JUNIOR COLLEGE AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE ATHLETIC CAPITALISM AND THE WORK OF ATHLETIC TRAINERS
Committee ChairRhoades, Gary D.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractThis study reviewed the funding, budgeting, revenue generating practices of community college athletics. Several theories informed the research including institutional theory (isomorphism) academic capitalism, resource dependency, and role/work conflict. The design of the study was to interview an athletic administrator or athletic director, a coach, and an athletic trainer from each of the community colleges in a western state. These interviews occurred on the community college campus to allow for observation of the facilities. In addition, a national sample of athletic trainers from community colleges was interviewed. The study indicates that community college athletics is philosophically resisting the pressure to look and behave like larger collegiate athletic departments. Resistance is not universal however; some community college athletics personnel consider the move toward budget driven decisions and marketing similar to Division I (one) institutions as coming and inevitable. Isomorphism is alive and well among community college institutions. The decisions for spending and growth are not always the decisions, which are best for the institution and its athletes. At times these decisions are made because of mimetic isomorphism. The study indicates that athletic personnel can base decisions in the context of the budget and fund raising practices. These decisions are not yet raised to a critical state where untoward influence on the institution is felt at the community college level. Overall, community college athletic personnel are individuals who care about the student athlete model and believe the role of collegiate athletic is to contribute to the community and the college. I found the athletic personnel to be professional and supportive of athletics from the president to the departments, through the athletic directors, coaches and athletic trainers.
Degree ProgramHigher Education
Degree GrantorUniversity of Arizona
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
College athletic department administrators' attitudes toward college student athletes and their academic and athletic success.Wulfsberg, Cal Douglas. (The University of Arizona., 1989)The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of college athletic department administrators (athletic directors, faculty representatives, football coaches, and basketball coaches) toward the athletic and academic achievement of student athletes and to compare administrators' perceptions with those of student athletes (NCAA, 1988). The review of literature discussed the history and development of the NCAA, college admission predictors, standardized tests, involvement of high schools in academic preparation of student athletes, and the NCAA legislation of Propositions 48 and 42. Additionally, programs which satisfy the needs and validate the credibility of student athletes and educational institutions are suggested. A questionnaire was designed to measure the attitudes of college athletic department administrators toward the academic and athletic accomplishments of student athletes. The results were then compared to a similar study completed by the NCAA (1988) on student athletes' attitudes toward these issues. The findings revealed significant group differences among athletic directors, faculty representatives, football coaches, and basketball coaches and significant comparative differences between the two studies. The data indicated that the responses of athletic directors and faculty representatives were often similar, as were those of football and basketball coaches. On questions that supported academics, athletic directors and faculty representatives were much more sympathetic than coaches. When the question promoted athletic concepts, coaches were more supportive than athletic directors or faculty representatives. When an issue involved both academics and athletics, the gap was reduced but athletic directors and faculty representatives showed stronger support than coaches. Comparison of the two studies confirmed strong opposition by athletes to questions on athletic eligibility. Student athletes were consistently negative on any issue threatening their eligibility, whereas athletic department administrators were generally supportive. When academic questions were addressed, student athletes were supportive though not as positive in their responses as athletic department administrators. Many of the responses and comparisons were anticipated and emulated recent research.
Balancing Act: Negotiations of the Athletic and Academic Role Amongst Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision Student-AthletesBell, Lydia Foster (The University of Arizona., 2009)Informed by the words and experiences of 41 Division I-Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) student-athletes, this qualitative study reveals the complexities of the student-athlete academic experience shaped by the expectations of their athletic role, the campus climate, and the NCAA Academic Reform Package. Using role-identity as a theoretical framework, it examines how, over time, these student-athletes have shaped their athletic and academic role-identities, and the roles played in such shaping by those in their academic and athletic role-sets. The study critically examines the academic decisions made by these student-athletes, questions the isomorphic academic and athletic rubric, and proposes suggestions for the enhancement of the student-athlete experience within the confines of the academic reform policies.
The Role of Athlete Identity and Social Capital in the Post-College Lives of Black, Revenue-Generating AthletesMarshall, Brandon C. (The University of Arizona., 2016)The members of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and their university partners consider themselves to be organizations dedicated to the well-being and lifelong success of student-athletes. They have measured their dedication to their student-athletes through degree attainment. The controversial issue of whether student-athletes should be paid has been debated in courtrooms, classrooms, locker rooms, and numerous mainstream media outlets. Regardless the debate platform, the NCAA and university partners have relied on the argument that student-athletes are amateurs, not employees and in exchange for their talents, a quality education is provided and paid for, which is more valuable (in the long-term) than paying them. This study used the NCAA and university partners' argument of a quality education as a proxy for pay to guide the research. Focusing on the most lucrative and controversial population of student-athletes, Black, revenue-generating football players, this study investigated if they were in fact being provided with a quality education accompanied with transferable skills that would give them success after their football careers were over. This study utilized qualitative research to investigate the pre-college, college, and post-college experiences and decision making of eight Black, former revenue-generating football players. The in-depth research was designed to chronicle the lived experiences of the participants in relation to their interaction with what this study has coined, the Infrastructure of College Sports (IOCS). The IOCS is the ideological and physical structure that manages student-athletes from college entrance to college exit. The IOCS, in correlation with theoretical concepts such as Athlete Identity and Social Capital, were used to investigate how the student's identity as an athlete, and social capital acquired prior to college, impacted decision making such as college, major and career choice. Furthermore, this study investigated how such factors impacted how they perceived themselves as a student.An in-depth analysis of the lives of the eight Black, former revenue generating football players, revealed that the NCAA and university partners use of degree attainment as the measure of success needs further evaluation. Though the majority of the participants did graduate, their post-college lives, which were impacted by their decisions made during college, resulted in unattainable professional careers. Identity confusion, professional limbo, and a feeling of betrayal towards the NCAA and university partners characterize each participant's current status. The participants' overdependence on their athlete identities impeded their growth as students, which hindered their preparation for life after college (i.e., finding a career). These findings were consistent with previous research on the topic (Adler & Adler, 1991; Beamon, 2012; Harrison et al., 2011; Brewer, Linder,& Raalte, 1993; Marsh & Shavelson, 1985; Sparkes, 1998). Additionally, the quantity and quality of social capital acquired prior to college impacted their perception of education, which was consistent with Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman's (1988) versions of social capital. The influence of the IOCS is instrumental in the successes and failures of student-athletes. Findings revealed that the IOCS, whose gatekeeper is the NCAA and university partners, is designed not to educate, enhance, or develop the student, but to engineer a stronger, more efficient athlete. The IOCS is organized in such a manner that if a student-athlete enters college academically unprepared, and psychologically imbalanced, that is, more an athlete than student, then there are protocols in place to pacify such student-athletes throughout their college careers. Student-athletes fitting the above descriptions are placed on a conveyor-belt of mediocrity; many important decisions are made for them with little resistance. They are clustered in classes and majors of least resistance. The participants' responses uncovered strong evidence that the IOCS takes advantage of student-athletes who are overly dependent on their sport for their own future financial gain. Overall, participant responses and descriptions of current living situations revealed that degree attainment did not result in complete, "first-class" educations because the degrees accompanying transferable employment skills were not clearly taught, defined, or even practically applicable, when the Black D-1 student-athlete sought employment in a post-college career track.