CONSTRUCTING GENDER, CREATING DISPARITY: JUSTIFYING THE GENDER GAP IN COACHING

Catherine Bolzendahl* and Vanessa Kauffman Department of Sociology, University of , Irvine

Jessica Broadfoot

ABSTRACT We explore justifications of the gender disparity in coaching through in-depth interviews of both male and female Division I collegiate coaches. Respondents were comfortable pointing to individualist explanations, but avoided structural critiques of the occupation or institutional context. The construction of gender played a pervasive role, also framing perceptions of individual choices and occupational barriers. Men and women overtly naturalized and emphasized physical and emotional differences as key factors. Women in coaching positions also face a double- disadvantage due to the social construction of gender. First, athletics is still perceived to be a masculine realm, thus even though coaching is a low-paid, high-time commitment , men receive more support for remaining in it. Second, men are easily accepted as coaches of women’s sports, but not vice-versa.

______

*Direct correspondence to: Catherine Bolzendahl, UCI, Department of Sociology, 3151 Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697; [email protected].

CONSTRUCTING GENDER, CREATING DISPARITY: JUSTIFYING THE GENDER GAP IN COACHING

In 1972, Title IX was established to remove gender-based discrimination in all areas of education. In many ways, this law has been enormously successful with sharp increases of women in sport. Two years before Title IX was enacted, there were on average only 2.5 women’s teams per school across all divisions in collegiate athletics. Now, on average, 8.65 women’s teams are on every college campus across divisions (Carpenter and Acosta 2008). However, women’s role in coaching and administrative positions followed the opposite pattern (Everhart and Chelladurai 1998; Welch and Sigelman 2007). When Title IX was enacted in 1972 approximately 90% of women’s teams were coached by women; in 2008 that number dropped to 42.8%, one of the lowest numbers since 1972. Overall women comprise only about 20.6% of head coaching positions (Carpenter and Acosta 2008). This pattern is unique, with no previous evidence of female occupations becoming largely male, as they have with regard to men coaching women’s sports (Welch and Sigelman 2007). The dearth of women in coaching has not gone unnoticed, and a variety of scholars have studied the phenomenon, typically with a quantitative approach (Norman 2010). Despite the insights gained through these efforts they have often ignored coaches’ own explanations and understanding of gender, coaching, and inequality, and they typically focus only on women’s experiences. Given that men hold the majority of positions and power in athletics, it is particularly important, however, to also understand men’s views. In this way we view gender as relational, in terms of how it is constructed interactionally, and through the assumptions and definitions of masculinity and femininity that men and women hold. Thus, in this study we ask: What types of explanations or justifications do male and female collegiate coaches use to understand the gender gap in coaching? Our interviews of collegiate coaches at a Division I university show that male and female respondents offered individual, structural, and gender relational arguments. Together these logics work to limit women’s entry into and advancement in coaching professions, in a manner unmatched by few professional fields in the United States, and despite comprehensive public policy and law focused on gender equality. WHERE ARE THE WOMEN? Title IX holds a unique role in U.S. society given that most laws concerning gender equality in the private economy guard equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Thus, same law that has proved a boon to women’s participation in athletics provides no protection or guarantees for women coaching them. Given the fairly precipitous decline in women coaching, research began to follow trends fairly early (e.g., Acosta and Carpenter 1985), though little has changed. Since 1999, men have won nearly 75% of the coaching in women’s collegiate sports (Wilson 2007). To better understand how male and female coaches view their role in and the lack of women in coaching, we are guided by prior work that identified three main approaches: individual, structure, and relational (Knoppers 1992). Below, we review the existing evidence for these explanations, and consider the extent to which they may (or may not) matter for our interviewees. Individual Approaches: Socialization and Human Capital A number of studies attribute the gender gap to the interest, abilities, and choices of individual women (Cunningham, Doherty, and Gregg 2007; Cunningham and Sagas 2003; Everhart and Chelladurai 1998; Sagas and Cunningham 2004; Sagas, Cunningham and Pastore 2006). Socialization in the gendered identities at an early age may shape women and men’s perceptions of career , and though girls’ involvement in sports is widespread, the dearth of female coaches may limit role models for this career path. Thus, women may not pursue the training and experience (human capital) needed to excel and apply for coaching positions (Cunningham and Sagas 2002; Cunningham, Sagas, and Ashley 2003; Sagas, Cunningham, and Ashley 2000; Sagas, Cunningham, and Pastore 2006). Further, as adults, women face greater pressure to tend to home and family – even if they are working. Coaching may be regarded as incompatible with family life, especially long hours, travel, and inflexible time commitments (Acosta and Carpenter 1985; Everhart and Chelladurai 1998; Pastore, Inglis, and Danylchuk 1996; Welch and Sigelman 2007). Further research confirmed that human capital is a substantive contributor gender inequality in coaching (Knoppers, Meyer, Ewing, and Forrest 1989; Sagas and Cunningham 2004). There are a number of deficiencies in a reliance on individual explanations. Given women’s large-scale involvement in college athletics there is a large pool of women athletes that should be qualified to coach. Such a point has increased in salience as women’s sports are

2

increasingly professional, sponsored, attended, and televised. Second, recent research indicates that both men and women wish to balance work and family, and that the “negative” aspects of coaching do not dissuade women more than men (Sagas, Cunningham, and Pastore 2006). Third, qualifications for jobs are not fixed entities but social constructions that vary in their focus on specific aspects of the at hand. Namely, is coaching a job that requires keen multitasking and nurturing skills (coded: female) or is it a job that requires toughness and a competitive mindset (coded: male) (Knoppers and Athonissen 2001; Theberge 1990)? Fourth, though male athletic administrators were found to have more human capital investments than women (Sagas and Cunningham 2004), returns to investments were not equal for coaches or administrators (Knoppers 1992; Cunningham and Sagas 2002) and there evidence for sex-based discrimination in hiring coaches (Walker, Bopp, and Sagas 2011). Finally, rationality of profit seems to play little role, as women would be cheaper to hire for all nonrevenue sports, and not all women have family responsibilities that could “interfere” with their commitment to coaching. Given the obvious flaws in this argument, it is important to see whether coaches themselves rely on such explanations (a common barrier for structural change in U.S. society (e.g., Gilens 1999)), and thus the extent to which individualist justifications prop up unequal outcomes. Occupational Structure and Barriers Another view of the mechanisms favoring male coaches focuses on the structure of athletic organizations and occupations. Drawing from a rich body of occupational and organizational gender segregation literature (e.g., see Reskin, McBrier, and Kmec 1999 for a review), scholars have found that women may not have the same opportunities to obtain positions in coaching as men, they may be denied the resources they need to excel, and women’s token status in coaching may lead women to feel isolated and alienated on the job (Kanter 1977; Knoppers 1992; Walker and Bopp 2010; Walker, Bopp, and Sagas 2011). Knoppers et al. (1991) found that female coaches had more limited opportunities than male coaches, being confined to horizontal moves and denied equal chances at administrative positions. The “glass wall” female coaches encounter means they cannot and/or will not be hired to coach men’s sports (Kane and Stangl 1991; Walker, Bopp and Sagas 2011), thus also limiting upward mobility (Kane and Stangl 1991). Further, opportunities may be limited by the lack of clear guidelines on how to enter the coaching profession, and informal networks privilege those already tied in to the formal

3 system with experience coaching varsity teams, that is, male coaches and administrators (Lovett and Lowry 1994; Siegel and Brantle 2001). The enactment of Title IX brought an increase in resources, prestige, and competitiveness in women’s collegiate sport, thus making the job more attractive for men (Drago, Hennighausen, Rogers, Vescio, and Stauffer 2005; Suggs 2000; Welch and Sigelman 2007), while women face underfunding and under-prioritization of teams they coach (Pastore, Inglis, Danylchuk 1996). This is not solely because women are more likely to coach non-revenue sports, given research that female and male coaches in the same position, e.g., in non-revenue sports, have resource disparities that favor men (Knoppers 1992). Finally, women face problems related to their low proportion or token status in the profession (Kane and Stangl 1991; Kanter 1977). Therberge (1993) found that Canadian women coaches felt their token status keenly and could easily supply examples of their isolation, including being highly visible and pressured to perform. Increasing the presence of women may ease token status, such that higher gender ratio among Division I college coaches increases the interaction of women with each other (Everhart and Chelladurai 1998; Knoppers, Meyer, Ewing, and Forrest 1993). Low proportions also limit women’s entry to coaching due to a lack of mentoring among women and of female role models (Pastore, Inglis and Danylchuk 1996; Sagas, Cunningham, and Pastore 2006; Sagas, Cunningham, and Teed 2006; Walker and Bopp 2010). At the Division I level, schools with a female athletic director had the highest percent of female coaches – with women accounting for half of the head coach positions of women’s teams (Carpenter and Acosta 2008; see also Stangl and Kane 1991). In all, occupational barriers are real limits to women’s equality in coaching. Yet, as suggested above, it is not clear that coaches caught up in their daily lives see this playing out in their , potentially limiting demands for change. From 2001-6, coaches only filed eight percent of Title IX compliance lawsuits, with a report claiming that fear of retaliation was a common concern (Barriers to Fair Play 2007). Further, as a workplace and occupation, athletics are loosely structured (Knoppers 1992; Thereberge 1987). This may make it difficult to directly compare positions within and across universities, identify the true power structure, and identify clear expectations for hiring, firing and performance. Together, this may further limit the extent to which coaches identify structural barriers. Social Relations: The Performance and Idealization of Masculinity in Sport

4

The obstacles outlined above are common to a general discussion of gender disparities in work, but structural approaches may tend to downplay the pervasive effect of gender. However, coaching, and athletics in general, remains a uniquely masculinized arena where the very definition of athletics is associated with men and masculinity (Messner 1992; Sartore and Cunningham 2007). In general, the qualities of sport – competition, confidence, physical strength, aggression – are seen as masculine, while characteristics of cooperation, passivity, and dependency are coded feminine, raising suspicions about women’s capacity to excel in the field (Frey and Eitzen 1991; Messner 1992; Staurowsky 1990; Theberge 1990; Walker and Bopp 2010; Washington and Karen 2001). Often the difference between women and men in sport is naturalized. Therberge (1993) found that few challenged the dominant ideological construction of sport as reflecting natural difference and that the practice of doing gender was obscured by assumptions of masculine superiority in expressions of athleticism (see also Lirgg, Dibrezzo, and Smith 1994; Lorber 1993; Walker and Bopp 2010). Researchers document the ways in which women try to assimilate into the dominant culture of masculinity, working to demonstrate their ability to “hang” with the boys (Therberge 1993; Walker and Bopp 2010). Masculine dominance has helped to define the parameters of what it means to be a coach (Knoppers 1992). To the extent that it depends on constructing women as the “other,” men are continually charged with demonstrating their difference, thus practicing sports and coaching in a way that proves the “superiority” of men (see Messner, Duncan, and Jensen 1993; Shakib and Dunbar 2002; Theberge 1997). For example, men’s coaching positions may be defined as more difficult or complex, requiring skills associated with hegemonic masculinity; they may assume the presence of a spouse (wife) to support the coach’s career; and they may de-emphasize aspects of the job that appear feminine, such as nurturing athletes and facilitating team play (Lorber 1993; Kane and Stangl 1991; Knoppers, Myer, Ewing, and Forrest 1991; Knoppers 1992; Molstad 1993; Theberge 1993; Wilkerson 1996). Women prefer to define coaching as influence, in their belief that the coach-athlete relationship should be cooperative and empowering (Theberge 1990). In colleges were women hold a higher proportion of positions, Knoppers, et al. (1993) found that gender boundaries and sex segregation increased, suggesting men may be acting to preserve difference. Further, homosociality protects male privilege and definitions of coaching (Bird 1996; Sagas and Cunninghim 2004; Tomlinson and Yorganci 1997; Walker and

5

Bopp 2010). Interactions undergirded by these assumptions subordinate femininity and nonhegemonic masculinities. Increasingly sport is a “contested terrain,” but the social construction of gender remains an underexplored mechanism in understanding gender ratios in coaching. Interviews with six of the nine women senior national coaches for major women’s sports in the U.K. (Norman 2010) confirmed a number of gendered limitations: the women felt undervalued and trivialized as tokens in the profession; they felt no sincere commitment to equality or inclusivity from their male peers and administrators; they viewed the field as plagued by heteronormativity, homophobia, and heterosexism; and perceived few opportunities to develop and progress in their careers (see also Walker and Bopp 2010). These studies focus on women’s experiences and it is clear that women see the gendered natures of the limitations surrounding them that nevertheless facilitate men’s coaching success. However, it is unclear whether men are also aware of these constructions. As members of the dominant group, their privilege may remain invisible, and they may explicitly defend it. If so, it suggests a greater need to make such privileges transparent. Alternatively, male coaches may recognize these social relations at work, and this suggests opportunities for greater solidarity among coaching staff. RESEARCH PROCEDURES The data collection process involved in-depth interviews by the third author in the fall and winter of 2008 of 21 collegiate coaches from a single Division I University, thus restricting the sample to one institutional context. Head and assistant coaches from five sports, which have both male and female teams, were contacted: basketball, volleyball, tennis, soccer, and golf. At the time of the interviews, 2007, this university had 19 intercollegiate (varsity) teams. Eight are organized as men’s teams: baseball, basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, tennis, volleyball and water polo. Men’s teams are coached by men exclusively except for men’s rowing which has one women “novice coach.” Seven are organized as women’s teams: basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, tennis, volleyball and water polo. Of these, basketball, rowing and golf had female head coaches. Females were assistant coaches on the basketball, rowing, soccer, tennis, and volleyball teams. All of the women’s teams had men on them (as heads or assistants), except for golf which only has a head coach. Women’s water polo had no female coaches (male head, two male assistants). Four are organized as one team, though men and women typically compete separately: cross country, sailing, swimming and diving, and track and field. Of these four only one, swimming

6

and diving, has any female coaching, with one female assistant coach. The athletic director is male. Subsequently, after the initial interviews, snowball sampling was used to identify and contact former coaches. The final sample was comprised of nine females, three of which were head coaches and six of which were assistants, and twelve males, made up of nine head coaches and three assistant coaches. The Division I University from which the interviews were obtained reflects the nationally skewed proportion of men and women coaches, particularly in regards to head coaching positions. Often research involving issues of gender focuses solely on the experiences of women. Given that the field is male dominated, it is particularly important to understand men’s conceptions of women’s role as coaches. The interview process spanned the length of approximately three months. Each interview ranged in length from 30-60 minutes, the majority falling at approximately 45 minutes. After the in-person interviews were conducted, the voice recordings were transcribed in full, and then the first and third authors analyzed these transcripts for themes. Although specific question order may have varied in each interview session, the main issues we explored throughout the interviews followed an interview guide exploring different themes including family and work life balance, informal support networks, career path, opinions surrounding the current gender structure of collegiate coaching, and obstacles encountered. We interpreted the themes guided by prior research (above) and through multiple readings and discussions of the transcripts. At the time of the interviews, 2007, this university had 19 intercollegiate (varsity) teams. Eight are organized as men’s teams: baseball, basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, tennis, volleyball and water polo. Men’s teams are coached by men exclusively except for men’s rowing which has one women “novice coach.” Seven are organized as women’s teams: basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, tennis, volleyball and water polo. Of these, basketball, rowing and golf had female head coaches. Females were assistant coaches on the basketball, rowing, soccer, tennis, and volleyball teams. All of the women’s teams had men on them (as heads or assistants), except for golf which only has a head coach. Women’s water polo had no female coaches (male head, two male assistants). Four are organized as one team, though men and women typically compete separately: cross country, sailing, swimming and diving, and track and field. Of these four only one, swimming and diving, has any female coaching, with one female assistant coach. The athletic director is male.

7

RESULTS Our analysis of the interviews was motivated by the wish to understand how male and female collegiate coaches explain and/or justify the gender gap in coaching. We organized responses below along three main types of mechanisms: individual choices and experiences; occupational barriers; and cultures and constructions of gender. Quotes illustrate widely held views in the sample, though minority opinions are noted and discussed as well. Family and Work Choices Many respondents identified individual choices women and men made about coaching, due to their own priorities and what they considered to be the requirements of the job. Long and irregular hours, travel, and low pay involved in pursuing a coaching career were perceived as exacting the greatest costs on women. This female assistant coach of a women’s volleyball team says that women move ahead less due to family goals: “I think women are trying to start families…I’ll just speak for myself, that no matter what I do I want to be the best at it. So if I’m short-changing something or someone I don’t like that. I’m a pleaser kind of. And maybe women were trying to do both and they just couldn’t do it, and so something had to be sacrificed. So I think a lot of people are putting family first, which they should. But then to be able to juggle family, your job, your career, is difficult…So right now those plans are on the back burner.” Rather than criticizing the expectations associated with coaching (a structural explanation), there was a tendency to depend on individual preferences. For women, the coaches saw family and a coaching career as an either/or rather than both/and, and felt that coaching is a profession that exerts tremendous pressure on family life. The main negative factors cited included large time demands, low pay, extensive traveling, and the necessity to perform many different roles. Men support women in these beliefs, assuming that it is “natural” that women should make these “choices.” Respondents such as this male head men’s volleyball coach pointed to a trade-off: “Women have other priorities in their life. They’re raising families, and having kids, and sometimes that interferes with their career path. Sometimes they make a choice, that that’s not the direction they’re going to go. They want to raise their families.” Knoppers’ (1992) critique suggested such explanations underplay the importance men also place on family life. Indeed, men also sometimes chafe under the expectations of coaching. This male men’s head tennis coach explains,

8

“You wear so many different hats. You have to be a business man, to raising money, to being a psychologist, to coming up and walking side by side with the guys who are 18 to 21 years old, and understand the pressures that they’re going through. Because of the different roles one assumes, the time commitments vary from day to day, but overall require commitment around the clock. Some nights it’s late at night, other days there’s not much going on. It’s a 24/7 job.” The great deal of time commitment required of coaches on a daily basis, multiplied by their heightened time commitments of traveling during season, create tension between time spent at work and with family for men and women. However respondents suggest it is easier for men to deal with their time away from home because in most families, whether based on a single or dual earner income, women are left with the majority of the childcare responsibilities. The women’s head soccer coach, a male who is currently single and without children, refers to this: “I think lifestyle-wise this job—this job is difficult for someone who is married with two children. I think a guy that’s married with two children has less challenges than a female who is married and has gone through two pregnancies. That’s difficult. And I think you see female coaches leave the profession when they have a child. You know, the challenge of the pregnancy itself, and then the newborn baby. Not that that’s not a shared responsibility obviously, but I think the profession loses females in that regards.” This respondent is simultaneously justifying the individual choices a women makes, but also relies heavily on the naturalization of gender differences and explicitly frames coaching as male gendered job – one that women cannot handle for biological and social reasons. Yet, many of the men’s responses challenge this view. In fact, all the men who were or had been married or had children were quick to stress the difficulties of balancing both roles. A former men’s head golf coach lamented the emotional toll going on the road had on him when he had to leave his son at home. He explained he wanted to put his family first, which was one reason he got out of collegiate coaching. The traditional belief that women will bear the brunt of the household and childcare duties serves to justify and explain women’s exit from coaching. A female women’s assistant basketball coach (A) describes this type of mentality that creates situations where women feel like they have to choose between maintaining a career and raising a family: A: I think part of it might be the mentality that women can’t have both a career that’s as demanding as women’s basketball, or head coaching in general would be, and having a

9

family. I think maybe some women have been put in the position where they have to choose. I think that’s not fair. Q: Personally them choosing, or their job making them choose? A: Personally, like maybe other people in their life, maybe a spouse, or family members, who were kind of influencing them, or maybe putting thoughts in their head that this can’t be done. An assistant coach of a women’s tennis team in her early 20’s wanted both a coaching career and a family, yet she felt such goals may not be realistic given her internalized model of motherhood: “I mean I had a Mom that was home with me when I was able to get home from school, and a father who had a very tough . So, she kind of made the choice to quit her job and be able to be home with my sister and I…I would want to stay in the work force, but at the end of the day I’d like to be able to be home with my family at certain hours, and not have to commit, not have to leave family obligations second to my job.” In reality, gendered expectations regarding women’s family roles likely combine with coaching career pressures to create real barriers to women’s advancement and retainment. What remains unclear is whether the coaching profession is unique in this regard. In fact a few respondents felt coaching was an ideal career for those wanting to combine work and family. A female former head coach of a women’s tennis team says she “fully believe[s] you can be a head tennis coach and have a family,” but her decision to leave her job because of the financial situation with her family speaks otherwise. Although entering her head coaching position with long-term intentions, logistical and financial issues created tension between her career path and family obligations, forcing her to leave her position after four years. Yet, the male head coach of women’s tennis explains that his job was great for him and his wife (who is a teacher) when their kids were younger, “I think for both of us, what we both love about our jobs…you have a flexible schedule. It’s not like some jobs where you just whatever, 9 to 5, 8 to 4, where you have to be there all the time at those times.” Another female assistant women’s soccer coach plans to stick with coaching and sees it as a benefit for her family goals as well:

10

“I think coaching is a profession that really lends itself to having a family, which is something that I definitely want…So there will be times when I’ll be extremely busy and have to do things, but I think in terms of a family coaching is a great position because you can take off and go see your kids play. It’s not like to have to be in the office at a certain time. It’s a profession that lends itself to your kids coming and being a part of what you’re doing …” What comes across more clearly is not the incompatibly of coaching and parenthood, but need for a supportive spouse. Advancing in coaching requires flexibility and mobility, and opportunities often arise in less than ideal locations. While research suggests families will relocate for a wife’s job for significant financial gains, this is unlikely to be the case with coaching, where pay is quite modest. Thus, there is little built into the structure of the coaching profession that lends itself to overcoming gendered family pressures. An assistant tennis coach in her early 20’s explains the following in terms of her financial situation: “Well considering that I am still very young, and I don’t have very many expenses, I can kind of get away with being paid dirt, I guess. And, so right now, I’m just really concerned about myself, but you know, one day if you know, married and I have kids, it’s the whole balancing of schedules, and where I’m living, cost of living in [State] is higher than certain other places.” While it is assumed by most respondents that women need to find time to balance domestic responsibilities and the needs of children and spouses, men are commended for their “passion for coaching.” This was expressed by a former women’s volleyball coach who was involved with collegiate athletics during the time when Title IX was first enacted. Although he realizes times may have changed since he was involved with collegiate coaching, he expressed his belief that his male colleagues during his era, himself included, were maybe more willing to take on volunteer positions or other such opportunities that although not appealing financially, allowed them entrance and opportunities in the coaching realm: “I mean coaching is a hard life, and maybe some guys were nuts to do it, and maybe the women are smarter and [didn’t] do it—maybe that…There weren’t a lot of opportunities for anyone, and the guys were more willing to eat a can of beans for dinner or whatever…sometimes I’d have a volunteer, and they were always guys. That same thing

11

I was talking about earlier, the guys are maybe more willing to volunteer and do whatever just to get some experience.” Thus at the same time female coaches are having to scale back involvement due to family responsibilities, men are enabled to become more committed to coaching. Many of the responses from the male coaches point to the fact that as collegiate coaches men are able to remain in a highly competitive realm, and surround themselves by the “eat, breathe, and live” sports culture for which they have been passionate about from an early age. To explain this, a former head golf coach first reflects on a book he read surrounding the socialization of boys and girls into different spheres and he describes the perceived single-minded game playing behavior characteristic of men in relation to sports. “[The author] said that women…are just not as competitive, and not as winning oriented…women are doing sports to be social—some are competitive, but as a general animal the male is—you know you hit the court, you want to win, you want to compete, you want to be a head coach, you want to be at the top of the food chain. There’s some [women] that are, but just percentage wise you’ve got less…Guys, they will just rehash that round of golf—dude I was on 18, and I hit a wedge 150 yards into the wind. And they’ll talk about that, whereas women will talk, I find and this is just anecdotal, but I find that women will talk about non-related [events], everything from movies to their weekend to guys to whatever. Guys might talk about women because they’re hot or whatever, but they’re mostly talking about their sport, or something stupid...” According to an analysis of popular press coaching books, these portrayals of women and men that inflate gender differences are not uncommon (LaVoi, Becker, and Maxwell 2007). In all, individualist explanations were common, but stereotypically gendered in their assumptions. The problems and challenges of coaching are assumed to motivate women to opt out, because they prefer to prioritize family. Male coaches cannot depend on breadwinner justifications to remain in the field given the inconsistent and modest pay of coaching jobs. Instead men frame themselves as more willing to “do what it takes” to succeed, with little acknowledgement of what types of factors support these decisions. While the female coaches suggested family burdens shaped choices to leave coaching, many of the married men and those who had children also acknowledged these difficulties. Further, “passion” for the game was a main motivator for all women involved. In fact all the female respondents discussed their

12

decision to enter coaching as due to their life-long passion for the sport and desire to remain in it if possible. Thus, although women compete in collegiate athletics at about the same degree as men, men are still assumed to be more committed to athletics, and thus coaching professions. Occupational Barriers: Opportunities, Resources, and Presence Understanding disparities in the gender distribution of coaching is due, at least in part, to the changes created by Title IX legislation. Many of the respondents, and especially the men, referred to the ways in which this changed the prestige and compensation of coaching women’s teams. As the legislation went into effect, women’s teams transitioned from club to varsity status, and universities sharply increased funding for coaching staff, of female athletes, and scholarships to retain top female talent. The male head men’s basketball coach explains, “I think that men – as if they put more money into women’s sport the went up, opportunity went up…Because I think probably before it was treated like a club sport…So I think that a lot of men looked at it as an opportunity. Plus they had reputation when they came in. And most of the hiring processes I think were being done by men…so sometimes men will take another man.” The theme of greater opportunities in women’s sports was mentioned by several respondents, and that Title IX was in some ways pushing men into women’s sports. This female assistant women’s soccer coach believes, “…there’s a lot more women’s soccer programs than there are men’s soccer programs. That makes job opportunities – there’s more of them. I’ve had friends on the men’s side who have lost their jobs because of Title IX where a school needs to drop a program. You know if college coaching is something you want to stay in I think there’s more job security in women’s soccer.” While recognizing the opportunities that women’s collegiate athletics have opened up, there were some mixed feelings about the impact on men’s sports. Most were supportive of the Title IX initiatives, but gender disparities coaching outcomes were seen as linked to diminishing opportunities for men, such as this man who was the women’s head volleyball coach, “[Women’s teams] were club teams, and frankly they were kind of looked down on by people…And slowly sport programs, the college programs, said hang on, if we’re going to give you this then you need to give some results. And that’s what forced I think a lot of

13

it to kind of change…The joke now in men’s volleyball is that if you want to make money you go on the women’s side…And nobody can really add a men’s volleyball program now because you have to offset it with a women’s program. And the reality is that the number of boys playing volleyball increases every year, tremendously, and they have nowhere to go.” Such a perspective and perception of “reverse discrimination” is interesting given that prior research suggests funding for women’s sport is not higher than men’s, and that coaches of female teams are paid the same as those of male teams, and further that female coaches earn, on average $3.50 per hour less than men (Drago et al. 2005). Despite some concerns, all the coaches felt Title IX had a positive impact on college athletics. They were enthusiastic about the opportunities it had opened up for women in sports, and the concrete support universities were providing to women’s teams. However, this was not seen as something that benefitted women as coaches. With the newly competitive and funded women’s teams needing top coaches, men were eager to follow-up on these opportunities, and in a career that is highly dependent on informal networking (a theme echoed by all respondents), men’s ties to mainly male athletic directors may have exacerbated this trend. In sum, Title IX has made coaching women’s teams more appealing to men, and as a perhaps unforeseen consequence, has contributed to gender inequalities in coaching. Coaching and Masculinity: A “Natural” Combination Previous literature shows although there has been progress on and off the playing field, the model of masculine hegemony is reinforced through the value sports places on masculine traits such as strength, aggressiveness, risk taking, and a win-at-all costs attitude (Sabo and Panepinto 1990). Interestingly, coaching may be seen as an example of conflicting masculine roles. Given the low pay and high time commitment, coaching is a profession that undermines the traditional male family role. When forming a family, women are expected to specialize in caregiving by reducing commitment to work, and accepting lower pay, but men are expected to increase career involvement with higher pay in order to perform as breadwinner. Due to low levels of compensation, husbands/fathers in coaching “fail” or “underperform” in their breadwinner role. To remain committed to the coaching profession, these men often depend on the support of their wives, as this male head women’s tennis coach explains,

14

“I’ve been kind of lucky I think. I think the financial thing like we talked about before. I think that could definitely be a barrier for many, many people. I guess maybe my expectations or you know, I didn’t feel like, it’s just a personal thing, I didn’t feel like I had to make a certain amount of money, X amount of dollars to be happy. So I was ok with where I was at wise, kind of all along. I think that the key to that is having a wife that also works, and that we can still make it happen, and sort of live the way we want to live and be happy.” Many of the men echoed the idea that without spouses and family supporting this career it would be difficult. Interestingly although respondents all felt women opt out of coaching due to family pressures, none felt that men needed to opt to support their families. These male coaches tended to be involved in dual-earner couples, with wives earnings as an important source of support. What then supports men’s overwhelming involvement as coaches? Our respondents suggest that the fundamental relationship between masculinity and athletics provides men with the social compensation necessary to remain in coaching in a way that does not operate for women. When we asked directly why more women were not coaching women, many balked or referred to family pressures. However, when the question shifted to explore why women did not coach men a variety of strongly held biological and social explanations of gender difference were offered. Many of the respondents did not think women would have the strength, athleticism, authority, and leadership abilities to be effective men’s coaches. As a male head men’s soccer coach expresses: “I think the game is slightly different. The understanding of the nuances of the men’s game versus the women’s game. To have the that understanding I think you have to have played…I think generally in that respect for a female to go into a men’s athletic team and command respect from those guys it’s difficult. A female wouldn’t be able to step in and play seven versus seven and be able to play at the same level. Not technically, not tactically, I mean simply physically…just the strength factor.” Other arguments highlight the assumed biological connection between men and leadership. A female assistant women’s soccer coach argued that “the leadership gene is much more apparent in guys, it’s much more inherent in them, it’s much more a guy’s personality to have the leadership qualities.” Echoing these sentiments, a male men’s head volleyball coach says,

15

“As you look around, I’ve seen this before, where stature, and especially when you’re taking about athletes, and you’re talking about volleyball where everyone is 6 foot 5, there’s something to be said for that. I don’t know what the answer is to that, and I don’t think it’s justified in a lot of ways, but it is the way it is. I think a woman coaching men would have to that kind of a cycle. She’d have to be really good, because there’s just the perception, justified or not, that it’d be difficult for her to do that effectively.” Because of the stereotype that men inherently possess qualities which make them leaders, women have to work twice as hard to prove their worth when it comes to positions of power and authority (Molstad 1993; Ruble, Cohen, and Ruble 1984; Theberge 1993). This socially embedded mindset means it is assumed that men should coach men’s sport teams, and may lend men an extra aura of capability if they decide to coach women. Exacerbating differences is also the perception that taking orders and guidance from a female is threatening masculinity, and calls into question male superiority in a male dominated field. A former male head golf coach notes that although wrong, “A woman coach is going to have to work harder to gain respect from a guy player than a male coach will have to work from a female player. I just think the way, you know sociologically, you’re raised to say if a guy’s leading, you give them a little benefit of the doubt. A woman has to prove herself, and until she does there’s going to be doubt. By internalizing and enforcing socialized stereotypes gender hierarchy can be preserved. The following female assistant soccer coach suggests socialization improves men’s leadership ability: “When girls are socialized when they’re younger it’s share, everyone in groups, be nice to everyone; guys are taught much more of competitiveness, the personalities kind of fall in easier. A guy leader comes out in a group much easier and guys just tend to lead much easier than girls do. Because in a girl’s environment it’s no one should be above anyone else, no one should tell—that’s kind of how we play—share.” A combination of interactional, structural, and cultural components creates formal and informal sex segregation, which in turn creates a gender hierarchy (Reskin, McBrier, and Kmec 1999). The cycle of women as inferior in the sports arena stems from this early childhood socialization, and carries over into the cycle of excluding women from coaching positions of men’s teams. From an early age boys and girls are split along gender lines, especially when it comes to sports

16

teams. Additionally, more emphasis is usually placed on getting boys into athletics as a method of proving one’s manhood (Sabo and Panepinto 1990; Sage 1998). Boys quickly learn to turn to men for athletic advice, as illustrated by this a female assistant women’s soccer coach: “It’s funny, my Mom used to coach me when I was little, in my little recreational leagues, basketball games and things like that. Really easy for her, she loved it. And she tried to do the same with my brother. She had two seasons of coaching boys, and she was like I can’t do this, I can’t get them to listen to me, you know I can’t.” Though these were only young boys, the coach felt that they had already been socialized differently and that this was something to be accepted not challenged: “Guys and girls are just different. They’re socialized different. So if a women’s going to coach boys she has to understand how best to relate to boys, just as a male can coach females but he’s not going to be as effective because he doesn’t understand the way that girls need to be coached and socialized and all those different types of components.” This quote highlights the social construction of gender and power (see also Messner 2000). If differences were so stark, we would expect to see same-sex coaching across the board, instead of the current disparity. Respondents saw men and women/boys and girls as different, but this difference only legitimated women’s absence and was not used to question men’s presence. Such explanations protect male privilege without undermining the current gender order. Gender is often used as a shorthand and automatic response when explaining differences in society that may appear as a byproduct of natural order (Lorber 1993). None of the women expressed any desire to pursue opportunities coaching men’s teams, did not express any remorse at being denied access to these positions. A women’s volleyball coach currently in her eighth year as an assistant is looking to move on to a head coaching position in the near future, but does not incorporate coaching positions of men’s team into her job radar. As she conveys, “It’s almost taboo a little bit. I’ve never considered it, but it doesn’t mean I’d be opposed to it. But I mean why not? I don’t know. It’s just the opportunities for women to do something like that aren’t that great. But I’m not opposed to it, just never considered it.” The sentiment expressed by a former assistant tennis coach in the upcoming passage is in line with the previous coach’s belief that women coaching men at the collegiate level is taboo: “I think that would be weird. I think it would be weird for a woman to coach men because they’re better and they played at a level that I think is different than what I’ve

17

ever experienced. So I think it’d be hard for me to tell them what to do when they’re better.” In fact, most respondents were less in favor of women coaching men, and more in favor of increasing women coaching women. This kind of response suggested there was a great deal of room for women to increase their numbers in coaching (at least of women’s teams), but did not question or challenge any of the main gender stereotypes. A man who is head women’s volleyball coach explains that he enjoyed coaching women more because, “I think they’re more receptive. Men are a lot of fun to be around, and they love to compete. You don’t have to get them up for games – they love to compete…Women are more, you can create a game plan, and talk about why you’re going to do something over the course of the season and …they’re on board.” In a similar fashion, this male former head men’s golf coach said, “I’m a fan of a woman coaching women’s sports, if skill levels are equal, because there are certain intangibles – I don’t understand the woman animal as well on certain things...” This focus on men’s competitiveness and women’s need for emotional bonding was prevalent, and if such stereotypes are carried into hiring decisions it is easy to see why male coaches would be favored. The male head women’s soccer coach initially felt he was better qualified to coach men because, “..guys are pretty basic when it comes to sport If they’re winning, they don’t wanna hear, they don’t wanna be coached…Win is ultimately paramount, and they can play with 10 other guys that they don’t really like and it doesn’t really matter as long as they’re winning. I think on the women’s side, unless you’ve got the social foundation in place where you have good team cohesion up front, it’s very difficult then to win consistently. I think with guys you can almost do it the other way around.” In sum, the beliefs about gender differences were stark and permeated many of the conversations. Presumptions about men’s social and biological superiority privileged men’s ability to be good coaches. When respondents did acknowledge women’s ability to coach men, they point to the best women in the professional field (e.g., Martina Navratilova of tennis or Nancy Lopez of golf), through there is little to suggest that star players make the best coaches. Yet, if athletic directors and other coaches (male and female) believe men are better suited as leaders (coaches), and more focused on winning, priority in hiring and advancement will continue to favor men. Also as men move in these low paid, high demand careers, they continue

18

to reap the social approval of being involved in a “masculine” profession, despite underperforming in the “breadwinner” role. DISCUSSION The male and female coaches we interviewed appealed to individual, occupational, and gender relational justifications, as outlined by previous research (e.g., Knoppers 1992). As we suspected respondents found it easiest to identify outcomes as individual choices, and most difficult to pin down or elucidate on structural influences. While most could recognize the role that increased resources and opportunities played in pulling more men into coaching women, none directly challenged any aspect of the hiring and promotion system. Male coaches felt a sense of threat previously unidentified in the literature we reviewed – namely that they were forced to coach women because of a perceived contraction of opportunities and resources for coaching men. Specifically, respondents unconsciously buy into the “glass wall” such that 50 percent of jobs (those coaching men) are off-limits (Walker, Bopp, and Sagas 2011), thus if women coach approximately 50 percent of women’s teams, the division is deemed “fair.” The perceptions and justifications offered by these coaches suggest an interesting anachronism in U.S. society. Since 1970 the percent of women in the labor force and in formal athletics has increased sharply. Against this backdrop, there has been a 47.2% drop in women’s coaching positions for women’s teams since 1972. Most of those interviewed were surprised to hear the actual percentages of male versus female coaches, often felt that the access was equal, and some believed that women had an advantage over men when vying for a position. This may be in part due to the fact that women are better represented as coaches at wealthier, more prestigious universities (Welch and Sigelman 2007), but also because of the ways in which gender difference – particularly male superiority – is naturalized in athletics (Therberge 1993). We see that unquestioned assumptions of gender difference motivated many respondents’ understandings, supporting perceptions that traits and outcomes associated with masculinity and men were superior to those of femininity and women. Twenty years ago scholars on this topic said it is beliefs in male athletic superiority that justify gender disparities in coaching (Kane and Stangl 1991; Therberge 1993), and according to these interviews very little has changed. Despite studies demonstrating Americans’ high levels of gender egalitarianism regarding women’s work, parental, and family roles (Bolzendahl and Myers 2004), many of the respondents relied on traditional notions of women’s family responsibilities to justify coaching inequality, but saw no

19

contradictions with the fact that wives would work full time to support husbands who coach. Our coaches relied on an association of women with family and men with athletics and leadership to explain disparities. Thus women face a double-disadvantage in following a career in coaching. On one hand, there are individualist and institutional barriers typical to women’s advancement in occupations, and on the other hand a more unique construction of gender influence where men are seen as superior athletes and leaders. Once in the profession, women are expected to drop out for family ties, while male coaches are able to circumvent a breadwinner construction of masculinity. The interviews focused on coaches’ perceptions at one university and it is unclear whether they can be generalized more broadly, however we the explanations and justifications fit both with prior research on coaching and on occupational discrimination. Further, our focus was more directly on understanding how coaches made sense of their position and those around them in context, rather than testing a set of relationships based on demographic characteristics. Our findings detail the pervasive role of the social construction of gender in framing all types of justifications, and suggest further research is needed to understand why some male coaches feel that they are disadvantaged and how these perceptions may influence women’s role in coaching. Also, more information about the coaches’ family support system, including the role of partners, would be useful. Finally, it would be helpful to link coach perceptions of gender differences in coaching to those of their players. Female athletes with female coaches perceived less discrimination and were more attracted to coaching as a career (Everhart and Chelladurai 1998; Lirgg, Dibrezzo and Smith 1994).

20

WORK CITED Acosta, R. Vivian and Linda Jean Carpenter. 1985. “Status of Women in Athletics: Changes and Causes.” Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 56(6):35-7. Bolzendahl, Catherine and Daniel J. Myers. 2004. "Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998." Social Forces 82:762-789. Bird, Sharon R. 1996. “Welcome to the Men’s Club: Homosociality and the Maintenance of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender & Society 10(2):120-32. Budig, Michele J. and Paula England. 2001. “The Penalty for Motherhood.” American Sociological Review 66:204-26. Carpenter, Linda Jean and R. Vivian Acosta. (2008). “Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal, National Study Thirty-One Year Update.” www.acostacarpenter.org. Cunningham, George B. and Michael Sagas. 2002. “The Differential Effects of Human Capital for Male and Female Division I Basketball Coaches.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 73:489-95. —. 2003. “Occupational Turnover Intent among Assistant Coaches of Women’s Teams: The Role of Organizational Work Experiences.” Sex Roles 49:185-190. Cunningham, George B., Michael Sagas, and Frank B. Ashley. 2003. “Coaching Self-Efficacy, Desire to Become a Head Coach, and Occupational Turnover Intent: Gender Differences Between NCAA Assistant Coaches of Women's Teams.” International Journal of Sport 34:125-37. Cunningham, George B., Alison J. Doherty, and Melanie J. Gregg. 2007. “Using Social Cognitive Career Theory to Understand Head Coaching Intentions among Assistant Coaches of Women’s Teams.” Sex Roles 56:365-372. Drago, Robert, Lynn Hennighausen, Jacqueline Rogers, Teresa Vescio, and Kai Dawn Stauffer. 2005. Final Report for CAGE: The Coaching and Gender Equity Project. http://lsir.la.psu.edu/workfam/CAGE.htm. Everhart, Bonnie C. and Packianathan Chelladurai. 1998. “Gender Differences in Preferences for Coaching As An Occupation: The Role of Self-Efficacy, Valence, and Perceived Barriers.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69(2):188-200. Frey, James H. and D. Stanley Eitzen. 1991. “Sport and Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 17:503-522.

21

Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kane, Mary Jo and Jane Marie Stangl. 1991. “ Patterns of Female Coaches in men’s Athletics: Tokenism and Marginalization as Reflections of Occupational Sex- Segregation.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 15:21-41. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Knoppers, Annelies. 1992. “Explaining Male Dominance and Sex Segregation in Coaching: Three Approaches.” Quest 44(2):210-227. Knoppers, Annelies and Anton Anthonissen. 2001. “Meanings Given to Performance in Dutch Sport Organizations: Gender and Racial/Ethnic Subtexts.” Sociology of Sport Journal 18:302-16. Knoppers, Annelies, Barbara Bedker Myer, Marty Ewing, and Linda Forrest. 1989. “Gender and the Salaries of Coaches.” Sociology of Sport Journal 6:348-61. —.1991. “Opportunity and Work Behavior in College Coaching.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 15(1):1-20. —. 1993. “Gender Ratio and Social Interaction Among college Coaches.” Sociology of Sport Journal 10:256-69. LaVoi, Nicole M., Erin Becker, and Heather D. Maxwell. 2007. ""Coaching Girls": A Content Analysis of Best-Selling Popular Press Coaching Books." Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 16(2):7-20. Lirgg, Cathy D., Ro Dibrezzo, and Angie N. Smith. 1994. "Influence of Gender of Coach on Perceptions of Basketball and Coaching Self-efficacy and Aspirations of High School Female Basketball Players." Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 3(1):1-1. Lorber, Judith. 1993. “Believing is Seeing: Biology as Ideology.” Gender & Society 7(4):568- 81. Lovett, Dorothy J. and Carla D. Lowry. 1994. “‘Good Old Boys’ and ‘Good Old Girls’ Clubs: Myth or Reality?” Journal of Sport Management 8:27-35. Lowry, Carla D. and Dorothy J. Lovett. 1997. “Women Coaches: Does When Dictate Why They Leave?” Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual 12:35-53. Messner, Michael A. 1992. Power at Play: Sports and the Problem of Masculinity. Boston: Beacon Press.

22

—. 2002. Taking the Field: Women, Men and Sports. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Messner, Michael A., Margaret Carlisle Duncan, and Kerry Jensen. 1993. “Separating the Men From the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports.” Gender & Society 7(1):121-137. Molstad, Susan M. 1993. "Coaching Qualities, Gender, and Role Modeling." Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 2(2):11-11. National Women’s Law Center. 2007. “Barriers to Fair Play.” http://www.nwlc.org/our-resources/reports_toolkits/barriers-to-fair-play Norman, Leanne. 2010. “Feeling Second Best: Elite Women Coaches’ Experiences.” Sociology of Sport Journal 27:89-104. Pastore, Donna L., Sue Inglis, and Karen E. Danylchuk. 1996. “Retention Factors in Coaching and Athletic Management: Differences by Gender, Position, and Geographic Location.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 20(4):427-41. Reskin, Barbara, Debra B. McBrier, and Julie A. Kmec. 1999. “The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Sex and Race Composition.” Annual Review of Sociology 25:335-61. Ruble, Diane N., Renae Cohen, and Thomas L. Ruble. 1984. “Sex Stereotypes: Occupational Barriers for Women.” American Behavioral Scientist 27:339-356. Sabo, Don F. and J. Panepinto.1990). “Football Ritual and the Social Reproduction of Masculinity.” Pp. 115-126 in Sport, Men, and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives, edited by M.A Messner, and D.F. Sabo. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Books. Sagas, Michael, George B. Cunningham, and Frank F. Ashley. 2000. “Examining a Woman's Coaching Deficit through the Perspective of Assistant Coaches.” International Journal of Sport Management 1:267-82. Sagas, Michael and George B. Cunningham. 2004. “Does Having ‘the Right Stuff’ Matter? Gender Differences in the Determinants of Career Success Among Intercollegiate Athletic Administrators.” Sex Roles 59(5/6):411-21. Sagas, Michael, George B. Cunningham, and Donna Pastore. 2006. “Predicting Head Coaching

23

Intentions of Male and Female Assistant Coaches: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior.” Sex Roles 54:695-705. Sagas, Michael, George B. Cunningham, and Ken Teed. 2006. “An Examination of Homologous Reproduction in the Representation of Assistant Coaches of Women’s Teams.” Sex Roles 55(7/8):503-8. Sage, George H. 1998. Power and Ideology in American Sport: A Critical Perspective (2nd ed.) Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Books. Sartore, Melanie L. and George B. Cunningham. 2007. “Explaining the Under-Representation of Women in Leadership Positions of Sport Organizations: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” Quest 59:244-65. Shakib, Sohaila and Michele D. Dunbar. 2002. “The Social Construction of Female and Male High School Basketball Participation: Reproducing the Gender Order through a Two- Tiered Sporting Institution.” Sociological Perspectives 45(4):353-378. Siegel, Donald and Cheryl Brantle. 2001. “What Collegiate Athletic Directors Value in Hiring Coaches.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71(1):A-110. Stangl, Jane M. & Kane, Mary Jo. 1991. “Structural Variables that Offer Explanatory Power for the Underrepresentation of Women Coaches Since Title IX: The Case of Homologous Reproduction.” Sociology of Sport Journal 8:47-60. Staurowsky, Ellen J. 1990. “Women Coaching Male Athletes.” Pp. 163-172 in Sport, Men, and the Gender Order: Critical Feminist Perspectives, edited by M.A. Messner, and D.F. Sabo. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics Books. Theberge, Nancy. 1990. “Gender, work, and power: the case of women in coaching.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 15(1):59-75. —. 1993. “The Construction of Gender in Sport: Women, Coaching, and the Naturalization of Difference.” Social Problems 40(3):301-313. —. 1997. “‘It’s Part of the Game’: Physicality and the Production of Gender inWomen’s Hockey.” Gender & Society 11(1):69-87. Tomlinson, Alan and Ilkay Yorganci. 1997. “Male Coach/Female Athlete Relations: Gender and Power Relations in Competitive Sport.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 21(2):134-55. U.S. Department of Labor. 2007. Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 .

24

Walker, Nefertiti A. and Trevor Bopp. 2010. “The Underrepresentation of Women in the Male- Dominated Sport Workplace: Perspectives of Female Coaches.” Journal of Workplace Rights 15(1):47-64. Walker, Nefertiti A., Trevor Bopp, and Michael Sagas. 2011. “Gender bias in the Perception of Women as Collegiate Men’s Basketball Coaches.” Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 5(2):157-76. Washington, Robert E. and David Karen. 2001. “Sport and Society.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:187-212. Welch, Susan and Lee Sigelman. 2007. “Who’s Calling The Shots? Women Coaches in Division I Women’s Sports.” Social Science Quarterly 88(5):1415-1434. Wilkerson, Martha. 1996. “Explaining the Presence of Men Coaches in Women’s Sports: The Uncertainty Hypothesis.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 20(4):411-26. Wilson, Robin. 2007. “Where Have All the Women Gone?” Chronicle of Higher Education 53(35):A40. http://chronicle.com/article/Where-Have-All-the-Women-Gone-/18221/

25