NASCAR: a Story of Success
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs Volume 4 Issue 1 Volume 4 Monograph, 2010 Article 3 2010 NASCAR: A Story of Success Kathleen Munger Bowling Green State University, [email protected] David L. Groves Bowling Green State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions_monographs Recommended Citation Munger, Kathleen and Groves, David L. (2010) "NASCAR: A Story of Success," Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/visions_monographs/vol4/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ScholarWorks@BGSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Visions in Leisure and Business Monographs by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@BGSU. NASCAR: A STORY OF SUCCESS BY KATHLEEN MUNGER, ADJUNCT FACULTY AND DR. DAVID L. GROVES, PROFESSOR EMERITUS SCHOOL OF HUMAN MOVEMENT, SPORT AND LEISURE STUDIES BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403 INTRODUCTION original use of the technique was to elicit information from experts in order to estab This study empirically investigated the rea lish an atomic defense strategy (Helmer, sons for the past, present and future suc 1975). The technique has been used in a cesses of NASCAR (Bonham, 1999). It in variety of fields including education, busi volved identifying and understanding the ness, public administration, evaluation of structural elements and relationships within programs, and development/identification of NASCAR utilizing a forecasting methodol educational innovations (Rieger, 1986). ogy. The key is identifying the appropriate methodology and incorporating the impor The major purpose of the Delphi process is tant elements of the present NASCAR struc to obtain consensus from a panel of experts ture and historical data to allow an under in a specific field. These experts must re standing of the evolution of the sport and spond to the question(s) being studied. The assess its future. Forecasting as an overall panelists are asked, in a series of question technique is designed to speculate on the naires presented in rounds, to anonymously predictability and probability of the future. provide their own opinion (Dalkey & Hel Based on an analysis of the various forecast mer, 1963). Anonymity allows the expert to ing techniques, the Delphi technique was respond without group pressure or domina used. This technique allowed the integration tion of an individual within the group. of expert opinion and intuition and was the "Delphi replaces direct confrontation and most appropriate method to examine the rea debate by a carefully planned, orderly pro sons for the success of NASCAR (Chou, gramof sequential individual interrogations" 2002 & Dean et al, 2007). (Brown, 1968, p. 3). The technique asks for each expert to provide a rationale for his/her opinion. Review by the other experts in an THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE anonymous fashion is also a possibility and must be agreed upon. Utilization of the The Delphi technique as an intuitive metho Delphi process allows investigators "to dology was developed in 1953 by two em make the best use of a group of experts in ployees (Dalkey & Helmer) of the Rand obtaining answers to questions requiring re Corporation. (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The liance, at least in part, on the informedintui- 37 tive opinions of specialists in the area of in associated with face-to-face interactions quiry." (Helmer, 1983, p. 134) such as acceptance of the ideas of the most vocal or prestigious group members, loss of A review of the literature on the Delphi anonymity, and lack of controlled feedback technique reveals that there are strengths as (Daud et al, 2010). The advantages of using well as weaknesses in the application. But, a Delphi process as stated by Somers et al. Dalkey & Helmer (1963, p. 1) say that it is (1984) include the following: (a) production the most reliable in securing a "consensus of of high quality ideas, (b) ease of obtaining opinion of a group of experts." The advan the opinions of geographically isolated ex tages in using the Delphi technique center perts, ( c) group forecasts are more reliable around practical application of the technique than those of an individual, and ( d) promo (Hassan et. al, 2000). The advantages in tion of a feeling of accomplishment and clo clude the ease of explanation concerning the sure. methods to persons involved in the process. A high quality of information can be gener The Delphi technique has been used a great ated based on the anonymity factor and the deal in the area of education. (Rieger 1986) multiple opportunities to revise the initial A variety of educational areas have bene input. In addition, anonymity reduces the fited from the use of the Delphi technique. pressure to conform to other experts. A (Alley, 1985; Helmer, 1975; Ludwig & third advantage is that there may be issues Starr, 2005; & Weaver, 1988) One study in that will not reach consensus and ·these is particular was undertaken by the Institute of sues can be identified and addressed. A Government and Public Affairs at the Uni fourth advantage identified is that every pa versity of California at Los Angeles. This nelist has an equal chance to provide new study was titled, "Innovation in Education" information or respond to comments made and was completed in 1966 using the Delphi by other panelists. A final and very impor technique. In this study, the rationale for tant advantage is that experts from across a using the Delphi technique was to provide wide area can participate in the process information to those responsible for making without having to leave their home base. educational policy (Brown, 1968). Helmer This advantage is very important to re conducted a study using a panel of educa searchers. (Fisher, 1978 & Somers et al., tional experts to establish preferred goals for 1984) federalfunding. Daud, et al. (2010) used the Delphi technique to explore competencies. Discovering the "truth" through census of opinion is the theoretical basis for using a There has been criticism of the Delphi tech Delphi process. Many researchers have nique from various persons including Sack viewed the Delphi process as a superior me man (1975), a member of the Rand Corpora thodological approach when comparing it to tion (Hartman, 1981; Rieger, 1986; & a random sample survey of experts utilizing Weaver, 1988). Four areas are identified an interview format, (Brown, 1968; Dalkey most often as weaknesses of the technique. & Helmer, 1963; Hartman, 1981; Polit & First, the process can be time-consuming Hungler, 1978; Somers et al., 1984; & and costly with the need to contact experts Treece & Treece, 1977; & Weaver, 1988). and elicit responses (Treece & Treece, In general, the Delphi technique provides 1977). Second, long questionnaires often the investigator with the benefits of a group cause fatigue among the experts (Brown, format while avoiding the problems often 2007). Third, the results may not reflect re- 38 ality if care is not taken in the selection of SAMPLE SELECTION the panelists and if they drop out of the study (Hartmen, 1981 & Weaver, 1988). In order to conduct a study using the Delphi Fourth, Sackman was concerned about the approach, it was necessary to identify a pan careless implementation of the Delphi el of experts (Dempsey & Dempsey, 1986). process (Rieger, 1986); however, Reiger's The experts for this investigation were iden (1986) and Sack.man's (1975) criticisms tified through use of the reputational me have not revealed flaws in the technique but thod. (Williams et al., 2004) The reputa rather the need to take caution in its applica tional method for locating elite with attri tion. buted influence has been used in many stu dies. According to Harman and Press (1975), "when a variety of professionals in a SAMPLING PROCEDURES field are polled about whom they regard as an expert, and the same individuals keep be The Delphi technique requires the participa ing mentioned, those individuals must be tion of individuals who have been identified considered experts" (p. 5). as "experts" in their field of endeavor. The predictions and judgmentswhich result from use of the Delphi method are based upon PANEL "expert opinion." As in an earlier study by Lindquist (1973), there is a problem with the The groups of experts identified for this definition of the qualities of the individuals study were historians, archivists, academi who possess "expert" knowledge because of cians, and authors of NASCAR literature the need for a constitutive definition trans (McCulloch & McMowan, 2007). They latable in an operational manner. This re were individuals who had been identified as search will utilize the followingdefinition of having expertise in topics related to expert opinion. Expert opinion is a belief or NASCAR management with an interest in judgment that rests upon grounds insuffi its future. cient to produce certainty, but which has been used by a person or persons possessed A leadership identification technique (Repu of extraordinary skill or knowledge in a par tational Method) was used to identify the ticular field. (Lindquist, 1973) It is theo experts (Akins et. al., 2005 & Salaba, 2009). rized that the opinion of experts in a particu This technique involved known experts lar field will offer deeper insight than the identifying other experts. The initial experts opinion of the general public into the topic were identified through a literature search under consideration. Coates (1997) believes and personal contact with historians, acade that it is important to recognize that experts micians, archivists, and authors. These ex do exist and that, if one accepts the premise perts were asked to identify others who they that one of the purposes of science ( that is felt qualified as experts on NASCAR. This knowledge) is to improve predictive ability qualification was through published articles (through appropriate models and an under and/or books or personal involvement in the standing of cause and effect relationships), sport.