the trailblazers participated in sport before the enactment of Title IX when organized sport programs for girls were limited or simply not available. However, depending on where they grew up geographically, opportunities varied. For example, growing up in Canada, Penny McCullagh competed in basketball, volleyball, and track in high school. Maureen Weiss, growing up in Los Angeles, was on the tennis, softball, and basketball teams. Going to high school in New Jersey, Tara Scanlan competed in varsity field hockey, basketball, and lacrosse. Other trailblazers had more limited choices, yet still found an activity in which to excel. Deb Feltz, in upstate New York, was an avid skier while Jean Williams, growing up in Iowa, focused her energies on golf (she was denied the opportunity to try out for her high school all boys golf team). Carole Oglesby and Joan Duda both found opportunities in community softball that led to highly competitive and elite level participation. Once in college, all of the trailblazers continued to be active in physical activity classes, intramurals, or varsity sport. These women also gained early leadership experiences through sport, for example, by participating in the Women’s Athletic Association (Gill), being a team manager (McCullagh), or coaching in community youth sport programs (Weiss).
Finding Sport Psychology When our pioneers began their academic careers, it was not the norm for women to aspire to advanced degrees. This trailblazer group included first-generation col- lege attendees and those for whom higher education was an expectation or a family tradition. In the former group (Duda, Gill, Feltz, McCullagh, Weiss, & Williams), there was support for going to college, even though their parents did not attend. Deb Feltz’s parents were typical of this perspective, “They didn’t know quite how they’d pay for that, but if that’s what I was going to do, they’d make sure I’d get it.” Of the latter group, Scanlan commented, “it was never a question of will you, it was ‘where.’” Oglesby, whose parents were educators, commented, “really there was not much of a decision point for me about college because my mom and dad had met at college and both eventually went on to earn master’s degrees and they were in education.” Feltz, Williams, and Gill expressly noted that they wanted a career, to be self-supported, and not “be on the arm of a man.” Considering the social historical context of when they were in high school and college (1960s-1970s), this stance was ahead of its time.
While the choice to enter college was not difficult, their choices about what to study were limited. As Diane Gill remarked, “I knew I wanted to go to college, but the only educated women I knew were in teaching or nursing, and so I kind of thought, well, teaching, that seemed reasonable.” Similarly, Scanlan stated, “If you went to college as a girl … the outcome was to be a secretary, a nurse, or an elementary or high school teacher. That was it.” Initially, Oglesby, Feltz, Gill, Scan- lan, and Williams aimed to become secondary school teachers; Oglesby, Feltz, and Gill studied to be physical education teachers while Williams expected to become an English teacher. Of the other trailblazers, McCullagh started her undergraduate
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 359
years in recreation, then became a psychology major, and then found her way to sport science. Duda, who initially planned to go into medicine, was a psychology major, and Weiss had a double major in psychology and physical education.
Given that all of these trailblazers attended undergraduate college before or just as the field of sport psychology was emerging, their paths into the discipline were quite varied. In addition, attending graduate school was not part of their initial academic plans. As Diane Gill noted, “I didn’t know anybody who’d ever gone to graduate school. I barely knew anybody who had gone to college.” The desire to pursue gradu- ate study was initiated and fueled by important mentors during their undergraduate years who directly guided them toward physical education/sport science. Gill credits Margaret Robb, a faculty member in Physical Education at Cortland for introduc- ing her to motor learning. Then, after graduating, Gill “went right into teaching in Rochester New York in a suburban school. I was thinking I might go back for my master’s at some point.” That summer she took two week-long short courses–one at Cortland taught by Celeste Ulrich that was primarily a sociology of sport course, and one at Ithaca taught by Dorothy Harris on sport psychology topics. Those two scholars further inspired Gill to pursue graduate studies. Maureen Weiss attributed her interest in sport psychology to Vera Skubic, a professor at University of California at Santa Barbara, who “I give a lot of credit for early youth sport research…I took every one of her classes. That made a huge impact on me, and sort of suggested to me that there was this specialty area.” Scanlan stated,
As a freshman, I got to work very closely with Phyllis Hill and I decided that’s where I wanted to be. I wanted to teach at the college level. At that point, I didn’t know what research was, but I wanted to teach at the college level which seemed to mean I needed this Ph.D. thing.
For at least two of our pioneers, their student teaching experience was the impetus to change their academic focus. Jean Williams “hated my English student teaching experience and [I] decided to switch into physical education and get a graduate degree.” Similarly, Carole Oglesby recalled her disastrous experience with junior high school girls who, much to her shock and amazement, “weren’t about to get their hair messed up in phys. ed. class.” Of course, the teaching community’s loss was sport psychology’s gain.
Serendipity seemed to play a large role in the path to sport psychology for several of the trailblazers. For example, Penny McCullagh began in recreation, received a teaching certificate, and then transferred to a U.S. school (from Canada) where she was a psychology major. Her roommates told her about “this whole new program in physical education that wasn’t called physical education anymore.” It turned out that the separate men’s and women’s physical education departments at SUNY Brockport (and many other universities) had morphed into programs in sport science and social aspects of sport. McCullagh “was at the right place at the right time” and “instantly hooked up with two people over there, Bob Christina and Dan Landers,” and took courses in sport psychology and motor behavior. Deb Feltz explained,
I had an interest in sport psychology that really went back to my freshman year at Colorado State University when the ski team I was on worked with this psychologist from the psychology department, who called himself a sport
360 Krane and Whaley
psychologist. His name was Dr. Richard Suinn, who eventually went on to become the President of the APA! And so I had that kind of in the back of my mind, of really wanting to pursue that at some point.
Joan Duda recalled that while researching a paper in the “stacks” of the Rutgers library, “I saw this green book, with a long and unusual title (Involvement in Sport: A Somatopsychic Rationale for Physical Activity) and it was written by someone named Dorothy Harris. And it just caught my eye…and I read it that night and went, oh my god . . . there’s this field”!!
Sport also figured prominently in many of our trailblazers’ education. Several were accomplished athletes (Carole Oglesby, Joan Duda, Maureen Weiss, Deb Feltz) and/or coaches (Jean Williams, Maureen Weiss), and these experiences weighed heavily on their decision to pursue the psychological side of sport. Joan Duda acknowledged that,
many bits that are in my research now link back to some of my earliest expe- riences, of what I thought were good practices, maintained motivation, and gave a more adaptive perspective, versus other coaching practices that might be considered suspect, unhealthy. I was always thinking about those things even as a young gal, so I guess I was always meant to go into sport psychology.
Maureen Weiss attributes her youth sport coaching experiences as leading her into sport psychology.
Coaching kids actually brought developmental psychology alive. I realized that I enjoyed coaching and I enjoyed seeing kids growing through sport. That was when I was 18 years old and now 35 years later I’m still looking at kids through sport. But that inspired me.
After receiving her Master’s degree, Weiss coached women’s basketball for two years. This experience reiterated the connection to psychology, “It became very clear that coaching is all about relationships and motivation. . . . So that really drove me to go back to study more because, really coaching is about . . . being able to motivate and connect with others.”
Depending on when and where the trailblazers attended graduate school, they were split on whether their programs specifically included specialization in sport psychology or whether they had to create their own path. Jean Williams, Carole Oglesby, and Tara Scanlan created their own graduate concentration in psychology. Williams and Scanlan began their graduate studies in motor learning. One reason Williams chose to go to Florida State was
to work with Bob Singer, which meant majoring in motor learning, and because it was one of the few programs that had a sport psychology course on the books. When setting up her program of study, she asked for sport psychology as a minor. Dr. Singer’s response was the equivalent of ‘Why? Sport psychol- ogy is the same as motor learning,’2 to which I responded that I did not agree.
To his credit, he let her minor in sport psychology. The result was that some of her coursework and her “research was what would fall into what we now call sport psychology.” Scanlan described her focus in motor learning as,
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 361
I just found it boring, and I kept asking social psychological questions like, what if somebody saw you doing this, or what if you were competing, or what if . . . So I went over to speak with Rainer Martens and he’s talking about competition and children and development and this and that and I said, ‘whoa!! This is where it’s at’!
Shortly after that meeting, Scanlan took courses in social psychology as well as Martens’ course, then titled, “social psychology and motor behavior” and worked in the Children’s Research Center, which integrated motor learning and what we now consider sport psychology. While Scanlan credits Dan Landers, Rainer Martens, and Richard Schmidt for creating the opportunity to study sport psychology at Illinois, that Scanlan blazed this trail was incredibly important to the field. As Rainer Mar- tens’ first graduate student, she became a role model for Diane Gill, and later Dan Gould (who became Maureen Weiss’ advisor), as well as many others who pursued sport psychology. In fact, during the focus group discussion, another trailblazer expressed, “Both Tara and Diane were role models in the sport psychology area because they were really the first ones who studied sport psychology specifically under mentors who were directly in the sport psychology field.” Feltz, Weiss, and Duda, similar to Gill, entered their doctoral programs to study sport psychology.
Once these women reached graduate school to study sport psychology, their advisors universally became important mentors. These advisors were themselves sport psychology pioneers (Rainer Martens, Bob Singer, Glyn Roberts, Dan Gould, & Dan Landers; see Table 1). The exception to this theme is Carole Oglesby, whose graduate work focused on the sociocultural foundations of physical education, under the direction of Marguerite Clifton and Hope Smith.
Building the Field Across the eight life histories, there are some common accomplishments that mark their experiences as exemplary. A conservative estimate of their collective accomplishments (which continue to increase) include: advising 157 masters, 147 doctoral, and 11 postdoctoral students; at least 500 refereed journal articles, 20 textbooks, 200 book chapters, and well over 800 national and international confer- ence presentations; President of 9 national or international organizations (21 total presidencies among them); and editors of Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol- ogy (JSEP), Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (JASP), Research Quarterly for Sport and Exercise (RQES), and Quest. In this section, we examine the teaching, mentoring, research, and service contributions of this elite trailblazer group.
Teaching and Lifelong Learning. To simply say these women were committed teachers is wholly inadequate. Almost everything they did professionally revolved around what was best for their students. Diane Gill exemplifies the idea of putting students first: “I think the best thing is that many of my graduate students can go on and do more and better things in their areas than I did. That, to me, is what they should be doing.” The pride these mentors have in their students is palpable. In fact, when asked about their own achievements, without hesitation, each woman began talking about her students. As Maureen Weiss stated, “I helped shepherd through a lot of really good graduate students, I felt very proud of that. I consider that the greatest achievement.” Jean Williams noted,
362 Krane and Whaley
I’d like to think I’ll be remembered for my students. I’ve been blessed with some wonderful students at the master’s level and the doctoral level. Some of them have gone on to become well recognized in the field, very deservedly so. Others less so, but I’d like to think that they’re better people and better professionals and happier in their careers than they might have been had they not gone to the University of Arizona. I take great satisfaction in the students I’ve been fortunate enough to work with.
Each trailblazer faced the challenge of having to create an avenue for students to pursue sport psychology in their graduate programs. In fact, many of the first and best graduate programs in the field were synonymous with the faculty member associated with them (see Table 1). While several of these women no longer are at these institutions, their roles in creating these programs helped establish the field of sport psychology.
Contrary to today, there were few sport psychology textbooks and research was just developing in the field as a whole. Thus, these women gathered research articles, developed syllabi and curricula, and went about the business of creating sport psychology programs. For example, Carole Oglesby considered herself “sort of a social psych person.” So when the University of Massachusetts transformed from Physical Education to Sport Studies, “they had no one to spearhead [the psy- chology area]…but I had a lot of energy, and that was going to be mine, so I started pitching in and really took the turn out of sociology and into the psych area.” Jean Williams described her role at the University of Arizona as,
starting with one course and then trying to build that to where it became a full fledged concentration area to where a second course was added and ultimately a third graduate course. Then trying to attract more students and encourage those students to do research.
Tara Scanlan explained the process of collating readings for students as,
there was so little knowledge . . . so you tied in development and this and that. I remember, there was a little series of books – one that Rainer Martens wrote on social psychology of motor behavior, Dick Schmidt on motor learning, Dan Landers on group dynamics . . . and I used them all because that was about all I had.
For several of our trailblazers, program development was also a one-person operation. As Diane Gill noted, “At Iowa, I basically did the grad program. Not only started it, but I was the grad program and at that time there weren’t many grad programs.” This was the case for Maureen Weiss (University of Oregon), Jean Williams (University of Arizona), Tara Scanlan (UCLA), Penny McCullagh (University of Colorado), and Joan Duda (Purdue) as well. McCullagh revealed one consequence of being a one-person program when explaining that she taught more than her colleagues
because I was the only person in my area [and] I wanted the students to have more than one course. I mean I probably could have fought that, . . . but then how was that going to work? The graduate students would only take an intro graduate class and I wanted them to have an intro and a seminar.
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 363
Situated similarly, Jean Williams noted,
I was trying to build the sport psych area as well as attract potential students to it. Also, I was trying to do research. And I ended up with a relatively high number of graduate students for just a one-person faculty and since I wanted my grads to be active in terms of scholarship, I highly encouraged them to do a thesis or research project.
The irony, as described by another trailblazer, was that “in terms of applications for admissions, sport psychology was usually listed number one or number two among all the subdisciplines, but yet there was only me, and I never thought that was good for a graduate program, to only have the gospel according to one person.”
Another trademark of these trailblazers is that they stayed current; as the field grew and changed, so did they. This was most evident as mental skills training gained popularity. Initially, none of these women were trained as mental skills consultants; rather, their emphasis was on “just developing our knowledge base.” Yet they recognized the increasing student interest in the area. Typical of these trailblazers, one stated, “I started an applied course . . . even though I knew that was not my main interest.” Like Carole Oglesby shared,
I felt that nobody ever taught me how to have a client, and I felt that we needed to build that into the sport psych program here at Temple. But I didn’t know how to do it - I had to go out and do it, so I will know how to do it, so I began to ‘work the circuit,’ more or less.
Creating applied opportunities for students was a common theme among the trailblazers. While Diane Gill took counseling courses to retool, she also spoke of doing applied work to open doors for her students. Similarly, Jean Williams “recognized that I would have to have consulting experience if I was going to be teaching a course on interventions for enhancing performance. . . . So I started doing consulting with a number of teams in the athletic department.” Perhaps the consummate lifelong-learner, late in her career Carole Oglesby returned to gradu- ate school to obtain a second doctorate in counseling. Another example of lifelong learning and growing the field involved their scholarship. Tara Scanlan
realized that where I was methodologically at that point wasn’t getting me to what I now needed to know in my line of research. And so I went back and retooled in qualitative methods – it took about a year and a half of class work and continued help from Harold Levine, an expert in qualitative research who mentored me.
This perspective of being a lifelong learner, of feeling that “there is always some- thing new to learn” is another persistent theme in these women’s careers.
Advising and Mentoring. Given their dedication and commitment to teaching, it is no surprise that these women also were outstanding mentors to their students. As one noted, “I’d have to say that my favorite part of professorial work is research and mentoring of doctoral students.” Deb Feltz expressed her philosophy as,
I’ve tried to advocate to my students that they may need more than one mentor, and even in our department I think we use an “it takes a village” approach to help a doctoral student become a scholar. So, I think that’s been my approach,
364 Krane and Whaley
and I have also carried on the philosophy of Dan Landers who said that he won’t feel like he’s really finished with his students until they become tenured. . . . I’d like to see them all the way through to full professor positions as well, but that doesn’t always happen.
Maureen Weiss’ stellar mentoring was noted by her peers in the focus group inter- view, “What a job of mentoring her students and making them excellent profes- sionals. When you know they’re Mo’s student, you know they’re good.”
Of note, their mentoring did not end with their own students; we heard many examples of how these women mentored other young professionals. For example, one trailblazer said of Tara Scanlan, “Tara took on young professionals who weren’t [her] students, and shared her wisdom. She has been a mentor to young people in the field who are searching for ways to act professional.” Other trailblazers have spent considerable time mentoring junior faculty with whom they work, both as department chairs (Gill, McCullagh, Feltz, Oglesby) and as colleagues. And impor- tantly, these women have often mentored each other. For example, when asked who were their role models and mentors, Joan Duda stated, “Carole Oglesby was one of those people for me.” Maureen Weiss said of Tara Scanlan, “you were always there” and Tara expressed, “I learned an awful lot from Jean.” Penny McCullagh simply noted, “all the people you are interviewing.” Consistently they mentioned each other as important influences. This sort of mutual support has been ongoing, and speaks to their commitment to growing the field—a theme that cuts across many of our topic areas.
Scholarship. Although the volume of their work is impressive, it is the quality and impact that conceivably is their greatest contribution. Each has established her own mark on our field; from Carole Oglesby’s (1978) passionate treatise on gender and sport (Women and Sport: Myth to Reality), to Deb Feltz and colleagues’ 2008 compendium Self-Efficacy in Sport, their work has influenced the field in meaningful ways. Oglesby’s book was revolutionary and laid the groundwork for all feminist and critical theorists in sport and exercise psychology. Penny McCullagh’s work in modeling and observational learning, linking motor learning principles with sport psychology remains a valuable contribution to these two kinesiology areas.
While their scholarly legacies are largely traceable in today’s on-line world, there are notable contributions worthy of highlighting. Tara Scanlan’s early quali- tative work on sources of enjoyment and anxiety opened the door for qualitative analysis in sport and exercise psychology and Diane Gill’s Sport Orientation Questionnaire was one of the first sport-specific measures in the field. Deb Feltz, along with Dan Landers, published the first meta-analysis in the field. Jean Wil- liams’ development (along with Mark Andersen) of the stress injury model initiated theory-based research on the psychology of injury. These are but a few examples of the less acknowledged scholarly contributions of these trailblazing women.
Not surprisingly, these women authored several key textbooks in sport and exercise psychology. Jean Williams’ Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance, initially published in 1986, is now in its 6th edition. The book was groundbreaking in that it was the first source for true application of what had previously been theoretical and empirical ideas. Diane Gill’s Psychological Dynamics of Sport & Exercise, now in its 3rd edition (2008; coauthored with Lavon Williams), is a popular choice for sport and exercise psychology classes. The
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 365
book had few rivals when initially published in 1986. Joan Duda’s text, Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement (1998) is a staple on academics’ bookshelves. Maureen Weiss’ (2004) and Deb Feltz’ (2008) books are the apex of their lines of research. Weiss’ Developmental Sport and Exercise Psychology: A Lifespan Perspective was the first (and still only) of its kind, challenging the field to examine sport and exercise participation from a developmental perspective. Deb Feltz, along with coauthors Sandra Short and Philip Sullivan (both students of Feltz), present the “go-to reference for efficacy research.”
All of the trailblazers teach us the important lesson of developing a line of research. This is especially evident in Joan Duda’s work on achievement goals, Maureen Weiss’ careful assessment of motivation in youth sport, and Deb Feltz’s research on self-efficacy in sport contexts. All three women exemplify researchers who have maintained a high level of quality and productivity, while continuing to pursue new questions and grow the field.
Contributions to Professional Organizations. Perhaps no single indicator better exemplifies this group’s influence on the field than their service to the emerging profession, one that continues today. It is not hyperbole to say that without this group, the structure and status of the profession of sport and exercise psychology would look quite different than it does today. As seen in Table 1, these trailblazers were presidents of all the major sport psychology organizations. Notably, members of this group included the first female President of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP; now the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, AASP; Jean Williams), APA Division 47 (Diane Gill), and the Sport Psychology Academy (Carole Oglesby). In addition, Oglesby was the first President of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW). Further, all of these women have held a multitude of board positions and served as committee chairs across sport psychology organizations. They also served on numerous editorial boards, as well as being editors-in-chief of the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology (Joan Duda), Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (Diane Gill), Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport (Maureen Weiss) and Quest (Gill). Penny McCullagh put it this way, “If you believe in your profession it’s something that everybody needs to step up to do at some point – to just keep things moving forward.” Clearly, this group took that philosophy to heart, and in fact had a central role in the creation of AAASP, Division 47 of the APA, and numerous important initiatives within these and other professional associations.
Many of their most significant contributions were done behind the scenes, within the scope of various executive board positions. It is these lesser-known contributions, we argue, that have shaped the course of the field of sport and exer- cise psychology. Most of the following information comes from the focus group interviews where the trailblazers highlighted each other’s unrecognized contribu- tions to the field. As Presidents, they can lay claim to critical roles in establishing professional organizations, their financial solvency, and their continued success. In particular, Penny McCullagh was recognized by her fellow trailblazers as the “self- taught conference expert,” responsible for choosing sites and coordinating count- less successful AASP and NASPSPA conferences. Said one trailblazer of Penny,
Most members of organizations have no clue that without Penny doing that, there’d have been a major catastrophe. Penny has not only organized conferences,
366 Krane and Whaley
but she has actually protected organizations from going down the tubes and had them come out very financially solvent.
As the first organization devoted to sport psychology, NASPSPA provided the space for the trailblazers to make their initial marks on the field. Tara Scanlan, Diane Gill, and other students and faculty at the University of Illinois helped organize the first self-contained meeting of NASPSPA, in Allerton Illinois, 1973. In addition, Tara Scanlan, while still a graduate student, “gave a major address on competitiveness” which was “an influential paper.” Penny McCullagh was responsible for another important advancement in NASPSPA. “When Penny suggested we take NASPSPA over to the site Asilomar, it changed the way that NASPSPA conferences were after that.” The conference at “Asilomar demonstrated that conferences did not need to be connected to a university site” to be successful. At the 1980 NASPSPA confer- ence in Boulder Colorado, while Scanlan was President and McCullagh was on the board, they recognized the need to increase presentation opportunities at the conference. Consequently, they introduced the first poster session at NASPSPA, inviting Dan Landers’ to display his research on elite shooters, demonstrating the acceptability and effectiveness of this presentation format. As Landers’ student at that time, Feltz was integrally involved in the development and presentation of this first poster session. Scanlan also recalls proposing that the past presidents could be a senior advisory board for the NASPSPA Executive Committee, a procedure that was later formalized with the addition of the past-presidents’ liaison. Arguably, these innovations influenced subsequent sport and exercise organizations, which then instituted similar structures as NASPSPA.
Jean Williams was a founding board member of AAASP and the first secretary- treasurer. As described by the other trailblazers,
In those founding years of AAASP, Jean was doing so much unnoticed that, not only the struggles there behind the scenes, had Jean not been there, being a diplomatic, dignified, carry-through person, I’m not sure the organization would have made it through those first years.
In this role, Jean Williams wrote the AAASP constitution and continues to serve as “the institutional memory” of AASP. Further, her peers credited Williams for turning the first large profit at an AASP conference. At that time, 1996, “[AASP’s] only source of income really was the conference and we had about a $5000 balance. So if anybody messed up… AASP went out of business.”
A number of other AASP initiatives can be credited to the trailblazers. Tara Scanlan was credited by her peers for championing the international status of AAASP. Carole Oglesby was “the brainchild for the SIGS, the special interest groups,” and Williams initiated the AASP Grant program. Oglesby also has been instrumental in encouraging attention to diversity and women’s issues throughout her career and she is credited for guiding the efforts of diversity-focused committees across organizations. She also was the first woman to deliver the prestigious Cole- man Griffith lecture at AASP, ironically focused on the “missing women in sport psychology.” Jean Williams was one of the core group of professionals instrumental in the development of the AASP Certification program. She also served on the ini- tial AASP certification review committee that developed the system for reviewing
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 367
applications and remained on the review board as the liaison to the Executive Committee through 2006.
Diane Gill’s colleagues recognized her tenure as the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of JSEP. “Being the editor of that journal at that time was prob- ably the key leadership position in the field in a certain way, and at a very young age.” Additionally, it took a comment from a peer to reveal that Maureen Weiss testified before a U.S. Congressional committee on youth sport in 2006. Alongside golf legend Jack Nicklaus, Weiss supported the potential of coach education and youth sport programs to teach life-skills and build positive character in children. These are but a few of the significant contributions this group has made to sport and exercise psychology as well as sport science.
These trailblazers easily could have neglected service involvement and instead focused on their scholarship, other aspects of their academic lives, or even taken more personal time. Yet, professional service was considered part of being a good professional citizen. Their selflessness with regard to service is captured in this quote by Jean Williams:
[AASP presidency] was very, very time consuming, but I felt it was time well spent. . . . My time involvement was minimal compared to what I’ve gotten back in terms of my work in sport psych, so I was happy to pay back. That was how I paid back, by trying to do that job as well as I could.
Similarly, Joan Duda stated, “I care passionately about this field, and it’s always been that passion which has drawn me in. I believe that we need to give back, we need to do service.” This idea of “paying back” is evident in the effort each of these women have put into their respective roles; nothing is done half-way, and there is no suggestion of taking on any role or project as a “résumé-builder.” Instead, as Penny McCullagh noted, “it’s your chance to do a little something for the world.” Similarly, Maureen Weiss said, “I felt like I was giving back to the profession that gave so much to me.”
Characteristics of a Trailblazer
In this final section, we highlight what we believe are common characteristics of a trailblazer. Although traveling different paths and having varied strengths and weaknesses, certain attributes distinguished their journeys. The concept of quiet competence consistently was raised during the group discussion of the trailblazers’ unnoticed professional contributions. As the well-used quote attests, “well behaved women seldom make history” (Ulrich, 2007). Their vitae speak volumes, and while their humility has shielded many of their accomplishments from public view, we are privileged to present them here.
In the words of Deb Feltz, these women were academic triathletes. That is,
academic professors in the tenure system have to be triathletes. They’re not swimmers – a swimmer is going to be better at swimming than a triathlete. Triathletes can be better at triathlons than a swimmer [because] you have to balance usually three things – teaching, research, and service.
368 Krane and Whaley
Maureen Weiss went a step further, noting, “it’s juggling service, teaching, mentor- ing – mentoring should be a classification of its own, it gets lost in the whole – and your scholarship . . . everybody here is just committed to everything.”
Several trailblazers spoke of their desire to “juggle” or be “a triathlete”; Penny McCullagh said, “I wouldn’t want to do just one, like be so heavily involved in research that it gets in the way of students, or be known only for the service side.” Joan Duda hoped that “I am always remembered as a person first, whether I was talking to a student, presenting a paper, or dancing at the banquet; that there is a complete person there.” Our trailblazers did indeed balance these aspects of their jobs, at the same time designing graduate programs, creating classes, maintaining highly productive research programs, and contributing in countless ways to an emerging profession. For these women, their focus often was divided, but never diluted.
Another important theme across these women’s careers was their focus and pas- sion for moving the field forward, from developing programs and research agendas to nurturing their professional associations. Tara Scanlan did so in a very deliberate way; she shared that, even early on in her doctoral program, she recognized that “this was a brand-new pioneering field and I wanted to be . . . in something new, developing, and really be a pioneer. And truly, that guides me today.” Moving the field forward sometimes meant doing the terribly mundane, like “counting coffee cups” to make sure conferences stayed within budget. It also meant challenging the status quo; such as Joan Duda calling the field to task about the need to address multicultural issues, Maureen Weiss calling for more developmental research, or Carole Oglesby’s constant plea for more attention to diversity in our professional organizations. What is compelling about this group of women is that they all had their own styles of leadership, advising, and teaching; they came from different backgrounds and experiences, but all share a passion for what they do and have maintained that passion over time. This is a principle reason why they deserve the title of trailblazer. And truly, their contributions still are accumulating. Their scholarship continues; some have recently taken on new challenges as administra- tors, moved to different institutions, or retired. But regardless of changes in their circumstances, their commitment to their work and the profession continues.
Although this paper focuses on the positive contributions these women have made, it should be noted that a number of them did so in less than supportive environments, in a time when it was not uncommon for women to fail in their bid to become tenured faculty. This issue will be the focus of a subsequent paper, but suffice to say here that there were numerous examples of how these women achieved great things while simultaneously dealing with hostile climates, pay inequity, and bias against women, particularly women with children. Therefore, it is relevant to speak of dignity, since it was not unusual, as one trailblazer put it, to be “living through the havoc of trying to maintain a professional lifestyle while your house is burning down.”
Perhaps the best way to describe these trailblazers is to use their own words depicting themselves. In the focus group, they were asked to talk about each other’s accomplishments and they did so with striking admiration and respect. While they highlighted particular strengths of each person, many of the qualities mentioned could easily apply to any one of them. The following is a compilation
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 369
of portrayals of each other, establishing what we believe have led to these women becoming trailblazers:
She has competence, commitment, professionalism, an unbelievable work ethic, and she is a real leader. She’s so humble. So much goes unnoticed. Her excellence is across so many different areas. She is amazingly prolific and her research is stunning; she has academic rigor and academic dignity. She is the epitome of professionalism; has total commitment; no matter how little the task is or how big the task is you know there will be excellence there. She was far better than her surroundings deserved. Really a model; there is no better exemplar. A class act, always calm under big fire–quiet competence.
To be a trailblazer means to chart your own course. The paths of these eight women have not been easy, but they steadfastly held to the values of hard work, persistence, commitment, and independence. Often, they did their work with little acknowledgment and little support. However, they found key people who served as role models and mentors, and in turn, they mentored others. Although many of their efforts were self-initiated, they were never self-serving. In fact, they gave considerably more than they received, and did so with the highest ethical stan- dards. Although the group has received many awards and recognitions, they have not received their due as true groundbreakers in their field. In 1995 Diane Gill wrote, “women have been invisible, have been neglected, have faced exclusionary practices, and have been misrepresented and trivialized, but women have not been absent” (pp. 419–420). Our findings confirm that this group of women has been far from absent in the development, nurturing, and progression of the field of sport and exercise psychology.
We believe we have made a compelling case for recognizing these eight women as trailblazers. Their careers have spanned nearly 40 years. Their legacy includes generations of students who have carved their own careers in sport and exercise psychology; lines of research that have established the field as rigorous, theory-based, practical, and relevant; and leadership in professional organizations that was and continues to be thoughtful, competent, and wise. Although awards and recognition have come their way, we hope this study will cement their place in the history of sport and exercise psychology.
Conclusion That women have been overlooked in the formal history of the field is not unique to sport and exercise psychology. This state of affairs has been well documented in our parent discipline of psychology (e.g., Bohan, 1990; Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986) as well as in many other sciences (e.g., Bonta, 1991; Gürer, 1995; Kass- Simon, 1993). We hope this paper meets the challenge of what Bohan referred to as “our charge”: “the reconstruction of psychology’s history to re-place women” (p. 222). Doing so entails consideration of who is missing (i.e., the focus of this paper) as well as where this reconstruction and replacement can occur. Inclusion of the accomplishments of women in the scholarly literature is a beginning. We applaud Alan Kornspan and Mary Jo MacCracken (2001) who stumbled upon a citation to
370 Krane and Whaley
work by Dorothy Hazel Yates (1943), then sought out that article and additional writings by Yates, and ultimately replaced her in our history by writing an article about her early and overlooked applied work, research, and teaching in sport psy- chology. While their work may not be as plentiful or renowned, there were women doing what we now consider sport and exercise psychology alongside Coleman Griffith (who is included in almost every written history of the field). While men like Griffith had all the privileges extended to White male academics of his time, Yates and others were not as fortunate, perhaps making their accomplishments more impressive. As citations to these less known people are found, we hope researchers will follow-up and seek out more information about them.
Another avenue for replacing women into our history, as Bohan (1990) sug- gested, is to be more inclusive in our teaching. Without this historical addendum replacing these trailblazers in our history, we wonder whether future, and even some current, students will know who they are. As we educate students about the history of the field, instructors can make a concerted effort to discuss the women in this article as well as other women who may have influenced their own develop- ment in the field. For example, when discussing exemplar lines of research, many text books discuss the work of Martens and Landers on social facilitation or Smith and Smoll’s youth sport research. Instructors would be remiss not to also highlight career-long lines of research by Joan Duda (motivation), Deb Feltz (self-efficacy), or Maureen Weiss (youth development through sport).
Students can be challenged to seek out information about other invisible people in sport and exercise psychology. Seeking out more information about the women mentioned by Oglesby (2001), Gill (1995) and Vealey (2006) can be a starting point. Further, it is not only women who are missing from our history; people of color, sexual minorities, individuals with disabilities, and likely many others also are invisible. Identifying them and learning about their contributions will fill further voids in our written history. We see this study as a starting, not ending point. Our hope is that other researchers and practitioners take up the challenge to critically evaluate the subdisciplines within the sport and exercise sciences, so that eventu- ally, our respective histories are inclusive and representative of the individuals who made the present field what it is today.
Notes
1. We use the term “sport psychology” where historically appropriate. This was what the field was called in its early inception; later, in the early 1990s, the name was expanded and referred to as sport and exercise psychology.
2. At this time, motor learning and sport psychology principles often were taught within a single course.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially funded by the Established Investigator grant through the Research Consortium and an Association for Applied Sport Psychology Research Grant.
Women and the History of U.S. Sport and Exercise Psychology 371
References Anderson, K., Armitage, S., Jack, D., & Wittner, J. (2004). Beginning where we are: Femi-
nist methodology in oral history. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Levy (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research: A reader on theory and practice (pp. 224–242). New York: Oxford University Press.
Anshel, M.H. (2003). Sport psychology: From theory to practice (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings.
Bohan, J.S. (1990). Contextual history: A framework for re-placing women in the history of psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 213–227.
Bonta, M.M. (1991). Women in the field: America’s pioneering women naturalists. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press.
Cole, A.L., & Knowles, J.G. (Eds.). (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira.
Cox, R.H. (2007). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Dewar, A. (1993). Would all the generic women in sport please stand up? Challenges facing feminist sport sociology. Quest, 45, 211–229.
Duda, J.L. (Ed.). (1998). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Mor- gantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Ely, M. (1991). Doing qualitative research: Circles within circles. Philadelphia: Falmer. Feltz, D.L., Short, S.E., & Sullivan, J. (2007). Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. Fine, M., Weis, L., Weseen, S., & Wong, L. (2000). For whom? Qualitative research, repre-
sentations, and social responsibilities. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 107–132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). Placing women in the history of psychology: The first American women psychologists. The American Psychologist, 41, 35–42.
Gill, D.L. (1995). Women’s place in the history of sport psychology. The Sport Psycholo- gist, 9, 418–433.
Gill, D.L., & Williams, L. (2008). Psychological dynamics of sport (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Goodley, D. (1996). Tales of hidden lives: A critical examination of life history research with people who have learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 11, 333–348.
Gürer, D.W. (1995). Pioneering women in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 38(1), 45–54.
Harris, D.V. (1973). Involvement in sport: A somatopsychic rationale for physical activity. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.
Harris, D.V., & Harris, B.L. (1984). The athlete’s guide to sports psychology: Mental skills for physical people. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kass-Simon, G. (1993). Introduction. In G. Kass-Simon & P. Farnes (Eds.), Women of sci- ence: Righting the record (pp. xi–xvi). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kornspan, A.S., & MacCracken, M.J. (2001). Psychology applied to sport in the 1940s: The work of Dorothy Hazeltine Yates. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 342–345.
Krane, V. (2001). One lesbian feminist epistemology: Integrating feminist standpoint, queer theory, and feminist cultural studies. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 401–411.
Kvale, I. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Landers, D.M., & Christina, R.W. (Eds.). (1977). Psychology of motor behavior and sport: Proceedings of the Annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, 1976. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
372 Krane and Whaley
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGrayne, S.B. (2001). Nobel Prize women in science: Their lives, struggles, & momentous discoveries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Oglesby, C. (1978). Women and sport: From myth to reality. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. Oglesby, C.A. (2001). To unearth the legacy. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 373–385. Roper, E.A., Fisher, L., & Wrisberg, C.A. (2005). Professional women’s career experiences
in sport psychology: A feminist standpoint approach. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 32–50. Silva, J.M., & Weinberg, R.S. (Eds.). (1984). Psychological foundations of sport. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics. Straub, W.F. (Ed.). (1980). Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior. Ithaca, NY:
Mouvement. Straub, W.F., & Hinman, D.A. (1992). Profiles and professional perspectives of 10 leading
sport psychologists. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 297–312. Straub, W.F., & Williams, J.M. (Eds.). (1984). Cognitive sport psychology. Lansing, N.Y:
Sport Science International. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tang, J. (2006). Scientific pioneers: Women succeeding in science. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America. Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1976). Basketball’s John Wooden: What a coach can teach
a teacher. Psychology Today, 9(8), 74–78. Trescott, M.M. (1093). Women in the intellectual development of engineering: A study
in persistence and systems thought. In G. Kass-Simon & P. Farnes (Eds.), Women of science: Righting the record (pp. 147–187). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ulrich, L.T. (2007). Well-behaved women seldom make history. New York: Vintage Books. Vealey, R.S. (2006). Smocks and jocks outside the box: The paradigmatic evolution of sport
and exercise psychology. Quest, 58, 128–159. Wade, M., & Martens, R. (Eds.). (1974). Psychology of motor behavior and sport: Proceed-
ings of the Annual conference of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, 1973. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (2007). Foundations of sport & exercise psychology (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weiss, M.R. (2004). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Williams, J.M. (Ed.). (1986). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak perfor- mance. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
Zaichkowsky, L., & Naylor, A. (2005). Sport psychology foundations, organizations, and related resources. School Sport Psychology, 21(2), 9–24.
Copyright of Sport Psychologist is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
