Upward Reclassification of Intercollegiate Athletic Departments to Division I: a Case Study Approach
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WEAVER, ANTHONY G., Ph.D. Upward Reclassification of Intercollegiate Athletic Departments to Division I: A Case Study Approach. (2007) Directed by Dr. Gerald Ponder. 436pp The purpose of this research was to describe the process of reclassifying an athletic department to Division I and its impact on the institution and its stakeholders. The study focused on the process of reclassification, the context in which the reclassification took place and a number of aspects (people, departments, facilities) that were altered during the organizational change. The relationship between intercollegiate athletic departments and the university, as well as personal relationships were also examined. Two universities, University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) and Elon University, were chosen for case study analysis. Data were collected and analyzed using case study methodologies and an adapted model of Pettigrew’s contextualist approach. Data from each institution were gathered using documents, archival records, semi- structured interviews, participant observations, physical artifacts, and direct observations. Analysis was completed based on the three constructs taken from Pettigrew’s model: context, process, and content. Content analysis of all documents and interview transcripts revealed several themes. Results indicate that although the context at each university was different, each university believed the reclassification would improve their institutional profile among competitive peer institutions. Each institution was also influenced by the athletic success of other institutions, which produced a belief that the upgrade would bring recognition to the institution. The process of the move to Division I was a complex progression involving numerous internal and external constituents. Each institution worked within the detailed parameters established by the NCAA, as well as the institution’s own procedures for completing the change. The study identified potential areas of change to the organization as a result of the move to Division I. These changes include better quality students and faculty, increased alumni support, university profile, and improved community relations; however, the impact of the reclassification on these organizational changes is difficult to determine. At both schools, the athletic product including student- athletes, coaches, and athletic facilities did change as a direct result of the reclassification. The results of the study aid in gaining a better understanding of the resulting organizational change of the upward reclassification to Division I. This study represents an effort to appreciate the context in which transition occurred, the process of transitioning the athletic program to Division I, the rationale for the move, and the impact on the institution and its constituency. Findings from this study serve as a first step to gaining a better understanding of the impact of reclassification on organizational change of a university. UPWARD RECLASSIFICATION OF INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS TO DIVISION I: A CASE STUDY APPROACH by Anthony G. Weaver A Dissertation Submitted to the faculty of The Graduate School at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Greensboro 2007 Approved by _____________________________________ Committee Chair APPROVAL PAGE This dissertation has been approved by the following committee of the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Committee Chair ________________________________________ Committee Members ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ _________________________________ Date of Acceptance by Committee _________________________________ Date of Final Oral Examination ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Through the trials and tribulations of completing this research my committee has provided direction and inspiration. My special thanks go to Dr. Gerald Ponder, my committee chair. Your encouragement and support helped me a great deal through this project. Thank you also to Dr. Hal Walker, Dr. David Ayers, and Dr. Katherine Jamieson for serving on my committee. Each of you added assistance and support that helped guide me through the design, implementation, and completion of this dissertation. I was fortunate to have four committee members from varied backgrounds bring their expertise to this project. I respect and admire your work and thank you for your help. I would also like to thank Dr. Becky Beal, Dr. Cindra Kamphoff, as well as Karen Murphy, and Adam Lowenfeld all of whom provided assistance during the pilot study, study design, data collection and analysis. A special thanks is also extended to the libraries at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and Elon University archive departments. Without the willingness of the participants at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and Elon University to share their thoughts, this project would still be just a dream. Your insights, beliefs, and opinions about your experience of the reclassification made this dissertation a reality. Thank you for all that you did to make this dissertation possible. I would like to offer my biggest thanks to my family. Thank you to my siblings, Anne, Jack, and Cathy (Shawn and the kids), for all of your support in every project I have ever undertaken, with this being the biggest. To all of the Haldemans, you were iii each extremely important to my success and I thank you. To my dad, Jack, who always instilled the importance of education in everything I did. You have always been and will continue to be my role model in all that I do. And of course, the four very special women in my life: Dr. Lauren Haldeman, my wife, best friend, and mentor. It is almost impossible to express my thanks to you, but please know that this would not have been possible without you. My two girls, Annelise and Amelia – I thank you for your patience and understanding and keeping me company during those late nights and early mornings at the computer. To my mom, Anne, gone but certainly not forgotten; you have given me the strength to accomplish anything. I regret not finishing by April, but I would not trade our time together. Thank you for your inspiration. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 Definition of Key Terms..........................................................................................2 The Structure of the NCAA .....................................................................................8 Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................14 Organizational Theory...........................................................................................16 Central Question ...................................................................................................18 Statement of Purpose .............................................................................................18 Research Questions................................................................................................18 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................................................20 Historical Factors...................................................................................................22 Philosophical Factors.............................................................................................31 Financial Factors....................................................................................................36 Gaps in the Literature.............................................................................................48 Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................51 Pilot Study..............................................................................................................61 Contextualist Approach.........................................................................................68 Adapted Conceptual Model ...................................................................................71 Conclusions............................................................................................................72 III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................75 Justification for a Case Study ................................................................................76 Study Design..........................................................................................................78 Data Collection......................................................................................................80 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................85 Quality of the Research..........................................................................................86 Summary................................................................................................................89 IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................................91