Copyright by Stacy Marie Warner

2010

The Dissertation Committee for Stacy Marie Warner certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

Sport and Social Structures: Building Community on Campuses

Committee:

Marlene A. Dixon, Supervisor

Laurence Chalip

B. Christine Green

Thomas Hunt

Calvin Streeter

Sport and Social Structures: Building Community on Campuses

by

Stacy Marie Warner, B.S., M.A.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2010

Dedication

“Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the

Lord Christ you are serving.” Colossians 3:23-24 Acknowledgements

I am so grateful for the wonderful people and blessing that have been put on my path. This project and endeavor would not have been possible or as enjoyable with them.

First, I’m appreciative to have been guided by the most understanding and patient advisor any student could ever ask for, Dr. Marlene Dixon. I’m a better scholar and person because of the investment she made in me. For always pointing me in the right direction, disagreeing with me in a challenging and encouraging way, and letting me find my own path, I can’t thank her enough. I couldn’t imagine running with a better advisor, mentor, and friend throughout this process; there was a whole lot of iron sharpening iron and I can only hope that is always reflective in my work and life.

I also like to thank Dr. Chris Green for her thoughtful insights and comic relief and Dr. Laurence Chalip for his always-engaging thoughts and critiques. It was a pleasure to have worked for and with them both. I’d also like to acknowledge Dr.

Thomas Hunt and Dr. Cal Streeter for serving on my committee and being exceptional teachers.

To my classmates, especially Brennan Berg, Matt Bowers, Yen-Chun Lin, and

Joyce Olushola, thank you for the support and encouragement. And special thanks to

Emily Sparvero and Angela Pratt-Weddle for being those expert scholars that were a step ahead of me throughout this process. I’d also like to acknowledge Keno Beezer, Becky

Geyer, Lois and David Gupton, Amy and Dale Herman, Brian Jones, Brianna Smith,

Chris Vasiliotis, and Eric Wieberg, who were always just a phone call away or right corner when I needed a break and help refocusing.

- v -

To my family, thanks for bearing with me throughout this process. I could not have done this without their unconditional love and support. I can always count on my sister and brother keeping me grounded, and their children keeping me amused. To my parents, who have constantly role modeled to me what it means to work hard and serve others, thank you for preparing me for all I needed to know about life.

- vi -

Sport and Social Structures: Building Community on Campuses

Publication No.______

Stacy Marie Warner, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2010

Supervisor: Marlene A. Dixon

Student affairs personnel are often charged with the task of creating a strong sense of community (SOC) on university campuses. Sport is among one of the many extracurricular activities that historically has been used to meet this need for community among students. Yet, how and when a sense of community is created within a sport context has not been appropriately addressed in literature. Utilizing a symbolic interactionalist theoretical framework, this study employed a grounded theory approach and uncovered the necessary factors for creating a sense of community within two intercollegiate sport settings. First, 21 former university sport club participants were interviewed regarding their experiences. The results revealed that Common Interest, Leadership Opportunities, Amateurism/ Voluntary Activity, and Competition were the most critical components to creating a sense of community. These results along with the results of Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) sense of community study among varsity athletes, which concluded that Administrative Consideration, Leadership Opportunities, Equity in Administrative Decisions, Competition, and Social Spaces were - vii - the key factors to foster a sense of community, were then used to guide focus groups. Eight focus groups consisting of 39 current varsity and sport club athletes were then conducted to further examine and explain the differences and similarities that emerged between the two sense of community in sport models. The results propose a broad based sense of community within sport theory that considers the contextual contingencies surrounding an athlete-driven versus a professionally-administered sport model. The results contribute to community building and sport management theory, and provide practical solutions for enhancing the intercollegiate sport experience. The implications and philosophical differences between an athlete-directed sport experiences versus a more formalized and structured sport model are also discussed.

- viii -

Table of Contents Dedication………………………………………………………………………….…..…iii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….…....iv Abstract……………………………..………………………………………………...…..vi Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………..1 Various Perspectives on Creating Community...... 5 Sport Communities ...... 6 Purpose...... 8 Significance of the study...... 9 Chapter 2 ...... 11 Review of Literature ...... 11 Origins of Sense of Community...... 11 McMillan and Chavis’ Sense of Community Theory...... 12 Recent Work and Trends in SOC Literature: Context and Contingencies...... 14 Benefits of Sense of Community...... 17 SOC and Current Societal Trends ...... 18 Symbolic Interactionism ...... 20 Sense of Community and Contingencies: Framework ...... 23 Sport and Sense of Community in a University Context ...... 26 The Contexts: Sport Clubs and Varsity Athletics...... 28 Key Structural, Environmental, and Contingency Differences: Sport Club and Varsity ...... 30 Chapter 3 ...... 33 Sport Club Inquiry (Phase I)...... 33 Method...... 34 Instrument ...... 34 Participants...... 35 Procedure...... 36 Data Analysis ...... 36 Results ...... 37 Common Interest ...... 37 Leadership Opportunities ...... 40 Amateurism/Voluntary Activity...... 42 Competition...... 44 Discussion...... 47 Implications and Conclusions...... 57 Chapter 4 ...... 61 Comparing the Club and Varsity Experience (Phase II)...... 61 Method...... 61 Instrument ...... 63 Participants...... 63 Procedure...... 64 Data Analysis ...... 64 Results ...... 65 - ix -

Similarities ...... 66 Differences ...... 79 Perceived Outcomes of Sense of Community Among Athletes...... 94 Chapter 5 ...... 107 Discussion and Conclusions ...... 107 Sense of Community and Contextual Contingencies...... 108 Important Theoretical Underpinnings...... 114 Cooperation versus Competition...... 114 Manning Theory...... 119 Practical Outcomes...... 121 References ...... 195 Vita...... 212

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Sense of Community Questions Semi-Structured Interview Guide ...... 135 Appendix B: Consent Form...... 136 Appendix C: Sport Club Participant Background Information ...... 139 Appendix D: Varsity Athlete Background Information...... 140 Appendix E: Semi-structured interview guides for focus groups...... 141 Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community...... 144

List of Tables

Table 1: Sport Club Inquiry Participant Background Information...... 126 Table 2: Varsity Athletes Focus Group Members ...... 127 Table 3: Sport Club Focus Group Members...... 128 Table 4: Sense of Community Factor Comparison by Context…………………..…….129 Table 5: Perceived Outcomes of Sense of Community………………………………...131 Table 6: Factor Impact on SOC per Context...... 132

List of Figures

Figure 1: Sport Club Sense of Community Model………………………………..……133 Figure 2: Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Model……………………………...…134

- x -

Chapter 1

Social scientists have long been interested in how people think and behave both inside and outside of social groups. Community psychologists have suggested that there are many life quality enhancing benefits for those that find themselves inside a social group environment that fosters a sense of community. Alternatively individuals who find themselves outside of healthy social groups experience anomie, social isolation, alienation, and the detrimental repercussions that detract from an individual’s life quality.

While sociologists, psychologists, and social psychologists may use different terminology to express this lack of community, a general agreement exists that individuals are more frequently finding themselves on the outside of salubrious community (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Brashears, 2006; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, 2000).

A salubrious or healthy community is defined as one in which individuals experience a strong sense of community at the individual and collective levels (Bess, Fisher, Sonn, &

Bishop, 2002).

Sense of community (SOC) was the concept Sarason (1974) asserted that the field of community psychology should be centered around. He defined sense of community as a characteristic of communities that results in the perception of similarity, acknowledgement and willingness to maintain interdependence, and the feeling that one is part of a larger reliable and stable structure. The outcomes of such a community include increased levels of civic participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990), subjective well-being (Davidson & Cotter, 1991), and problem-focused coping (Bachrach & Zautra,

- 1 -

1985), as well as decreased levels of loneliness (Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett, 1994), drug use, and delinquent behaviors (Battistich & Hom, 1997).

Unfortunately, the outcomes of not experiencing this type of community and a sense of community can have devastating impacts on an individual and the community.

A lack of community has been shown to lead to deviant behavior (Agnew, 1997; Carter

& Carter, 2007; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Hirschi, 1969; Sampson & Laub, 1990) and have potent unfavorable effects on physical and mental health (Berkman, Glass, Brissette,

& Seeman, 2000; Deflem, 1989). It seems, therefore, pertinent to continue to explore the ways that community can be developed such that the consequences of anomie and alienation can be avoided and the benefits of community experienced.

Various Perspectives on Creating Community

A number of perspectives have been offered on how to draw people into social groups and communities. Social psychology theorists, for example, have mainly focused on social identity. Social identity is the process through which individuals characterize themselves by socially classifying themselves into categories (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Put simply, social identity answers the “who am I?” question. In terms of understanding community, social identity theory helps us understand and recognize how individuals categorize themselves as members of different communities.

While this approach helps in understanding the attachment individuals have to certain communities (e.g., I am an athlete, I am a member of the Yankees fan club, I am from Austin), it does not provide information on the internalization of the dominant values and attitudes within one’s self that serve as guiding principles (I believe).

- 2 -

“Although certain values and attitudes typically are associated with members of a given social category, acceptance of the category as a definition of self does not necessarily mean acceptance of those values and attitudes” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p.22). In other words, individuals may define or self-categorize themselves in terms of a community that they belong to; however, this does not mean that they believe in the values, attitudes, and strategic direction of that community. It also indicates that an individual can consequently identify with a community yet not experience a sense of community.

While social identity is somewhat related to sense of community, these concepts further distinguish themselves from each other because sense of community is characteristics or attribute of a community not of an individual. “The concept of identification, however, describes only the cognition of oneness, not the behaviors and affect that may serve as antecedents or consequences of the cognition” (Ashforth & Mael,

1989, p. 35). Sense of community goes beyond the individual level of oneness and is concerned with the entire environment and community context.

Moreover, the social identity perspective is situated solely at individual level and is highly dependent on interpersonal relationships. Although sense of community is closely related to social identity, social networks, and social support, it is not dependent on these individual relationships and goes beyond individual behaviors (Hill, 1996;

Pretty, 2002; Pretty, et al., 1994). Sense of community should be understood at the community level rather than the individual level. “This means that psychological sense of community has consistently been shown to be exactly what Sarason (1974) originally proposed it as, a characteristic of communities, not of the people living in them” (Hill,

- 3 -

1996, p. 435). Sense of community is not simply about interpersonal relationships and social networks; it encompasses and considers the entire community, context, and surrounding environment.

Community psychologists have taken another approach by better recognizing how environmental factors influence a sense of community, yet for the most part the community psychology literature has placed a focus on the individual level and individual outcomes of sense of community rather than focusing at community level and being concerned with context, structure, and contingencies. Only recently has literature started to concentrate and place an emphasis on the context specificity of a sense of community. Two scholars in particular, Hill (1996) and Puddifoot (1996) have strongly asserted that it is important for community psychologist researchers to further explore the context and structure under which a sense of community develops.

Sarason’s point about psychological sense of community being the overarching

value for community psychology seems to be based on the belief that any

community that is structured so that it fosters a strong psychological sense of

community among its residents will most likely also be structured in such a way

as to promote the healthiest possible outcomes for its residents. If we can learn

what aspects of communities foster a strong psychological sense of community,

and can learn to increase those aspects, perhaps we will not have to concern

ourselves with specific problems and the interventions to deal with them. We

could concentrate on forming healthy communities, and rely on the communities

- 4 -

to form the healthy individuals. Then we could truly become community

psychologists. (Hill, 1996, p. 435)

This theoretical shift in the community psychology literature that seems to realize the need to place more consideration on the structures that foster a sense of community rather than individual outcomes appears to be converging more with a sociological perspective.

Sociologists are typically focused on social structures, social interaction, and institutional factors. That is, sociologists are concerned with matters of society not matters of individual members. For example, Emile Durkheim, one of the most respected and prolific researchers in sociology put forth the idea of anomie in two of his classic books, Suicide (1951) and The Division of Labor in Society (1933). Durkheim used the term anomie to describe the environmental state in which a breakdown of societal structures and regulations for individuals resulted in feelings of alienation and isolation.

Durkheim concluded that anomie and anomic conditions were major contributors to the increases in longitudinal suicide trends he observed across different societies. This empirical study of a social phenomenon demonstrated how a pure psychological approach to evaluating suicide, an issue many would consider only as an individual problem, would have missed and diminished the crucial role that social structures played in explaining the trends.

Anomie and this sociological perspective are also important to consider because by definition anomie is posited as being the antithesis of a sense of community. That is, if a person is experiencing anomie then they are not experiencing a sense of community and vice versa. While anomie with it sociological roots has focused on social structures

- 5 - and institutions, sense of community research has typically focused more on individual outcomes. This difference is most likely due to sense of community being a derivative of the psychological discipline, which typically focuses on the individual. Viewing sense of community through a sociological lens (similar to the sociological treatment of anomie), however, would provide essential information to furthering sense of community theory.

Symbolic interactionism is one sociological perspective that would help clarify how and when a sense of community develops. Symbolic interactionism centers on the idea that individuals assign meanings to things and the meanings within a given context are dependent upon consensual agreement that arises out of social interaction. From a symbolic interactionism perspective, there are underlying factors or mechanisms of a sense of community, which the participants themselves have given meaning to that promote a sense of community within a social structure and given context. Accordingly, if we understand those factors to which community members have given meaning, then we can use that knowledge to further sense of community theory and help build stronger communities that would ultimately improve the quality of life for individuals.

Sport Communities

The sporting environment is frequently considered a context that draws people together and contributes to the creation of community; the shared interest in competing in a sport is often cited as a realm that builds strong community among its participants

(Schimmel, 2003). However, critics have also cited sport as an arena that fosters deviant behaviors and anomie (Carter & Carter, 2007; Chalip, 2006; Coakley, 2001; Irwin, 1973;

Kleiber, 1983). It is clear that the outcomes of sport are unquestionably dependent upon

- 6 - how they are managed and structures that are in place (see Chalip, 2006; Kleiber, 1983).

In addition, sport is also a microcosm of society and therefore provides an ideal setting in which to study sense of community and the social structures that impact it. The structures within sport and its idiosyncratic features, however, should first be understood so that a sense of community and sport inquiry can contribute to broadening sense of community theory and sport management theory.

McCormack and Chalip (1988) have argued that much of the sport literature has operated on the methodological assumption that sporting environments are unitary by comparing sport participants to non-sport participants. That is, such studies treat all sporting environments and participant experiences as if they were consistently identical.

While sport participants versus non-sport participants studies maybe a productive area to research, they fail to consider the impact of the structural and environmental context in which sport is played. In the words of McCormack and Chalip:

If there are unique effects of sport, one way to locate them is to examine the

experiences, interpretations, and social interactions which sports provide, and then

compare those with experiences, interpretations, and interactions obtainable

elsewhere. Outcome variations must be understood comparatively, and in terms

of the operative events, structures, and social constructions. That requires our

theories to be general, not sport-specific. (p. 90)

Although McCormack and Chalip were primarily concerned with the socialization process within sport, their work demonstrates that in order to expand on existing theory

“the delineation of within sport variations” (p.90) should be explored. In order to

- 7 - advance sense of community theory the aim of this study is to explain how the within sport variations impact a sense of community.

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine sport participants’ experiences as they relate to a sense of community in two structurally different contexts. Within a university setting two similar yet distinct sport systems typically exist, varsity athletics and sports clubs. Due to universities also operating in a large part as a microcosm of society and the fact that patterns of isolation and alienation similarly to those occurring in U.S. (c.f.

McPherson, et al., 2006; Putnam, 2000) have been noted on university campuses (Boyer,

1990; McDonald, 2002; Spitzberg & Thorndike, 1992), a university setting was ideal for this investigation.

Although both varsity and sport club systems bring together individuals with a common interest in sport, the way in which both programs are implemented and structured are quite different. The context and contingencies in which participants are brought together and socially integrated vary considerably between varsity athletics and sports clubs. In brief, varsity athletics are more structured, more regulated, and coach directed while sports clubs tend to be less structured, less regulated, and athlete directed.

Hence, comparing and contrasting the factors that create a sense of community in these two settings will achieve the following goals: 1) advance sense of community theory by understanding the contingencies that impact a sense of community; 2) provide practitioners with concrete knowledge on how to improve a sense of community; 3) advance sport theory by understanding within sport variations.

- 8 -

The following questions will guide this study:

1. Are there differences in what creates a sense of community for athletes

within a formalized administrator led sport model (i.e., varsity

athletics) and a less formal student-led model (i.e., sport clubs)?

2. What are the contingencies in both sports models that seem to create a

more conducive environment for community building?

3. What are the perceived outcomes of a sense of community within a

sport context?

Significance of the study

Answering the aforementioned research questions related to a sense of community in sport communities is essential for three primary reasons. First, it is clear that the community psychology literature on sense of community has reached a point where it should return to its origins. Rather than just appraising individual outcomes, sense of community theory can be further advanced through evaluating sense of community as a community characteristic, which Sarason (1974) originally defined it as. Through assessing sense of community in this manner and capitalizing on a more sociological approach, the exploration of social structures and contingencies that impact a sense of community can be revealed which will advance sense of community theory.

Second, this knowledge of social structures and contingencies will provide many practical implications for managers and administrators concerned with wanting to enhance the quality of life for individuals. Hill (1996) stated:

- 9 -

If we can learn what aspects of communities foster a strong psychological sense

of community, and can learn to increase those aspects, perhaps we will not have

to concern ourselves with specific problems and the interventions to deal with

them. We could concentrate on forming healthy communities, and rely on the

communities to form the healthy individuals. (p. 435)

Third, this study will help advance sport and sport management theory. The literature has clearly highlighted that more and more individuals in the U.S. are experiencing social isolation and finding themselves on the outside of healthy communities. Bearing in mind that sport is one of the few realms that consistently promotes a collective social experience (Armstrong & Giulianotti, 1997), sport potentially could play a key role in reversing these detrimental social trends. In order to do this, however, we should understand the contingencies and variations in sport that impact a sense of community. This knowledge will consequently advance how we think about and manage sport while also informing future sport management theory.

- 10 -

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Origins of Sense of Community

Seymour Sarason (1974) has been credited with coining the term “sense of community.” In his book, The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology, Sarason called for the new discipline of community psychology to develop with this concept at its core. Sarason’s work was primarily within the mental health community and was focused on dispelling the myth that residential communities and special classes for individuals with disabilities were a productive way to provide assistance. Rather, Sarason asserted that such environments only led to isolation and feelings of not being accepted by others, and thus denied humans of the basic need for belonging and a sense of community.

Although his work was primarily geared at advancing the way individuals thought about addressing mental health issues, Sarason realized a broad based study of community psychology and this idea of “sense of community” were important to all individuals across communities and contexts. In fact, the discipline of community psychology continues to operate with this concept at its core and under the premise that a healthy community is one in which a strong sense of community is present for individuals and the collective community (Bess et al., 2002).

At the most fundamental level, sense of community is grounded in Maslow’s

Theory of Motivation (1943). At the center or third level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is Love and Belonging. According to Maslow, after the primary physiological and safety

- 11 - needs are met, individuals have an innate desire and motivation for interpersonal interaction and to feel a sense of belonging. From an evolutionary standpoint this makes sense, individuals who were in both intimate and social relationships were not only more likely to reproduce, but they obviously also had a greater chance of survival (cf.

Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Thus at the most basic level, Maslow’s Theory provides the foundation that supports the importance and vitality of belongingness and a sense of community to all individuals.

Considering this, it is not surprising that Sarason described the concept of sense of community as being analogous to hunger. That is, it is a basic need and individuals know when they experience it and when they do not. Although an exact definition of sense of community is still heavily debated in the literature, Sarason contended it involved the perception of similarity, willingness and acceptance of interdependence, and the feeling that one is a part of a larger and stable structure. McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) later work attempted to conceptualize and theorize sense of community and its multidimensional nature, and in doing so revealed four components of sense of community– membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and emotional connections. Their sense of community Theory continues to be widely accepted and acknowledged in the community psychology literature (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999).

McMillan and Chavis’ Sense of Community Theory

McMillan and Chavis (1986) posited that sense of community was based on four components: Membership, Influence, Integration and Fulfillment of Needs, and Shared

- 12 -

Emotional Connections. They hypothesized that these elements worked in concert with one another to create a sense of community among individuals.

Membership was defined as having to do with boundaries (e.g., dress, ritual, language, common symbol systems) that created a distinction between those who belong and those who do not belong. A sense of belonging and emotional safety of individuals were also included as important indicators of Membership. Effectively, this component results in the formation of in-groups and out-groups (see Cunningham, 2007;

Cunningham & Sagas, 2005). McMillan and Chavis acknowledged that this component was the most troublesome to researchers because a majority of the extant literature had focused on the deviant behavior that often results from group formation, membership, and boundaries. However, the authors were quick to point out that this literature overlooked and almost devalued the importance that membership and boundaries have in creating an environment where intimate social bonds and emotional safety can be found and fostered.

Influence was comprised of a member being empowered by the group and also feeling empowered to influence the group and its direction. Thus, Influence was bi- directional. This particular component was primarily supported by group cohesion research, which has concluded that a positive and significant relationship exists between cohesiveness and a community’s influence over a member to conform (see Lott & Lott,

1965). This body of literature also supports the fact that individuals are drawn to communities where they are most likely to be influential.

- 13 -

Integration and Fulfillment of Needs was based on the idea that resources and support were available at the group level for individuals. Simply, McMillan and Chavis

(1986) summed this up as “reinforcement.” They concluded that individuals are drawn to others who can provide them with some benefit. And therefore, individuals are attracted and drawn to groups and communities that can benefit them in some way. The authors also positioned this component as being supported by Rappaport’s (1977) Person-

Environment Fit research.

Shared Emotional Connections was grounded in the idea that it is important for individuals to share a common history and a common set of experiences. This particular component was supported by the Contact Hypothesis (see Allan & Allan, 1971), which argues that individuals who have more contact with one another are more likely to form social bonds.

Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, and Wandersman (1986), later operationalized the four components (Membership, Influence, Integration and Fulfillment of Needs, and Shared

Emotional Connections) into the Sense of Community Index (SCI). The SCI is a quantitative instrument used to evaluate a sense of community. Chipuer and Pretty

(1999) have cited the SCI as the most widely used means to measure a sense of community and credit the instrument’s success to the fact that it is based off of McMillan and Chavis’ four-level theoretical model of sense of community.

Recent Work and Trends in SOC Literature: Context and Contingencies

Most of the early work on sense of community has been conducted in neighborhood settings and has continued to operate off of and support McMillan and

- 14 -

Chavis’ (1986) theory. Gusfield (1975), however, posited that there are two important definitions of community. The first is based on geographical and neighborhood settings and the second is more relational and is based around a common interest or activity. A gradual shift in current sense of community research has occurred as researchers have moved away from studying neighborhoods and have begun to focus more on the second type of community Gusfield described. For example, researchers have recently conducted sense of community studies on university campuses (Deneui, 2003; Pretty,

1990) and in other school settings (Battistich & Hom, 1997), within virtual communities

(Obst, Zinkiewicz, & Smith, 2002a; 2002b), and in the workplace (Lambert & Hopkins,

1995; Pretty, McCarthy, & Catano, 1992). Consequently, while research within neighborhood settings has strongly supported McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) theory, the research outside of such contexts has recently begun to expand the boundary conditions of their theory.

Since McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) work was initially posited, research outside of neighborhood settings has revealed some critical findings that have contributed to expanding the way we think about and conceptualize sense of community. For example, in a study of science fiction fans within virtual communities, researchers found that face to face contact was not necessary to contribute to a sense of community (Obst et al.,

2002a). In a follow up study, Obst et al. (2002b) concluded that their findings supported

McMillan and Chavis’ sense of community theory, but also suggested that a potential fifth dimension “Conscious Identification” might need to be added to their model. In a study on sense of community within the workplace, Pretty and McCarthy (1991)

- 15 - proposed that competition has an impact on a sense of community and, more specifically, that gender differences may exist among how men and women perceive competition in influencing sense of community in workplace. They suggested that competition may promote a sense of community for males while it detracts from a sense of community for females. Consequently, the research conducted in contexts beyond neighborhood settings has demonstrated the importance of studying sense of community outside of this traditional setting. In all three of the examples, researchers revealed important data that contributed back to and challenged McMillan and Chavis’ sense of community theory, while also revealing data that could have many practical applications in their respective contexts.

These findings are not surprising considering that Sarason’s original work recognized that environmental conditions and community characteristics could influence

SOC. That is, Sarason (1974) emphasized that things such as economic and political conditions impacted the sense of community experienced. Hill (1996) and Puddifoot

(1996), correspondingly, also both highlighted the context specific nature of sense of community. Both scholars asserted the importance of understanding sense of community as being concerned with more than just individual behaviors, but rather as an analytic concept that exists at the community level. Namely, sense of community is concerned with the dynamic environment and its contingencies. This gives an indication of the value of studying sense of community in different contexts, such as the aforementioned sectors, and recognizing that significant changes in environmental conditions and

- 16 - different contingencies could influence the elements that contribute to creating a sense of community.

In terms of practical implications, expanding sense of community research within different contexts is meaningful because of the many positive benefits that have been associated with sense of community and the overall tendency for sense of community to improve the quality of life for individuals. Again though, researchers should be aware of the context specificity and explore the contingencies that impact sense of community.

Benefits of Sense of Community

From a practical standpoint, research in creating a sense of community is important for numerous reasons. Various studies have continually tied a sense of community to a variety of life quality enhancing benefits. For example, sense of community has been associated with lower drug use and delinquency among adolescents

(Battistich & Homs, 1997), increased levels of community involvement and civic participation (Bachrach & Zautra, 1985; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990), and increased subjective well-being (Davidson & Cotter, 1991). In the work place, sense of community has been associated with reduced absenteeism, improved communication, and reduce stress (Klein & D’Aunno, 1986). Sense of community has also been tied to retention

(McCole, 2006; Kellett & Warner, 2010), reduced work-family conflict (Voydanoff,

2004), reduced role ambiguity, reduced role conflict, and reduced role overload (Royal &

Rossi, 1996). On university campuses, sense of community has also been correlated with retention and reduced burnout (McCarthy, Pretty, & Catano, 1990), two key outcomes many university officials are constantly trying to achieve.

- 17 -

In summation, the research clearly points to the significance and importance of sense of community research in different contexts. The literature does not necessarily distinguish between the importance of the context in which sense of community is experienced (i.e., that experiencing sense of community within a neighborhood, workplace, or common interest group is more important), but rather that the importance lies in the fact that individuals are experiencing sense of community somewhere in their lives. That is, it does not necessarily matter if an individual is finding community and

SOC within their workplace or their neighborhood. It is just important that individuals are experiencing community and feel supported by a social structure. From a practical standpoint, if we understand the components and the contingencies that impact SOC, then with proper program design and/or implementation the abovementioned benefits are more likely to be realized for participants and/or community members regardless of the context.

SOC and Current Societal Trends

In his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,

Robert Putnam (2000) highlighted the decrease in informal social connectedness among individuals in American society. His main thesis behind the book, and the title specifically, was that despite the fact that more individuals are bowling, fewer individuals are participating in bowling leagues and reaping the social benefits of being in community. Contemporary America, Putnam posited, is experiencing a dramatic decline in social capital, which he defined as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p.19). Putnam

- 18 - also suggested social capital is similar to its “conceptual cousin ‘community’” (p. 21).

Thus, indicating an important relationship between the two concepts. Putnam’s argument concluded that this decline of human connectedness has negatively impacted civic participation and social trust. Hence, we can draw from his work that individuals are not experiencing salubrious community, which again is one in which a strong sense of community exists for individuals (see Bess et al., 2002).

McPherson et al.’s (2006) research further support this trend by showing that social isolation has also increased. Their work compared data from 1985 to 2004 and demonstrated a few alarming trends. For example, the number of individuals who reported that they do not have anyone to discuss important matters with had tripled over that 20-year span. McPherson and colleagues also found that fewer contacts were being made through volunteer associations and neighborhoods, individuals had few discussion partners and confidants, and ties and bonds had moved away from being formed in neighborhoods and geographical communities.

This shirking of social capital, discussion partners, and confidants is noteworthy because it is detrimental to the both the instrumental and socio-emotional needs of individuals (Lin, 2001; McPherson et al., 2006). These U.S. trends provide clear evidence that individuals are not experiencing healthy community or one that possesses a strong sense of community at both the individual and collective levels (see Bess et al.,

2002).

Clearly, there is a practical need to address sense of community in a variety of contexts. The benefits of a sense of community for individuals have been categorically

- 19 - demonstrated in the literature, yet currently in US society there is strong evidence that indicates individuals are seemingly not experiencing strong community. In order to foster a sense of community, then, it makes sense to first understand the factors and contingencies that influence a sense of community so that we can enhance it in geographical and relational communities in which we live and work. While foundational work has already addressed potential components of a sense of community (McMillan &

Chavis, 1986), it is obvious that context can also influence the salient components that lead to the creation of an environment that fosters a sense of community. The a sense of community literature, though, has not fully addressed that communities are dynamic social systems, and therefore, the mechanisms of sense of community have not been made clear. This is likely due to sense of community being grounded in the psychology discipline, which tends to concentrate on the individual experience. In contrast, by adding a sociological approach, which emphasizes the importance of social and institutional structures, critical insight that would further sense of community theory would likely be revealed (Luschen, 1986).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociologically driven perspective that focuses on the meanings created by a group or community environment and how those defined meanings impact outcomes for both the individual and community (Fine, 1986).

Consequently, it provides an ideal framework for understanding the interplay between social structures and sense of community.

- 20 -

Herbert Blumer (1969) is credited for creating the term “symbolic interactionism.” Blumer’s research was heavily influenced by, and expanded upon,

George Mead’s work. More specifically, Blumer extended Mead’s idea of the

“generalized other.” Mead (1934) described the “generalized other” as “the organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self” (Mead, 1934, p. 154). In other words, the “generalized other” helps explain how an individual is capable of interacting socially, a skill based on their relationships with others within the context and environment. The “generalized other” represents the point or social unit where an individual gathers their norms and expectations, which are formulated through observation and social reinforcement.

Blumer (1969) expanded this idea of the “generalized other” into symbolic interactionism, which he concluded was based on three premises. The first premise is that “human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for them” (p. 2). This includes everything in a human’s world from tangible to non-tangible things, such as chairs and trees to institutions and guiding principles. Blumer stressed that although this idea seems straightforward; it is often overlooked or ignored. By ignoring the meaning behind something, it becomes simply a factor that elicits a behavior; this dismisses the process in which meanings were formed for an object and therefore limits our understanding. The premise that humans behave towards things on the basis of meanings things have for them acknowledges that meanings are not intrinsic, but rather humans give meaning to everything. Social interactionists therefore are

- 21 - interested in how something mundane comes to be regard as special, sacred, or meaningful.

The second premise is that “meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one has with one’s fellows” (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). That is, this principle asserts that meanings are socially derived products. For example, Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) found that varsity athletes gave meaning to a specific table in the university’s dining hall. Through the interpretation of social interactions this table became known as the “athlete’s table” and this fostered a sense of community among athletes. Third, Blumer highlighted that “these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters” (Blumer, 1969, p. 2). This indicates that the meanings that humans assign to things are not static, but they are malleable through the interpretation and communication processes. To use the athlete’s designated table example again, over time and depending on contextual contingencies this designated area could shift to making athletes feel isolated from their student peers rather than evoking a sense of community.

Understanding sense of community through this sociological framework is crucial to advancing sense of community theory. Symbolic interactionism demonstrates that the meanings behind everything (tangible and non-tangible) are determined through a dynamic social process. In other words, humans through their social interaction give things meaning. In terms of understanding sense of community, symbolic interactionism gives us a perspective and the tools to examine the underlying meanings and the often taken for granted assumptions in community building. This perspective adds to existing

- 22 - sense of community literature because it helps explicate processes and mechanisms rather than just the outcomes, which has been the main focus of existing sense of community research (especially in the community psychology literature). This lends further confidence in the importance of exploring the contextual contingencies and underlying factors that individuals bestow meaning upon when considering how their sense of community develops.

Thus, there is also a need to examine sense of community in varying and relevant contexts, such that we can better understand how and why sense of community is created and what elements have the strongest impact on the creation and experience (or lack thereof) of sense of community. Knowing the importance of a sense of community that

Sarason and others have asserted through their research, combined with current US trends toward lack of community, indicates an inquiry of sense of community is very timely and can contribute to addressing important social issues that have been recently brought to the forefront by social scientists. However, as this line of inquiry moves forward it is essential, in true symbolic interactionism form, to keep in mind that meanings are not reified. Meanings are constantly changing, so an evaluation of the contingencies that are influencing sense of community is necessary.

Sense of Community and Contingencies: Framework

Many have suggested that sport can be used to foster sense of community among individuals (e.g., Chalip, 2006; Glover & Bates, 2006; Lyons & Dionigi, 2007; Mitrano

& Smith, 1990; Tonts, 2005). Whether or not it does, however, is contingent upon how sport is implemented and designed (see Chalip, 2006). That is, in some cases sport can

- 23 - create community and in others it can actually contribute to anomie or social isolation.

What we know little about is how and what contextual contingencies in a sport setting impact sense of community.

The sociology literature strongly supports the idea that personal and social outcomes are dependent on contextual contingencies. For example, Hirschman (1970) considered the contingencies that influence whether or not dissatisfied consumers decide to exit (become unaffiliated or dissolve the relationship) or express voice (maintain the relationship and try to change the sources of dissatisfaction). Hirschman argued that contextual contingencies such as the ease of exit and entry, the availability of alternatives, or the belief that voice will be effective impact a consumer’s response. The exit of consumers without expressing voice will typically weaken and lead to decline for organization. Hirschman’s work effectively demonstrated that an organization needs to manage contextual contingencies in order to achieve desirable outcomes.

Emile Durkheim (1933, 1951) has also spoken to the strength of contextual contingencies impacting human behavior. More specifically, Durkheim’s work on anomie is important to consider when assessing the influence of contextual contingencies on social outcomes. Anomie is a sociological concept Durkheim used to describe how normlessness or the lack of regulations, structure, and organization foster feelings of alienation, isolation, and often lead to destructive and deviant behavior. Although much of the anomie research focuses on the sudden economic changes (i.e., wealth or poverty) and the ensuing collapse of social bonds, regulations, and structure that cultivate deviant behavior, this social phenomenon of anomie and anomic conditions also lends insight

- 24 - into the value of understanding the social impact of a lax versus more restrictive environment for individuals. From Durkheim’s standpoint, “the prevalence of anomie is due to a lag in the growth of the relevant rules and institutions” (Lukes, 1972, p. 25). In other words, one can conclude too lax of an environment would be more likely to produce anomie and the resultant deviant behaviors. Extending this thought, one might posit that contexts that are less structured in nature would be more likely to produce anomie and accordingly, less sense of community.

Furthermore, research has concluded that anomic conditions and the resulting detrimental behaviors can be mitigated with social support and social relationships

(Cullen & Wright, 1997). These social ties and bonds are thought to strengthen ones social structure by creating boundaries and regulations for behavior, thus resulting in less anomie and hence, less deviance. Conversely, when this “breakdown of social institutions” occurs or there is a “weak culture/subculture” (Carter & Carter, 2007, p.

247), Social Control Theory (Hirschi, 1969) also further supports that deviant behavior will increase. This is especially pertinent in sport settings, which are often criticized for nurturing an environment that leads to deviant behaviors (c.f. Coakley, 2001). Therefore, this theoretical framework lends further credence to importance of investigating the structural contingencies (i.e., highly structured versus more flexible) in settings and the resulting communities. Based on extant literature, it is important for researcher to better understanding the contingencies, environmental characteristics, and social structures that result in participants moving away from anomic conditions to experiencing a sense of community and healthy community.

- 25 -

Sport and Sense of Community in a University Context

We need not look any further than U.S. university campuses to find a prime example of sport being used to create a sense of community (Wolf-Wendel, Toma, &

Morphew, 2001). Sport has been embedded in the culture of American higher education for well over a century. Chu argued that the reason for this was the ability of sport “to answer a need created by our pluralistic society and to help fulfill the peculiar mission of

American higher education by (1) providing a vehicle for a sense of community, (2) promoting student commitment to the institution, (3) helping label its graduates as successful, and (4) elevating individuals beyond the limits of mundane realities to show them what they can be” (1989, p.158).

A need for extracurricular activities grew as a result of student response to the stringent academic structured environment in the early nineteenth century (Brubacher &

Rudy, 1997). Prior to intercollegiate athletics, student-organized sport-based class battles

(i.e., freshman vs. sophomore) and sport clubs, which were organized by students with a common interested in a given sport, were quite popular (Jeter, 1986; Lewis, 1970; Smith,

1988). The “battles on the playing field apparently filled a need for community—not just separate class unity but occasions for the entire student body to take part in an intense experience. Those who reminisced about their nineteenth-century college life often cited their campus sport activities” (Smith, 1988, pp. 21-22). It is obvious that sport has played a distinctive role in creating community for the campus population.

The class battles and sport clubs, however, began to die out in the twentieth century. Sport clubs had evolved to a point where university officials realized their value

- 26 - and were replaced with varsity athletics and physical education (Hyatt, 1977; Jeter,

1986).

While they contributed to a sense of community, the development of

intercollegiate athletics began to replace them. As class size rose in the latter

nineteenth century, the need for community became even more important, and

athletics played an increasingly vital role in creating it. (Smith, 1988, p. 23).

Sport provided a platform to engender community and coalesce an ever increasing religiously and culturally diverse student population (Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997; Rader,

1978; Smith, 1988).

It should be reiterated that class-battles and sport clubs were both at the outset student-run and student-initiated before evolving into varsity athletics. “Neither the faculties nor other critics assisted in building the structure of college athletics. . . . It is a structure which students unaided have [built]” (Camp, 1885). Eventually extracurricular activities, including sport-based activities, were absorbed by athletic departments and student affairs, a division of a university that is principally committed to a focus on the

“whole” student while furthering the academic mission of the university (Nuss, 2003). A paucity of literature exists regarding sport clubs on campuses from about 1890 to the early 1960’s. This is most likely due to the rapid growth of intercollegiate athletics.

However, a notable reemergence of the student-organized sport clubs and a “sport club movement” occurred in the 1960’s (Hyatt, 1977). One rationale for the exponential increase in sport clubs on university campuses was that “clubs were a reaction against

- 27 - highly organized, over-emphasized, and rigidly specialized college and university activities, including intercollegiate and intramural sports” (Hess, 1971, p. 24).

Today, these two distinct sport structures, sport clubs and varsity athletics, still commonly exist on university campuses. While the fundamental aim for these two activities are essential the same, the structure of how sport is administered in both systems is quite different.

The Contexts: Sport Clubs and Varsity Athletics

University sport club systems are typically organized and administered by the students themselves. Although there are some exceptions, many sport club programs

(also referred to as club sports) are still student guided and directed. A university liaison

(i.e., sport club director or campus recreation director) will typically provide some oversight and clubs typically receive nominal funding from the university. In most cases student club leaders will organize practices, competitions, fundraisers, travel, and sometimes even hire coaches (Carlson, 1990; Hyatt, 1977; Jeter, 1986). Sport clubs are often characterized as being flexible, self-perpetuating, voluntarily, and less formalized.

The existence of individual sport clubs is based on student interest and student initiative

(Hyatt, 1977). Sport clubs typically range from being instructional to recreational to competitive; competitive sport clubs are also sometimes referred to as extramurals

(Braun, 1989; Jeter, 1986).

Conversely, varsity athletics (NCAA) operate under a more stringent professionalized model. Varsity athletics can be characterized as being more systematic, competitive, and formalized when compared to sport clubs. Varsity teams are led by

- 28 - coaches hired by the university and in most cases are supported by an entire university department (typically including media relations, marketing, academic support, and compliance). Participants often receive scholarships in return for their participation.

A comparison in the development of sense of community under both sport structures would likely yield insight into the contingencies that impact sense of community in both sport settings and structures. Warner and Dixon (in review; see

Appendix F) have explored sense of community among NCAA varsity sport participants.

Their qualitative investigation revealed five salient factors or mechanisms that contributed to a sense of community. Those factors were Administrative Consideration,

Leadership Opportunities, Equality in Administrative Decisions, Competition, and Social

Spaces. Warner and Dixon’s results provided practical solutions for enhancing a sense of community and the participant sport experience, while also contributing to sense of community theory.

Their study began to lay the groundwork for understanding how the environmental characteristics and contingencies of sport systems impact and build a sense of community; however, their study only considered athletes within the more formalized varsity sport models. Again considering previous scholars’ assertions of importance of understanding contingencies (Hirschman, 1970), environmental characteristics (Sarason, 1974), and context (Hill, 1996; Puddifoot, 1996) this omission restricts and limits the generaliziblity of Warner and Dixon’s Sport and sense of community model. Further expanding their work to a less formalized and more athlete driven sport setting such as, university sport clubs, would continue to build a more broad-

- 29 - based sport and sense of community theory while concomitantly exploring the intricacies and social impact of the different sport structures.

Key Structural, Environmental, and Contingency Differences: Sport Club and Varsity

Although both sport club and varsity sport systems operate within a university context and serve college student participants, the structure, environmental characteristics, and contingencies in which they operate are quite different. Sport clubs are more accessible and voluntary in nature, making both entry, and consequently, exit from participation uncomplicated. That is, few barriers exist as an individual can join and drop out of sport clubs with ease. Participation in varsity athletics is more controlled and exit, due to scholarship agreements, maybe more complex. Many varsity participants are recruited and observed by coaches well prior to stepping on campus, and upon their arrival to college are quickly ushered into a rigid and structure training environment.

Hirschman (1970) theorized this controlled entrance and restricted exit in the consumer marketplace results in individuals expressing more loyalty and greater “voice,” which correspondingly provides important feedback for an organization to improve.

How such a contingency would impact the sport participants’ experiences is unknown, but Hirschman’s work signifies the merit in exploring such contingencies and their potential impact on sense of community and the existing social structures. Some may argue that due to the student-initiated and self-perpetuating nature of sport clubs participants may feel like they have greater voice and loyalty toward such an organization. While the competing hypothesis, based on Hirschman’s argument, would be that the controlled entrance and restricted exit of varsity athletics would yield more

- 30 - voice and loyalty. Furthermore, considering Durkheim’s work one might posit that sport clubs and their less structured nature might be more likely to foster anomie rather than a sense of community. In either case, such contingencies would likely influence a sense of community and the social structures formed within each setting. The paucity of research comparing these two sport structures and these specific structural contingencies leaves many research inquiries about the resulting social impact for participants unanswered.

Toward that end, a sense of community inquiry that focuses on the structural and environmental contingencies and differences is necessary. A symbolic interactionism perspective, moreover, would provide a researcher with an awareness that athletes in distinct contexts have given meaning to objects and contingencies. Understanding what they have given meaning to in terms of sense of community and community creation will help advance sense of community and sport management theory. Therefore this investigation will be guided by the following research questions:

1. Are there differences in what creates a sense of community for athletes within a

formal administrator led sport model (i.e. varsity athletics) and a less formal

student-led model (sport clubs)?

2. What are the contingencies in both sports models that seem to create a more

conducive environment for community building?

3. What are the perceived outcomes of a sense of community within a sport

context?

Answering these research questions will also help us to provide practical solutions for enhancing a sense of community, while also revealing insight into the contingencies

- 31 - created in two different sport contexts. Consequently, exploring such within sport variations will advance theory and provide concrete guidelines on how to design programs such that they contribute to fostering healthy communities.

- 32 -

Chapter 3

Sport Club Inquiry (Phase I)

A symbolic interactionism perspective was used to assess how and when a sense of community developed among participants within a sport system. This perspective is most appropriate for evaluating sense of community because it focuses on the meaning that individuals give things, and recognizes that through an inductive progression we can better understand social processes and structures. The three basic premises of symbolic interactionism are that: 1) humans ascribe meaning to things and act toward them based on these meanings, 2) meanings are derived through interaction with society, 3) meanings are not static and are therefore, changeable. These premises provided an ideal foundation for determining how and when a sense of community developed because it is obvious sense of community is a concept that should be understood from the participant standpoint. Further, it is influenced by societal conditions and therefore, not static.

Blumer (1969), who is credited with much of the development of this perspective, stated, “Respect the nature of the empirical world and organize a methodological stance to reflect that respect. That is what I think symbolic interactionism strives to do” (p. 60).

This implies that through a qualitative investigation and careful consideration of the context, valuable information about sense of community can be drawn out via a symbolic interactionism perspective.

One way symbolic interactionists go about capturing verifiable data about a social process is through utilizing a grounded theory methodology. In fact, many have attributed grounded theory as being rooted in the symbolic interactionism paradigm (see

- 33 -

Baker, Wuest, & Stern, 1992; Jacobs, 1987; Munhall, 2007). Symbolic interactionism recognizes that individuals give things meaning and therefore, a naturalistic inquiry such as grounded theory was necessary in the current study (Blumer, 1969; Munhall, 2007).

Utilizing this approach allowed potential sport management and sense of community theory to develop from an analysis of qualitative data that seeks to understand what individuals have given meaning to and feel is important in their social context

(Blumer, 1969; Heath & Cowley, 2003; Munhall, 2007). This approach uses flexible data collection procedures and seeks to gain insight based on the participants’ experiences (Benzies & Allen, 2001; Blumer, 1969; Jacob, 1987). Data were collected in two phases with the overall aim to inductively build theory that clarifies and explains the phenomenon of sense of community within a sport context.

The first phase entailed individual interviews with sport club participants. The purpose of the first phase was to determine the mechanisms and factors that led to sport club participants experiencing a sense of community. This data along with the data collected in Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) study on sense of community among varsity athletes were then used to guide the second phase (Chapter 4).

During this second phase, focus groups with both varsity and sport club athletes were conducted to examine the similarities and differences in sense of community between the two sport contexts.

Method

Instrument

- 34 -

A semi-structured interview format was used to collect data during this first phase of the study. This less formal format allowed the researcher to start by asking a broad interview question and following the conversation until eventually the questions become more focused (Munhall, 2007). A modified version of the interview guide used in

Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) was utilized (see Appendix A). Sample guiding questions included, “Some athletes have said they’ve felt a sense of community during the participation experiences. Have you ever felt that way? Can you tell me about a time, you did feel that way?” All guiding interview questions were based on and/or adapted from the community psychology literature (Deneui, 2003; Lyons & Dionigi,

2007; McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The questions were reviewed for face validity by a panel of experts in sport management and qualitative research.

Participants

Twenty-one former participants of university sport clubs, representing 17 different universities and 11 different sports agreed to take part in the study (see Table 1).

All former sport club participants were 1-5 years removed from their active club participation experience. Former athletes were chosen due to the fact that they have had time to reflect on their experiences and they are able to speak to the mechanisms and experiences that truly resonated beyond college and not just proximal experiences.

Additionally, all the athletes participated on sport clubs teams that competed against other universities (i.e., intercollegiate competition). The sample was fairly balanced in terms of gender (10 females, 11 males) and the coaching structure the participants played under (5 paid coaches, 7 player coached, and 9 volunteer coached). The estimated out-

- 35 - of-pocket annual expenses for each participant ranged from $15.00-$2000.00 and 6 out of the 21 turned down varsity athletic scholarships and chose club participation instead.

Procedure

Potential participants were initially contacted through the directors of the sport club programs at various universities. Purposeful or theoretical sampling was used to ensure that a variety of individuals with differing backgrounds and experiences were interviewed in an effort to achieve maximum variation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Such sampling assisted the researcher during the coding process as she looked to uncover common patterns that would be consistent across a variety of sport club participants.

Digitally audio-recorded phone interviews were then conducted with those who indicated that they were willing to participate in the study. Prior to the interviews the participants were contacted and asked for their voluntary written consent (Appendix B) and to complete a background information form (Appendix C). Arrangements were then made to conduct the interviews at convenient times for the participants.

Data Analysis

The interviews were professionally transcribed and the participants were given the opportunity to review their transcripts for accuracy. The data were analyzed with the aid of QSR International’s NVIVO 8 software. The researcher initially coded the data line by line. This process entails assigning codes or labels to the data in an attempt to condense the data into categories (Neuman, 2000). Consistent with a grounded theory approach, during the coding the researcher was cognizant of the existing sense of community literature and previous findings (e.g., Deneui, 2003; McMillan & Chavis,

- 36 -

1986; Warner and Dixon, in review), yet open to the emergence of new themes as well

(see Charmaz, 1990; Sandelowski, 1993). In accordance with the grounded theory approach this process involved the inductive identification of salient codes that describe and represent what is happening in the data (Munhall, 2007). Then, the data were condensed into codes, and these codes were then grouped into descriptive categories

(Munhall, 2007). Member checks for interpretations and conclusions drawn were conducted with the participants throughout the coding process. To further ensure accuracy and trustworthiness of the data, at the conclusion of the coding process all participants were given the opportunity to review the coding results.

The initial coding process produced 22 first level codes. Through an iterative process and with the assistance of an independent researcher, these codes were merged into coding categories. From these coding categories, four themes emerged. These themes represent the factors that cultivate a sense of community for club sport participants.

Results

The results revealed that four salient factors contributed to a sense of community for the participants. Those components were Common Interest, Leadership

Opportunities, Amateurism/Voluntary Activity, and Competition. The results presented below include an explanation of each factor and representative quotes from the participants that show how each factor contributed to a sense of community in this context.

Common Interest

- 37 -

The group dynamics, social networking, and friendships that resulted from individuals being brought together by the common interest of the sport and working towards a common goal was a salient factor in producing a sense of community. As Brad

(lacrosse) explained, “We used to say, ‘you don’t have to like them, but you have to love them’, cause they’re your teammates. But, I think, certainly just having a team, or an organization that’s focusing on a goal and the objectives to get to that goal, really helps kind of build that sense of community.”

Although several participants noted that sport was the common factor that brought individuals together and was essential, sport in itself was not enough to create a sense of community. Connie (cycling) explained, “It started with sports, but then we would kind of get into conversations about what our majors were and what we were planning on doing afterwards. So it kind of started with sport, but then grew from there.” That is, the

Common Interest in sport needed to be combined with other unifying factors. As Dale

(rowing) commented:

I think it's more than just rowing. It's more, because for me, the interest in rowing

wasn't there initially. It was really an interest in pushing myself, and working

hard, and getting in better shape. Also on the other side meeting new people,

finding new challenges, everything like that. So, the common interest in rowing

is definitely there, but there's definitely a lot more to it that creates a community.

Rather, a sense of community was created for many of the participants when the Common

Interest in sport was accompanied by the pursuit toward a goal, shared values, strong commitment, or even a united frustration with something external to the group. Lucy

- 38 -

(basketball) further explained why she felt she did not experience a sense of community.

“You can't garner a sense of community if you don't get along at all with each other. The only thing that a lot of us had in common was basketball, and that just wasn't enough.”

Lucy then went on to compare the sense of community she experienced in her role as a

Resident Assistant (RA) with her university sport experience.

One of the differences is that the RAs always acted like they wanted to be there,

and they were committed to what they were doing, and they enjoyed it. And, if

you don't have those three things, I don't think that it's possible to kind of have

that community type atmosphere. If there's always internal conflict, it's really

hard to build a community. And that's what it was like for basketball. You can't

build a community like that. You really do need more than just an activity in

common with them. You're not gonna build a sense of community with people

that don't share the same morals and values, as you do.

In addition to the shared values and strong commitment that Lucy mentioned, other participants found that a Common Interest and rallying around the difficulties and inconveniences that their club teams faced fostered a sense of community.

I think the way that it was, created a sense of community. We were bonding over

the fact that nobody cared about us, that we had to do all this work, that we had

crappy times for our field practices, and then we had to give up some of our

weekends to travel. We had to drive our cars, and stuff like that, instead of having

a bus, and be provided travel. I think all those obstacles that really bonded us.

(Joan, soccer)

- 39 -

It positively impacted the community, and the team, in that, we had this unified

force of being frustrated with the administration. We were consistently jealous of

the support that the varsity sports would get when we would compare the amount

of time we spent on our sport, and the personal investment. It seemed

comparable, and they would get much more support, and have lighter class

workloads. We had a team full of engineers, scientists, and hard-core students,

who would do a lot of class work, and then do ultimate. It seemed unfair.

However, it did things for our team, and it brought us together to know that we

would work hard, and be a team, and stick together despite any disadvantages.

(Damon, ultimate)

Overall, it was clear that a Common Interest was fundamental in creating a sense of community, but that the Common Interest had to extend beyond just sport. Sport had to be combined with a strong pursuit towards common goals, shared values, demonstration of a strong commitment, and/or uniting in response to an external obstacle in order to cultivate a sense of community for the participants.

Leadership Opportunities

The participation in directing and guiding the team or club in some manner was also a factor in creating a sense of community. As Philip (sailing) simply said, “Having leadership roles definitely provided a sense of community.” Factors such as having a voice, decision-making influence, and authority related to the organization and its direction helped comprise Leadership Opportunities.

- 40 -

And it's entirely student run. It's just a cool experience. I felt so much more

connected to our team community, as the president, because I hired the coach. I

helped the coach, and I helped drive our truck that would pull the trailer to the

races. And the little things like that that really make you think, wow this is not

just practices that you show up at-- and I could, peace out, and quit at any time.

I'm an integral part of this community. And for me to keep doing this, I need to

stay involved with the community, and the community needs me, as well. (Luke,

crew)

As Luke articulated, when participants were able to actively demonstrate their role and purpose within the group through various leadership activities a sense of community was promoted.

Miles (lacrosse), when asked about the sense of community he experienced, also elucidated the role of Leadership Opportunities. “I think because it's all student run, and student led… that we're the ones making the decisions on what direction we want to take the club. As an officer, and as a group of students, we decided things.” Janet (waterpolo), a former varsity swimmer, also talked about how Leadership Opportunities impacted her

SOC:

There's a lot of hard work that goes on behind the scenes in the club sports. And,

with varsity sports, you just show up, and you represent your university. With

club sports, it's like I had to be on the phone calling referees, if we were hosting a

tournament. I was an officer for my junior year and so I was doing things that I

normally that I wouldn't do, as a varsity athlete. Whereas, varsity sport is get on

- 41 -

the bus, and you guys are headed to compete against a school. It's like just show

up, and that is it kind of thing. But, in club at the end of a tournament, we knew

what went on behind the scenes. And that that drew us closer, and also made us

more proud of what we were able to do.

Taking on these leadership roles was at first a bit surprising to many of the participants, but overall seemed to enhance their sense of community. As Marcus (baseball) expressed, “It's a little wary at first, for new participants that come in saying, 'oh, it’s all us'. You definitely have to step-up in the leadership roles.” And as Marcus and several of the others indicated, stepping into those leadership roles positively impacted their sense of community. Mary (rugby) helped explain why Leadership Opportunities were important, “When you're in control, or have more control over what the Club does, you feel more ownership and responsibility, and a greater sense of community.”

The structure of sport clubs seemed to provide ample opportunity for participants to take on some type of leadership role, and the participants emphasized that providing direction to the club increased the sense of community experienced. In fact all 21 participants referenced either a formal leadership role (e.g., club president, club officer, etc.) or informal leadership (e.g., arranging traveling, assisting in hiring coaches, organizing fundraisers). Furthermore, there seemed to be cyclical nature in that the more an individual became part of a community, the more they sought out Leadership

Opportunities; consequently, more leadership beget a greater sense of community.

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity

- 42 -

The self-fulfilling and self-determining actions that went into being a club team member and resulted from little to no external pressure or incentive emerged as another factor in creating a sense of community. The factor Amateurism/Voluntary Activity represents the idea that one did not have to be a part of the club or show up at team functions, but rather they continued their membership because they wanted to be there and were personally invested. “It was all strictly voluntary. You're accountable for yourself,” Justin (tennis) claimed. Others echoed this sentiment and highlighted the self- motivation needed to participate in club sports. “It's very much on yourself. You have to motivate yourself” (Kelsey, waterpolo). “If you are going to participate in club sports, you have to find your own motivation for training and joining” (Jacob, waterpolo).

Simply, showing up for practice with little or no external influence demonstrated a strong commitment to the group as well as the participants’ love for their sport; it also played a vital role in creating a sense of community. As Paul (tennis) summarized, it was “a good segue to bond, to be self-sufficient and responsible for your own community and club.”

The participants further stressed the voluntary nature of their sport participation by referencing the absence of authority figures and the autonomy of the players. Miles

(lacrosse) explained how this fostered a sense of community with his team. “And we're gonna take it upon ourselves to work out on our own. It basically made us all kind of buy-in to it, on our own level, without just having someone tell us that.” To give an additional example, Alice (lacrosse) stated:

A club sport athlete is doing it for the love the sport. The idea of being able to

recreate and have that social network and that commitment and friendship, it is

- 43 -

part of who we are. I think with a varsity athlete they have been pushed and

pushed from parents to coaches to coaching staffs to recruiters to everything. . . .

We do it because we want to; we do it because we have fun. For their whole lives

they [varsity athletes] have had someone else direct their recreational activities.

Someone else is telling them how to practice, what to lift, what to run, when to

work out, what to eat. With a club sport athlete, if we want to succeed, we have

self-control over it.

Mary (rugby) also simply explained the importance of Amateurism/Voluntary Activity in fostering a sense of community, “More of a sense of community was created because we were autonomous.” The participants clearly expressed the importance of self-motivation, autonomy, and self-control in building an environment that promoted a sense of community.

Competition

The desire to excel in out performing others, and sharing the challenges and struggles that are seemingly inherent in sport, emerged from data as a contributor to sense of community. This factor was named Competition and consisted of both internal and external rivalries. Interestingly and consistent with previous literature (e.g., Lambert &

Hopkins, 1995; Pretty & McCarthy, 1991; Warner & Dixon, in review), there was a clear divide among the genders as to whether or not Competition added or detracted from a sense of community. That is, the males noted that both internal and external competition enhanced the sense of community they felt, while the females stressed that internal

Competition detracted from their sense of community.

- 44 -

For example, Justin (tennis) spoke of the role Competition played in creating a sense of community, “For me competition added to the sense of community. I mean, I'm a very competitive person. We wanted to succeed, we wanted to win, and that helped with the bond and the sense of community.” All of the other males in the study reiterated analogous thoughts in terms of Competition being a positive contributor to a sense of community. When Miles (lacrosse) was asked about whether or not he thought he experienced a stronger or weaker sense of community in comparison to others, the impact of Competition resonated in his response.

I would say we had a stronger sense of community, because we were a

competitive club. We were a pretty highly competitive club. And when you feel

that there's something at stake, I think you develop that bond with each other.

Whereas, if you're just going out there for fun, it's definitely enjoyable-- but

there's not as much at stake. And I think that competition does bring you

together. Competition definitely bonded us together, because, we're playing at that

level, because we love the game, and we want to win. But, definitely the level of

competitiveness did impact the overall sense of community.

Luke (rowing) spoke of how Competition both on and off the field was central to the sense of community:

I mean, a lot of our fund-raising activities were even competitive. Like we'd go

do these races, and challenges, and it was just an integrated part of the experience.

Like who can do the math the quickest when you're selling hot dogs, and see

who’s right. We'd race each other up the stairs when we were picking up trash on

- 45 -

Sunday mornings. All sorts of stuff, the competition didn't end with the sport.

And it improved the community.

It was clear that from the perspective of the males in this study that Competition (internal and external) enhanced the sense of community they experienced. Conversely, the females in this study spoke of how Competition, specifically internal, detracted from the sense of community. Tara (basketball) appropriately summarized the female participants’ thoughts on the contribution Competition makes to a sense of community, “Competition within a club will definitely detract from the sense of community, but when you are competing against other schools it adds to it.” When asked specifically why she felt

Competition detracted from her experience Sarah (lacrosse) responded, “These girls [her teammates] felt that they were better than everybody else. And they treated people that way.”

While it seemed that the females in the study appreciated some level of competition, it was apparent that too much competition decreased the sense of community. “I like where it’s not like extremely competitive, but it's also not just messing around. If it was really competitive, then there would be a lot more bickering about playing time and stuff,” Keisha (soccer) commented. Connie (cycling) further reiterated this and the repercussions of too competitive of an environment for some females:

For me personally, the competition was positive. There were some situations

where people were put into certain groups based on skill and they weren’t happy

about it. Except for a couple of women that were really competitive by nature, I

- 46 -

mean really competitive, I think it detracted for most others. There were some

women that I raced with that actually ended up not racing or dropped off the team

because they just felt it was getting too competitive and they wanted to have fun.

While external competition had the capacity to add to the sense of community for the females unlike the males in this study, they were quick to emphasize the propensity for

Competition to detract.

I think anytime you get a kind of competitive females together, and you split them

up on skill level, there's always gonna be some kind of griping and what not. It's

just the nature of people that tend to be competitive in a sport that we all loved. I'd

say, in my experience it detracted from the sense of community. The

competitiveness drives people to play better, and work harder, and to get better, so

that they can move up. But, again, without the structure, which we lacked, the

competitiveness just caused tension. (Lucy, basketball)

In summation, Competition was emphasized as positively contributing to a sense of community for the males in this study. However, the females in this study were more likely to mention Competition as detracting from a sense of community. While the females did welcome and seek out competition, it was evident that too competitive of an environment negatively impacted the community.

Discussion

The results of this study revealed that Common Interest, Leadership

Opportunities, Amateurism/Voluntary Activity, and Competition (moderated by gender) worked in concert with one another to create an environment in which university sport

- 47 - club participants experienced a sense of community (see Figure 1). This study further demonstrated that a sense of community is not a simply serendipitous outcome of sport.

The appropriate environment, which this study demonstrated should include these four salient factors, is essential for building and maintaining a strong sense of community for sport club participants.

While this is not necessarily surprising that Common Interest emerged as a salient factor in creating a sense of community for sport club participants—one would expect that those in community would share some common interest—what is noteworthy is that sport itself was not strong enough to create a sense of community. Ideally, any extracurricular activity on a university campus should bring individuals together with a common interest, yet simply creating common interest groups is not enough; the initial attraction should be accompanied by other unifying factors. The same in sport contexts: sport alone is simply not enough to build a strong community, rather individuals should coalesce based on additional factors that nurture the community. The participants in this study noted that common goals (e.g., pursuit towards winning a game or match), shared values, activities that demonstrate a strong commitment, and/or uniting in response to an external obstacle were some of the supplement factors that built upon the initial Common

Interest to create a strong sense of community. This finding, to some extent, is supported by previous work. McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) seminal work included Membership as one of the four components that they determined comprised sense of community. While the group solidarity literature suggests that a mutual cause is one of the principal contributors that helps makes individuals feel apart of a group (Simons & Taylor, 1992).

- 48 -

To give another example, research has suggested Social Spaces are important in creating a sense of community (Swyers, 2005; Warner & Dixon, in review). That is, individuals need to have some defined locations, such as a locker room or a particular seating section in stadium, in order to promote social interactions and conversations. These Social

Spaces, like a common interest, are not sufficient in and of themselves to create a sense of community, but are a critical factor in creating opportunities for interactions that foster a stronger sense of community.

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity, comprised of the self-fulfilling and self- determining actions that went into participation with little to no external motivation, was also an intriguing finding. This idea of Amateurism/Voluntary Activity has not been noted in sense of community studies outside of sport, yet it seems very likely that it could be an overlooked factor in creating a sense of community in any context. Within the sport literature, Stevens’ (2000) work somewhat supports the findings related to the role of Amateurism/Voluntary Activity in fostering a sense of community. Stevens emphasized that the increase in commodification and professionalization in women’s hockey in Canada contributed to a decrease in sense of community for its participants.

Stevens presented the “declining role of community in women's hockey as antagonisms grow between grassroots, high performance, and commercial forces” and further argued that the “acceleration of the sport into the Olympic Games has emphasized commerce and professionalism while at the same time undermined locality and voluntarism” (p.

123). It was clear that the shift towards a more elite and professional sport model led to a decline in sense of community for the participants.

- 49 -

In the current study, it was quite apparent that the participants found a sense of pride in the fact that they were truly amateurs. The minimal barriers to entry and exit into a sport club fostered an environment of mutual trust and reciprocity. To an extent this created a self-selecting cycle; those that didn’t “buy-in” simply left and those were committed to the community remained. For those who remained, the voluntary nature of the sport clubs seemed to allow members to demonstrate their commitment to the club and each other. In doing so, a trust and reciprocal commitment developed and a sense of community was cultivated. This factor was not seen in Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) previous study with varsity athletes, indicating that there may be some critical difference in terms of how a sense of community develops within a peer-directed versus a more formalized coach or administrator directed model.

Numerous scholars in sport (e.g., Hill & Green, 2008; Kleiber,1983; Kleiber &

Roberts, 1981; Roberts & Chick, 1984, Sharpe, 2003) have pointed to the fact that the formalization of sport likely reduces the social rewards for participants, which one would conclude would most likely include sense of community. Furthermore, the growth of the sport management discipline seemingly promotes more formalized, institutionalized, and professionalized sport systems (Corlett, 1997). The repercussions of this growth and the social implications on sport participants have not yet been appropriately addressed, yet the current study suggests that there may be definite benefits to a more participant- centered (and administered) sport model.

Leadership Opportunities and Competition were also revealed as factors in

Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) study on sense of community among

- 50 -

NCAA student-athletes. That is, the directing and guiding of activities that resulted in feelings of ownership and responsibility as well as the desire to out perform others were salient in both intercollegiate sport contexts. Thus, these factors were consistent in fostering a sense of community in spite of the differences in sport structure and contingencies between sport clubs and varsity athletics. This indicates that Leadership

Opportunities and Competition may be vital to creating a sense of community in any sport context. However, considering the life stage of the participants (all were 18-23 years old) it may not be surprising that the participants were mindful of the Leadership

Opportunities available to them. The literature strongly asserts at this life stage the participants would have been becoming less dependent on their parents, would be making more independent decisions, and facing numerous social and relational challenges (e.g.,

Hicks & Heastie, 2008; Pittman & Richmond, 2008). Therefore, the participants likely would have been experiencing this newly found independence, and consequently were more attuned to Leadership Opportunities. The Leadership Opportunities provided the participants with a feeling of ownership and responsibility, something that they may not have experienced prior to entering college and likely living on their own for the first time.

As previously noted, there also seemed to be a cyclical nature to Leadership

Opportunities and community building. That is, the more an individual grew closer to a community, the more they sought out Leadership Opportunities--the more Leadership

Opportunities they had, the greater the sense of community. This continuing pattern seemed to help sustain and strengthen the community. This component is also somewhat supported in the foundational sense of community literature, which considers Influence a

- 51 - key component of sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Similarly to

Influence, the Leadership Opportunities empowered community members.

Providing Leadership Opportunities and relinquishing this “control” is certainly not a new idea in sport. In fact, Kleiber (1983) asserted, “The ultimate potential of sport for self-development and sociocultural evolution may require then that control be returned to the players, at least to a greater degree” (p. 92). Leadership Opportunities and this idea of distributing responsibilities and control back to the sport participants seems as though it will foster a greater sense of community, but currently does not seem to be a high priority when administering sport. In fact, the organizational control of many modern sports may impede the development of a sense of community for the participants. “By ‘relieving’ participants of the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the social structures that supports their activities, organizational control diminishes the interrelatedness of competitors” (Kleiber, 1983, p. 91). That is, too much organization may be detrimental to the sport participants and the ensuing sense of community that ideally would develop. Jacob (waterpolo) highlighted how within the sport club structure, sense of community was imperative for the club to survive because the control rests in the participants’ hands:

I think it would have been hard, and it would have been unlikely that people could

go through four years of a playing in a successful club sport program without a

successful sense of community. Everyone has to do their part, practices have start

on time, trips have to be scheduled, dues have to be paid. Everyone has a job to

do.

- 52 -

In addition to Kleiber’s stance on more participant-centered sport, such statements also closely adhere to the concepts of manning theory (Barker & Gump, 1964). Manning theory suggests that an “undermanned” environment is one in which the optimal number of people to help the environment function are not available. In this case, research has showed that individuals in such an environment are highly invested in tasks, feel a great sense of importance, are more tolerance of others’ personal idiosyncrasies, and are more likely to take on more roles (Barker & Gump, 1964; Wicker, 1968; 1979). By the very nature of the sport club system, this system is more likely than the varsity system to create an undermanned environment. This may explain why sport club participants were more likely to take on Leadership Opportunities and serve as an auspice for future sport design, which would promote deregulation and informalization of sport in order to ultimately produce a great sense of community.

At this point, it is difficult to determine if the Leadership Opportunities themselves or simply the undermanned environment lead to the feelings of a sense of community. Yet, it is clear that university sport administrators, in particular, should consider the significance of having Leadership Opportunities available to all the participants, such that they might experience the benefits of a sense of community.

If there is a renewed interest in the play values of sport, in the immediate

experience, the relationships, and the process instead of so completely in winning

and losing, and if control is substantially returned to the participants, the potential

of sport for personal transformation and community building can conceivably be

restored. (Kleiber, 1983, p. 91)

- 53 -

Competition as an important factor influencing a sense of community was also consistent with previous findings. First, Competition can be related to Integration and

Fulfillment of Needs that was observed in previous sense of community literature

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The participants asserted that their desire to compete and improve their performance was a primary reason for seeking out community. Hence,

Competition aspect was important community feature that provided the resources and fulfilled a need for the participants. Second, scholars have demonstrated that

Competition is often the driving force causing individuals to join sport leagues, yet also contributions to conflicts that often lead individuals to disengage in sport (see Chalip &

Scott, 2005 and Roberts & Chick, 1984). So previous literature does lend further credence to the findings related to Competition.

Competition and the gender differences (specifically that Competition positively impacted a sense of community for males and negatively for females) that emerged from the data were also consistent with previous findings. Specifically, the results of this study supported Pretty and McCarthy’s (1991) sense of community research in a corporate setting that suggested that gender differences may exist in terms of how Competition impacted a sense of community. The fact that Competition varied by gender is either due to innate biological tendencies of the different genders (see Knight, 2002) or, more likely, is a result of the socialization process. That is, males and females are typically socialized differently and therefore act according to the norms and values that are transmitted to them as being gender appropriate (see Dixon, Warner, & Bruening, 2008; Gneezy &

Rustichini, 2004). This rationale for the gender differences that emerged in this study

- 54 - regarding Competition are supported by Gneezy, Leonard, and List’s (2006) experimental study, which revealed that competitiveness observed between males and females varied based on the environment and cultural setting. This suggests that the gender differences that emerged related to Competition among the participants are likely an artifact of

American cultural norms and values as they relate to gender and sport.

Competition (and the gender differences) was also found in the Warner and

Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) study as a factor contributing to varsity athletes’ sense of community. However, a noteworthy difference was that the sport club participants mentioned both internal and external rivalries, whereas the varsity athletes

(both males and females) tended to view Competition solely in terms of the internal competition that existed. That is, sport club participants highlighted both the rivalries within their team and against other universities’ sport clubs. In contrast, the varsity participants focused more on the inter-team rivalries and competition. This difference could likely be explained by the mere presence of athletic scholarships at the varsity level. Without a strong financial stake tied to athletic participation and success, internal and external competition may become equally prominent for sport club athletes.

However, within the varsity model, athletic scholarships are competitive. Athletic scholarships are not always guaranteed for four years, and although there are NCAA regulations in place to protect varsity athletes, Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see

Appendix F) work has demonstrated a fear still exists among athletes that their funding could be taken away. This may explain why internal competition was more prominent among varsity athletes. Considering the gender differences that were found in terms of

- 55 - how Competition impacted a sense of community, this nuance between the different intercollegiate sport system structures should be further explored. In terms of

Competition, the varsity model maybe fostering a sense of community for males, but not for females. Further exploration of this factor may provide critical insight into the retention of female athletes.

The plethora of evidence regarding Competition and its relationship to a sense of community also surfaces a meaningful underlying issue that should be further considered.

The sheer pervasiveness of Competition needs to be viewed from the cultural context in which the data emerged. Correspondingly, it also should be considered as a less favorable alternative to more beneficial “cooperation”. That is, the cultural context may explain why Competition was frequently mentioned in lieu of cooperation, which has been showed to be a more lucrative means of foster social rewards. This theoretical debate regarding competition versus cooperation has received considerable attention from researchers (c.f. Kohn, 1992). In most instances, researchers have demonstrated that competition leads to hostility, aggression, and is detrimental to a community (Orlick,

1978, 1981; Sherif, 1958, 1976; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). In contrast, cooperative environments have been shown produce more social rewards (Johnson & Johnson, 1989,

1999; Kohn, 1992; Madsen, 1971; Orlick, 1978, 1981), greater achievement, and productivity (Duetsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999; Kohn, 1992).

Researchers should continue to explore and challenge the results of this study. Although the participants clearly positioned Competition as an important mechanism that impacted sense of community, the cultural biases and socialization of the participants likely

- 56 - impacted these results. Ultimately, the cooperation involved in competing could be fostering a sense of community, but due to the cultural context this could have been overlooked. This issue will be further discussed in the ensuing chapters, as it clearly arises as a central factor related to a sense of community, and has implications for future research that extend well beyond this study.

Implications and Conclusions

This portion of the study contributes to both practice and theory in a number ways. First in terms of practice, sport on university campuses will continue to face the challenges of justifying its existence especially when universities are faced with budget cuts. This inquiry considered the historical significance and rationale of sport on university campuses (see Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Chu, 1989; Smith, 1988). In doing so, it highlighted one of the most important justifications of sport on university campuses—to create a sense of community for its participants. By focusing on how and when a sense of community is experienced for university sport participants this study provides practical information for administrators that will aid in justifying and legitimatizing the importance of sport on campuses.

In many cases, sport is already creating a sense of community for its participants and the structures are in place to continue to do so. These interviews, however, highlighted that Common Interest, Leadership Opportunities, Amateurism/Voluntary

Activity, and Competition were the most salient factors that impacted SOC for sport club participants on university campuses. Administrators need to be aware of these factors so that they can continue to encourage participants appropriately and assist in structuring

- 57 - sport in such a manner that these components are present. For example, it was clear that

Leadership Opportunities was key in creating a sense of community. Consequently, when structuring sport programs, administrators need to realize the value of creating

Leadership Opportunities for all of their participants, not just a few. Again, simply giving the participants control in directing their experience was essential to creating a sense of community. Manning theory and the potential benefits of undermanning should also be considered. For example, having a voice in the hiring of coaches, directing fundraisers, and organizing travel were just some of the Leadership Opportunities that resonated with the participants in terms of fostering a sense of community. All of these tasks would likely not have be available for the participants to take part in if an overmanned environment, such as that often present within the varsity model, was in place.

To give another example, the data related to Competition also has many practical applications. This study supported that internal competition negatively impacted sense of community for female participants, but positively impacted sense of community for male participants. Thus, a focus on personal goals and the mastering of skills, rather than creating inter-team rivalries that pit teammates against one another, would be most beneficial for enhancing the sense of community for females. In contrast such inter-team rivalries would likely improve the sense of community for male participants. Overall, it was obvious that Competition played a key role in creating a community, as participants expected that it served and fulfilled a need for them to excel in terms of performance.

The literature related to cooperation versus competition, in light of the cultural context in

- 58 - which this study took place, should be considered though. This body of work recommends that a balance between cooperation and competition would be most beneficial for the participants. Overall, the practical implications of this study are clear, knowing what and how a sense of community is created provides administrators with the necessary knowledge that will aid in fostering a sense of community for participants.

And finally, this portion of the study contributed to sense of community and sport management theory. First, it challenged the foundational sense of community theory originally posited by McMillan and Chavis (1986). Although their sense of community theory continues to be widely accepted and acknowledged in the community psychology literature (Chipuer & Pretty, 1999), the data presented here suggests that Competition and

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity are worthy of future consideration and exploration when evaluating sense of community. Both of these components were not highlighted and only somewhat alluded to in McMillan and Chavis’ seminal work. The data suggest that these two components should be probed when evaluating sense of community in other settings.

Second, based on this study and Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) previous work it is likely that Competition and Leadership Opportunities would certainly be two considerable components of a more specific sport and sense of community theory.

This nascent line of research represents a great opportunity for researchers and administrators. Rather than relying on the assumption that sport serendipitously creates community, this portion of the study challenges that assertion. In doing so, it revealed four factors that contribute to creating a sense of community for sport club participants and provided evidence on how the sport participant experience might be enhanced so that

- 59 - participants might experience the many life quality enhancing benefits of a sense of community.

Considering the noteworthy decline in social connectedness and increase in social isolation both on campus and in American society in general (McPherson, et al., 2006;

Putnam, 2000), this research is also timely in that it provides a great opportunity for sport managers to lead the way in seeing that these trends are reversed. Through understanding how and when a sense of community is created in a sport context, sport managers can positively impact the lives of participants by designing sport environments that cultivate a sense of community. In an effort to maximize the potential benefit of intercollegiate sport on university campuses, research should continue to challenge the existing sense of community theories and build upon this work.

- 60 -

Chapter 4

Comparing the Club and Varsity Experience (Phase II)

This second study or Phase II utilized the results gathered from Phase I (Chapter

3) and the data collected from Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) work on sense of community among varsity athletes with the purpose of examining the similarities and differences in sense of community between the two sport contexts while also inquiring about outcomes of sense of community in each context. Among the sport club participants the most critical components for creating a sense of community were

Common Interest, Leadership Opportunities, Amateurism/Voluntary Activity, and

Competition, while the varsity athletes concluded that Administrative Consideration,

Leadership Opportunities, Equality in Administrative Decisions, Competition, and Social

Spaces were the most critical factor for creating a sense of community. These results were then used to guide the focus groups.

Method

In order to provide triangulation and external comparisons of the experiences in both contexts, the results from both studies were presented to focus groups consisting of varsity and sport club athletes. Such triangulation or use of multiple methods to capture data is appropriate for a grounded theory research inquiry because it allows for the comparing and contrasting of the results of different methods, while also providing a cross-data validity check (Patton, 1999). Similar to the interviews, a symbolic interactionism framework in the design and instrumentation of the focus groups allowed the researcher to better understand the social processes as the participants understand

- 61 - them, to learn about their social worlds, and to explore the things that are meaningful to them in producing a sense of community (Chenitz & Swanson, 1986). Blumer (1969) advocated for such a method:

A small number of such individuals [that are acute observers and well informed

on the sphere being investigated], brought together as a discussion and resource

group, is more valuable many times over than any representative sample. Such a

group, discussing collectively their sphere of life and probing into it as they meet

one another’s disagreements, will do more to lift the veils covering the sphere of

life than any other device that I know. (p. 41)

Focus groups by their very nature place more emphasis on the collective group rather than the individual. Therefore, the participants may have been more likely to express ideas and expand upon ideas expressed by others within the group (Frey & Fontana,

1993; Madriz, 2000).

Focus groups and such triangulation methodologies have been also specifically cited to be meaningful in advancing sport management research. Inglis (1992) stated:

Focus groups should be used in situations where listening to and understanding

people’s experiences and perspectives will add to the meaning and/or action that

may result from such research. This will enable valid interpretations that address

the needs of the people we are committed to serve. (p. 177)

This supplemental data further aided the researcher in generating and discovering theory that advances and better explains the contingencies of sense of community in a sport context (Glaser, 1978).

- 62 -

Instrument

The question guide for the focus groups was developed from and centered on the results from the previous sense of community and sport studies (i.e., Phase I and Warner

& Dixon, in review). An emphasis was also placed on previous sense of community and university studies (e.g., Deneui, 2003; Lounsbury & Deneui, 1995; McCarthy et al.,

1990; Pretty, 1990) and sense of community and other sport studies (e.g., Lyon &

Dionigi, 2007; Warner & Dixon, in review). The question guide for the focus groups can be found in Appendix E. During the focus groups a greater consideration was also placed on the similarities and differences between sport system structures and contingencies and the potential outcomes of a sense of community. “In terms of data collection, systems cannot be interviewed; individuals can, and they, as part of social systems, from groups to organizations, have experiences that reflect the system” (Luschen, 1986, p. 150).

Thus, the focus groups were conducted in a way so that pertinent information on the sport systems was probed and evaluated. The question guide was reviewed for face and content validity by a panel of experts in qualitative research, community studies, and sport management research.

Participants

A total of 39 participants took part in eight different focus group sessions (see

Tables 2 and 3). These participants represented 5 universities and 19 sports. Four of the focus groups were conducted with a total of 19 current sport club participants (6 females,

13 males) and four focus groups with a total of 20 current varsity athletes (11 females, 9 males). All of the focus groups consisted of 3-6 participants who were active participants

- 63 - in their sport and currently enrolled at their respective institutions. As a general rule researchers usually aim at conducting three to five focus group sessions with 6 to 10 participants per group (Morgan, 1997). However, because the participants had a high level of involvement with the research topic the smaller sized focus groups were more suitable. The eight smaller sized focus group interviews allowed the researcher to gain “a clear sense of each participant’s reaction to a topic” (Morgan, 1997, p. 42).

Procedure

Participants were recruited through the directors of the sport club programs and athletic department personnel at a variety of universities across the United States. In- person digitally audio-recorded focus groups were then conducted with those that indicated that they were willing to participate and able to attend the focus group session being held on their respective campuses. The focus groups were held at convenient campus locations. The location of the focus groups included such on-campus locations as meeting rooms in the student union, research labs, and athletic and campus recreation departmental conference rooms. Prior to the start of the focus groups participants were asked for their voluntary written consent (see Appendix B). Demographic information was also collected at this time (see Appendix C and D). The primary researcher led six of the eight focus groups, moderated the ensuing discussion, and probed when necessary.

The remaining two focus groups were led by an independent researcher with the primary researcher present and observing. All focus group sessions lasted 1 to 1.5 hours.

Data Analysis

- 64 -

The procedure for analyzing focus group data is similar to that of analyzing any kind of qualitative data (Morgan, 1997). The major difference with focus group data is the level of analysis at which the researcher chooses to code. That is, focus group data can be coded at the individual and/or group level. Considering that the focus groups were conducted after extensive individual one-on-one interviews, the data was primarily coded at the group level (varsity or sport club). After the common themes that occurred within the varsity athlete groups and the sport club groups were determined, this data was then compared across groups. The intent of the focus groups was not to infer meaning or to make broad generalizations, but rather to clarify and better understand sense of community in a particular sport setting (Krueger & Casey, 2008). Therefore, the coding and analysis were conducted in such a way that the similarities and differences between the sport contexts were elucidated.

Results

The four varsity athlete and four sport club focus groups were first presented with diagrams of their respective sense of community models (see Figures 1 and 2). The results of the focus groups expounded the similarities and differences in creating a sense of community and explored perceived outcomes (see Tables 4 and 5). The focus groups responded that the sense of community model consisting of Administrative

Consideration, Leadership Opportunities, Equality in Administrative Decisions,

Competition, and Social Spaces accurately depicted the mechanisms that created a sense of community for varsity athletes, while Common Interest, Leadership Opportunities,

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity, and Competition were the most critical components for

- 65 - sport club athletes. “There is nothing I would add or subtract” (Hanna, varsity, volleyball) and “Yeah, it really does capture my experience. Anything I was going to say is already written down” (Maya, club, equestrian) summed up the consensus of the eight focus groups when viewing their respective sense of community models. From a methodological standpoint, this provided a cross-data validation check that further verified the results of Phase I and Warner and Dixon’s (in review; see Appendix F) work.

Thus, by triangulating the data, “researchers obtain a better, more substantive picture of reality; a richer, more complete array of symbols and theoretical concepts; and a means of verifying many of these elements” (Berg, 2004, p. 5).

After the focus groups viewed their respective sense of community models and were given a chance to further explain or expound upon any of the mechanisms, they were then presented within the equivalent sense of community model for the other sport structure. The focus group members then discussed the similarities and differences in each sense of community model. Interestingly, when the focus group members viewed the sense of community model from the other sport structure they were able to compare and contrast the two settings. In doing so the applicability of several of the factors from the other setting that they previously had not deemed important was highlighted. Thus, this indicated the factors revealed in the previous work (i.e., Phase II and Warner &

Dixon, in review) were probably also underlying factors regardless of the sport context; however, the saliency of the factors in fostering a sense of community varied and was context dependent (see Table 4).

Similarities

- 66 -

Leadership Opportunities. One of the two factors that appeared in both models was Leadership Opportunities. Leadership Opportunities seemed to provide a sense of ownership, purpose, accountability, and responsibility that, if present, contributed to creating a sense of community. Although it was evident in both models, it manifested itself differently in the two sport structures.

Well with varsity there is leadership within the team, you know the person you

look to to step up on the court or at practice. With sport clubs we are running

everything ourselves, so you are learning all the logistics of running a team more

so than just game strategy of the sport itself. Kind of the all the things that go

along with it that a coach or a manager might be doing, we do. (Jamal, club,

gymnastics)

While Leadership Opportunities was salient in both models it seemed to be a stronger factor in contributing to a sense of community among the sport club participants. As

Jamal highlighted, this is likely due to sport club athletes having more leadership opportunities, which are required for the club to function, built into their sport system.

“There is more responsibility on us. It makes us grow up, those are the kind of skills you want to have. You want to be responsible and dedicated to something bigger than yourself,” Annette (club, volleyball) added. Peyton (club, cross country) then explained:

I think being a club athlete gives you more leadership. You’ll get less prestige

and notoriety then being a leader on a NCAA (varsity) team. Club sports have to

do so much more--you have to budgets, you have to order uniforms, and you have

- 67 -

to get all this stuff together. And if you’re a varsity athlete with a coach and a

million dollar budget, you don’t really have to do that.

It’s all done for you. (Abe, club, lacrosse)

Sure you’re encouraging your teammates, but you aren’t involved in the day-to-

day, the unglamorous side of sport. (Peyton, club, cross country)

From these comments, it is evident that Leadership Opportunities are highly salient in the club context. This context provides ample opportunities for leadership and involvement both on and off the field.

While Leadership Opportunities within the team may not have been as evident, they were still key in creating a sense of community within the varsity structure. Carla

(varsity, soccer) explained, “How leadership roles are determined and how important that is, operates very differently on every team.” For example, Bianca (varsity, soccer) discussed the role of Leadership Opportunities on her team:

I know our coach, focuses on making us better, but he makes sure we’re

accountable and take on those leadership roles. He’ll be like, ‘okay, you guys

figured it out and be here at this time’. It’s not like he’ll leave us stranded, but he

is trying to build us as a stronger unit. I think that is really important, it builds

those connections and gets everyone on the same page.

Brent (varsity, baseball), however, added that Leadership Opportunities was not necessarily a factor for him, but noted the value of it for others:

- 68 -

I can see though how that can be important to some people. Personally, it’s not all

that important to me. But there are definitely some guys on our team that step up

and doing everything. They are constantly volunteering for stuff and seeking out

those leadership roles and opportunities. I can see how it could build community

for some. It’s just not really in my personality.

Carla (varsity, soccer) went on to address the Leadership Opportunities outside of sport, which provided a sense of purpose and responsibility that ultimately helped build community.

There are ton of volunteer opportunities here for us. And it definitely turns into

more of a social thing; I’ve never had any problem getting people involved in any

volunteer activities. So it’s definitely a big part of the student-athlete community

here.

Alexandra (varsity, rowing) then elaborated on why these Leadership Opportunities were important. “I feel like it connects athletics with the actual external community. It’s like, we can be a force in this area to do good things.” Tucker (varsity, tennis) also explained why these leadership opportunities are important, “And whenever you are working together towards a common goal, I feel like that always strengthens your sense of community.”

Although the importance and emphasis that was placed on Leadership

Opportunities slightly varied between the sport structures, it was clear that for the most part Leadership Opportunities was a critical component to fostering a sense of community in a sport setting. This component is somewhat parallel to Influence, which

- 69 - was identified as a factor in McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) sense of community theory.

Influence was bidirectional in that it was comprised of a member being empowered by the group and also feeling empowered to influence the group and its direction.

Furthermore, this work also supports that individuals have a greater attraction to communities in which they are influential. This was also true in the sport club model, where the Leadership Opportunities had a cyclic nature to them. The more an individual felt part of a community the more likely they were to take on a leadership role; consequently, then taking on a leadership role further strengthened their sense of community and made them feel more a part of the community.

Competition. The other factor that was identified as a key contributor to a sense of community for the participants in both sport structures was Competition. And in general,

Competition was moderated by gender. That is, for the most part males indicated that the mutual respect that developed from competing enhanced a sense of community for them, while females asserted that internal Competition detracted from their sense of community. Overall, the findings related Competition are further supported in the sport literature. Researchers have demonstrated that competition drives individuals to participate in sport communities, while concomitantly suggesting it also cause conflicts that result in them leave the communities as well (Chalip & Scott, 2005; Roberts &

Chick, 1984). The focus group members also reiterated the significance of Competition in both sense of community models and how it could “make or break” (Bianca, varsity, soccer) a community:

- 70 -

There is nothing I would add or take any way [from the sense of community model]; I would just say the Competition aspect at least for my club I think is the most important. The sense of community doubles or triples when we go to competitions because we all have a similar goal we are trying to obtain while being dependent and interdependent on one another. (Darren, club, fencing)

I think there is good competition and bad competition. It is when you stop competing to try and get better and you start competing to really try and beat the other person. That can really start hurting a community. (Ray, varsity, basketball)

The competition aspect stands out to me. That is a huge aspect for me, there is something about being around a group of guys who are all working hard and trying to do their best. We all can appreciate and respect the intensity and effort that you put in each day. (Brent, varsity, baseball)

It kind of funny because this [lack of community] is something I’ve been struggling with a lot, because we aren’t a really really competitive club sport team. It’s open to anyone. We don’t hold tryouts or anything, so you have those who haven’t played before and want to try and pick it up, and you have people who have been playing since they were four or five. So that [Competition] is some contributing factor; I just feel like I haven’t felt a sense of community and that is what I’ve been struggling with all year. (Ruben, club, racquetball)

- 71 -

Competition is a big aspect of the community, but not in a very beneficial way.

Equestrian is a very competitive sport and we are competitive and I feel like it

kind of breaks that community aspect. Whenever we go to horse shows you are

competing against your team members. It’s competitive against the other teams,

as well as within the team. It’s an important aspect of the team, but doesn’t

contribute to a sense of community for us. (Maya, club, equestrian)

During the ensuing discussions regarding Competition, the participants also emphasized and explained the gender differences that were observed in the sense of community models. Many of male participants asserted Competition created a mutual respect and often was the driving force in cultivating a sense of community.

Competition I think adds to the sense of community with most guys. Even if there

is competition within the community, afterwards any grudges or anything that

happened on the field are just left there. They are not carried back into other

aspects of life. So if anything does happen it is just left out there and part of the

competition. I think that mutual understanding adds to the sense of community.

(Steve, club, lacrosse)

Women are scrutinized more for their actions as well, and they have to overcome

certain stereotypes. They don’t want to express too much competitiveness

because it is a like a masculine trait or it has been viewed as a masculine trait for

most of history. But for guys and for me personally, when I get to know someone

- 72 -

I start to become even more competitive with them. Sometimes I even play better

in practices than in games because of that. (Malcolm, varsity, football)

It comes naturally to guys because we have all this testosterone and we like the

thrill of the competition. We like fighting, that is how we’ve evolved. We’ve

always been tough competitors. If we get beat up, we want to get back up and

keep fighting. (Mason, varsity, cross country)

While the males acknowledged Competition as a central factor to fostering community for them, females, especially at the varsity level, felt Competition detracted from a sense of community.

Competition detracts in girls’ sports, I definitely saw that. You can even see it at

practice. There are the people who are starters and play a lot and then the people

who don’t. I think it’s just kind of natural that these people don’t like these other

people because they are starters. I feel like people on our team aren’t willing to

look at themselves, so they look at what everyone else is doing wrong. It just

turns into a gigantic bitch fest, and it’s just not fun at all. (Lynn, varsity, soccer)

In my experience I would say this (sense of community model) is probably right

in line with the idea that girls don’t like the competition. I think my coaches are

trying to do new things, and they started making everything a competition this

year. At first we thought it was going to work and we were like this is kind of

cool, but then it kind of broke us down as a team throughout the year. A lot of

- 73 -

people getting frustrated like ‘I’m never winning so I’m never going to start’. It

just added negativity to everything. And I think that does affect the sense of

community because there started to be little groups within our team and that kind

of cut off how everyone was interacting together. (Hanna, varsity, volleyball)

I feel like on our team there is a lot of competition between girls for position. Like

it’s not good competition—it’s bad competition. I mean we do have some good

competition, but a lot of it is negative and it detracts. I feel like guys are more

accepting if they know that there is someone in a position that is better than them.

They are going to work harder to get better, and when they realize ‘yes, that

person is really better than me’ than they (males) are more okay with it than girls

are. Girls are kind of in denial about whether or not they are better, so they just

start drama. (Laura, varsity, soccer)

The females admittedly confirmed, “Guys just let go of things easier. They won’t take things on a personal level, where as I feel like with most girls they do” (Erica, varsity,

Golf) and that “competition on our team brings out the worst” (Tanya, varsity, soccer).

While the data supported that Competition generally detracts from a sense of community for females, the female participants also were quick to point out they were not opposed to Competition, and could see its potential value for improving team performance. “If we didn’t like competition, we wouldn’t be at this level…but there is that line” (Karen, varsity, soccer). Laura (varsity, soccer) then summarized that, “A lot of athletes, especially at this level, thrive on competition. But the difference with guys

- 74 - and girls is that girls take it outside of the sport and that just destroys the community the second that happens.”

Within the sport club structure this gender difference with Competition generally held true, however, it was not as prominent of an issue among the females. In most cases the sport club participants felt that any negative influence of Competition on a sense of community could have been resolved if an objective coach rather than a player-coach was present.

I know when we do have tournaments everyone gets really really mean to each

other, rude, and yells to each other. We don’t have a coach so people tell each

other what to do. I think a lot of that would be taken away if we did have a coach,

like one voice. (Jasmine, club, waterpolo)

We had that our first semester too when we didn’t have a coach. We tried to be

really really objective and coach, but people don’t want to hear criticism from

their peers. It’s better if a coach yells at them, not girls their own age. So this

year we got a coach and it got a lot better. (Annette, club, volleyball)

Jamal (club, gymnastics) was also able to add insight based on his experience on a co-ed sport club. “With the guys, it will be like ‘hey, you need to fix this’. And they are like

‘okay’, but if a guy walks over and says that same thing to a girl she’ll be like ‘what do you know?’”

Interestingly, Lambert and Hopkins’ (1995) sense of community study in the workplace indicated that informal support was more significant in explaining sense of

- 75 - community for men, while formal support was more important to sense of community for women. This current study further supported this claim. In a player-coach directed sport club this “formal support,” especially as it pertained to Competition, was generally lacking and this detracted from a sense of community. Based on the sport club data it seemed as though a more formalized coaching structure may have been able to rectify any negative impact Competition might have had on a sense of community. In fact, one female participant on a highly success varsity team shared:

I’ve had a very opposite experience related to competition. I don’t know how

much you know about our coach, but we basically always argue the opposite--

that competition is the center of our community. We go at each other everyday in

practice and they post the results for everything. And there is a winner and loser

in everything, even things that there probably can’t even logically be a winner in.

I think and know we are a little bit of an anomaly, but absolutely competition

drives our community. I never experienced anything like this anywhere. This is

really the only place I ever have. Growing up it is really like how others have

said; everyone wants to be competitive, but there is also a certain stigma about

being the girl who is going to hard all the time. You know like, ‘why is she doing

that, she is making all of us look bad’ kind of thing. And that is always our

coaches’ tag line--to unite all the people who make everyone look bad.

While prefacing that her experiences are somewhat unique and anomalous, this varsity participant demonstrated that the detrimental effects of Competition on a sense of community for females specifically, may be nullified with an apt formal support system.

- 76 -

Dixon’s (2009) work also points to social support being a key factor in female physical activity retention, thus, this provides further evidence that if a formal support system may help quell the negative effects of Competition. Additionally, the introduction of superordinate goals or goals that require the coordination of others to accomplish a task have also been demonstrated to reverse the negative repercussions that Competition can yield (see Sherif & Sherif, 1953; Sherif et al., 1961).

Competition and its impact on a sense of community was evident in both models, however, it is likely that the ease of entry and exit into the sport club systems could also explain why Competition was not as strongly asserted by the sport club athletes. If the

Competition was so intense that it would detract from a sense of community, it is likely that participants would not have been motivated to continue to participate. Competition was a positively contributing factor for male sport club participants, yet they also acknowledged the intensity of it was not the same as a varsity athlete might experience.

Abe (club, lacrosse) explained, “We enjoy the competition aspect of sport. Just because you play club, it doesn’t mean you don’t care who wins or loses. It just means you don’t go home and go into a deep depression because you lost.” Darren then further expanded on this:

I’m a super competitive person. I have to win everything, but at the same time I’m

not going to let this be the ‘end all be all’ if I lose. I guess that is the appeal of a

club sport over a varsity sport, at least to me anyways. It’s like ‘hey, if I lose—

dang’ and that is it.

On varsity side, this difference was also acknowledged:

- 77 -

I just feel like it is so different for them [sport club athletes], I mean it’s just

relaxed and there is no pressure. It’s just for fun. Our priorities are different, I

mean we are there to compete and win. Not that they don’t want to win, it’s just

different. (Brent, varsity, baseball)

This seeming varying difference in the perceived level of competition is noteworthy because an abundance of literature supports that cooperation rather than competition tends to nurture greater social rewards (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999; Kohn, 1992;

Madsen, 1971; Orlick, 1978, 1981; Sherif, 1958, 1976). Yet again, it was clear that

Competition initially served as an important aspect that led to individuals wanting to join the community (Chalip & Scott, 2005; Roberts & Chick, 1984), therefore, this factor should be carefully balanced and continued to be explored.

To summarize, Competition was a primary factor that influenced sense of community in both the sport club and varsity sport structures. Due to the differing expectations and pressure that seemed to have been present in the varsity structure,

Competition and its positive and negative influence on a sense of community was slightly more prominent. The gender differences related to Competition were consistent with previous findings (e.g., Lambert & Hopkins, 1995; Pretty & McCarthy, 1991; Warner &

Dixon, in review), but the focus group data was able to pinpoint the importance of formal support versus informal support as it relates to any observable gender differences in

Competition. In other words, negative influence from Competition might be tempered with a formal support structure. Furthermore, the introduction of superordinate goals and promoting cooperation as opposed to competition might also prove to be valuable

- 78 - avenues for dealing with the tensions between competition and cooperation related to sense of community.

Differences

The differences between the varsity and sport club sense of community models were the presence of Equality in Administrative Decisions, Administrative Consideration, and Social Spaces in the varsity model, while the sport club added Common Interest and

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity. These elements impacted SOC regardless of context; however, there was a noticeable difference in the saliency of the factors and their contribution to SOC in the two contexts. In other words, the factors that did not initially appear in the respective sense of community models had more of an underlying influence in the opposing sport structure, and therefore did not initially emerge because they were not as salient. That is, these factors still influenced SOC, they were just not as prominent or observable perhaps due to the specific sport structure contingencies.

Equality in Administrative Decisions. The varsity athletes agreed that Equality in

Administrative Decisions, which was comprised of department level decisions that demonstrated support for all the teams and the program as a whole (as opposed to individual athletes), impacted SOC. In most cases, the varsity athletes during the focus groups admitted to inequalities being “annoying” (Carla, varsity, soccer), leading to

“resentment” (Evan, varsity, basketball) and creating an “unspoken tension” (Maxwell, varsity, soccer) and therefore, had the potential to negatively impact their sense of community. For the most part though, the varsity athletes were accepting of any inequalities.

- 79 -

For a long time our only space was a small room with little ventilation, it was

unsafe. Now we have space in the new indoor facility, but we get kicked out for

almost everything. So it is kind of hard. We have our campus boathouse without

a bathroom, but our equipment is really expensive. It’s like ‘well, do you want a

bathroom or a boat?’ We’re like, ‘we want the boat.’ You win some and lose

some, but we’ve accepted it. It’s depressing, but we’ve accepted it. (Alexandra,

varsity, rowing)

With equality, I’ve talked to a lot of women’s basketball players and they think it

isn’t equal. I don’t see it much, because I’m on the men’s basketball team. But

I’ve heard people say, ‘oh yeah basketball gets what they want.’ (Evan varsity,

basketball)

Well I’m from Texas so I saw that with my high school football team, so I came

here because I felt like that. The high school would be building a new football

stadium and we had the same gym since the school was open back in the 70’s. So

coming here with no football team, I was kind of hoping it was my turn to get

some of the stuff and recognition other than always being second. So I do kind of

see it a little bit here. (Caleb, varsity, basketball)

When the sport club focus groups spoke of Equality in Administrative Decisions their focus was on the student-leadership decisions of club, which is not surprising considering the clubs are student-led and this was their relevant “administration.” Sport

- 80 - club athletes also acknowledged that the negative impact inequalities could have on SOC, however, this was not as relevant to them. This is most likely due the sport club structure having low barriers to entry and exit. Due to the administrative power resting in the student participants’ hands, any inequalities were quickly resolved or participants would simply leave or exit the sport club program. It was also clear that the selection of the right leaders was critical to ensuring participants felt that fair and just decisions were being made. “You have to have good leaders. It’s all about choosing the right leader,” said Annette (club, volleyball). Jamal (club, gymnastics) then added, “You have to pick good leader. If you pick a leader and they aren’t good, we have to move them out. There is a lot of tough love; you have to make the right decisions.” Being able to make these

“right decisions” in choosing their leaders helped further elucidate why Equality in

Administrative Decisions was likely an underlying factor.

It seemed as though under the less formalized sport club system any inequalities were quickly resolved within the club. Again, if inequalities are left unresolved and the players are not satisfied with club level decisions then the chance for continued participation in that sport is put at risk. In other words, there is a strong incentive for consensus reaching and careful negotiation of terms in which the club operates because the club’s very existence depends on it.

It is a lot more relaxed environment in club sports. And governing themselves, it

holds them accountable for themselves—there’s no punishment when you miss. I

know our club lacrosse team here cancelled their entire season because they

couldn’t get enough involvement. I’m sure if the [varsity] football team cancelled

- 81 -

their season there would be a big commotion about that. (Ray, varsity, basketball)

This creates an extra incentive to resolve inequalities in the less formalized sport club structure. Interestingly, this is idea is further supported in youth sport literature. In this setting Coakley (1994) describes formalized sport (e.g., little league) as “rule-centered,” while informal sport (e.g., pick-up or backyard baseball) is “action-centered.” This

“action-centered” description means that maintaining the action of playing the sport depends on the players’ ability to reach group decisions and manage the relationships within the group. In the current study sport clubs operate in a more informal manner and based on the data are “action-centered.” It can be surmised that due to an “action- centered” more informal orientation of sport clubs, a sense of community may be even more important because of the added incentive to act in a way that is beneficial to the community (in order to maintain the ability for everyone to continue to play). Kleiber’s

(1983) work also supports this notion that the maintaining of the social structure and/or social relationships to continue in an activity, is seemingly vital to enhancing a sense of community for participants. And further he pointed out that organizational control and more formalized sport may diminish the relationships between players. In other words, one could posit that lack of organizational control and lack of formalization promotes cooperation and the building of stable social relationships so that an activity can be self- sustaining.

Administrative Consideration. Another factor that was initially only observed in the varsity model was Administrative Consideration. This factor that involved the care, concern, and intentionality of coaches, athletics and university personnel, clearly

- 82 - contributed to a sense of community for varsity athletes. However, it was not something the sport club athletes initially highlighted. The varsity athletes, though, pinpointed it as a positive and key attribute in creating a sense of community.

You go to college and you are supposed to learn all these things on your own. It

isn’t really like that for us. We still have all these different people who care about

us. It’s your first time you’re really away from you family. I mean when you are

sick, those [athletics administrators] are the people who are going to take care of

you. And the people in the academic center, I know for a lot of guys that have to

go there all the time it almost creates another community because those people—

it’s their job to care and see that you succeed. It makes a difference in the

community, you feel supported. (Brent, varsity, baseball)

I mean I know players who call the athletic trainers when they are sick before

they call their moms. You feel supported, and we know our sport isn’t everything

and it’s the relationships that you build that really make a difference. (Laura,

varsity, soccer)

Conversely, sport club athletes rallied around the lack of Administrative

Consideration that they received from university personnel. Instead, since they were the sport leaders themselves, and since it seemed the university administration did not care about them, they provided their own Administrative Consideration. This factor, therefore, manifested itself differently within the sport club model. In the sport club

- 83 - context, the participants had to care about one another. Roland (club, ultimate and

Aussie rules) explained:

Well for us, interestingly enough I think the lack of Administrative Consideration

for all of club sports gives us a sense of belonging and community. Like no one

cares about you, but you care a lot about it. No one else cares about you; you have

to care about each other.

The sport club focus group members also spoke of how the sport club athletes themselves were administrators.

Yeah, kind of like if you want something to happen you have to push it through

yourself. You have to work together to get things done. There is not necessarily

someone who is rallying for club tennis all the time or any of the respective

sports; we have to do it for ourselves. (Titus, club, tennis)

If you want to get anything done you have to go through your team members. To

get money or coordinate things, to make anything happen you need to go through

them. (Maya, club, equestrian)

Despite Administrative Consideration not being a salient factor in the creation of

SOC for sport club athletes, it was still an underlying component of building SOC. It just manifested itself differently in the sport club model. For varsity athletes the athletics department administrators were fundamental in fostering Administrative Consideration, while the sport club participants depended more on one another for this. Furthermore, the fact that this did not initially seem to be a factor for creating a sense of community for

- 84 - sport club athletes indicated that it maybe a more taken-for-granted factor. That is, sport club members expect Administrative Consideration from their teammates and/or club leaders, so it really only becomes apparent when it is absent. Due to the contextual contingencies of the sport club structure, specifically that it offers little external reward,

Administrative Consideration is likely a key factor in retaining sport club participants, and if it is not present the club will likely not be able to sustain itself (cf. Kano,

Nobuhiko, Takahashi, & Shinichi, 1984).

Social Spaces. Another factor that was vital in fostering a sense of community for varsity athletes, yet it was not as integral of a factor among the sport club athletes was

Social Spaces. For the varsity athletes, the athletic arena was summarized as being a

“sacred space” (Alexandra, varsity, rowing) where you are to “focus on what your coach is asking you to do” (Hanna, varsity, volleyball). Among the varsity athletes this competition space was also viewed to be parallel to the workplace. As Maxwell (varsity, soccer) stated, “soccer is my job.” As a result Social Spaces outside of this athletic or competition arena were especially important within the varsity sport structure for creating a sense of community. When asked why meeting in the dining hall after practice was important in creating a sense of community for him, Tucker (varsity, tennis) responded,

“It’s the best time of the day; we don’t worry about work or anything.” As this quote demonstrates, in the varsity model where sport is often viewed as work or a job, having

Social Spaces away from that arena were especially important in fostering a sense of community.

- 85 -

The Social Spaces provided an area where varsity athletes felt comfortable and that they were surrounded by others who were “more understanding of the schedule and just willing to help you out because they are going through it too” (Hanna, varsity, volleyball). Along a similar line, Maxwell (varsity, soccer) pointed out that Social

Spaces were even more important to him because at his university “there aren’t a lot of people that are athletically minded,” meaning that he often found himself being looked down upon and uncomfortable because he was an athlete. Other varsity athletes also added insight into the role of Social Spaces in fostering a sense of community.

I know with the soccer team the Social Spaces are a big part of it. You know as

athletes, we all tend to hang out with our own teams off the field just because we

are already spending so much time with each other. We are just sticking with the

norm and what we know. It’s just easier. But I definitely think Social Spaces is a

big part, you’re already spending so much time on the field that it is important to

connect on a deeper level and have fun off the field. (Bianca, varsity, soccer)

For me I spent a lot of time in the training room when I was injured. You can’t

show up for weights or practice and you don’t feel as much a part of that

community with your team. But then when you are in the training room you are

in there with all the people going through the same thing as you. They can support

you and tell you what it is like [being injured]. You can just talk with them, and

even though they are different athletes and not in your sport it kind of makes you

- 86 -

realize that everyone else in every other sport is dealing with the same things are

you are. It helps a lot. (Hanna, varsity, volleyball)

Those Social Spaces are important because it has to be about more than sport.

Yeah, we all love that sport, but we all know our legs may not be the same one

day and its not going to last forever. You have to be able to share something else

with people and really get to know who they are and what they are about. Part of

being human and human nature is that you desire things outside of your sport as

well. I mean sport is the biggest connection that brings us together, but when you

know about each others’ family, or faith, or social life that just makes it makes it

so much stronger. So I when you have positive Social Spaces it make you feel a

lot more bonded with someone. (Laura, varsity, soccer)

Social Spaces created an environment where athletes felt supported, understood, and “in the same boat” (Alexandra, varsity, rowing). This allowed for varsity athletes to experience deeper connections and meaningful interactions that strengthened their sense of community.

In the sport club structure, Social Spaces was definitely an underlying contributor to promoting a sense of community. Interestingly though, it manifested itself differently in that the competition and practice arena (e.g., field, gymnasium, court) was the primary

Social Space. As Ruben (club, Racquetball) clarified, “The common interest in the sport just kind of creates a social space in the lives of the club athletes.”

- 87 -

Although, the sport club athletes did talk about other Social Spaces, Ruben’s comments may help explain why this factor was not mentioned as frequently within the sport club sense of community model. Among the sport clubs this element was more embedded within their experience and therefore, less visible and less frequently mentioned. In other words, due to the differing priorities and the specific time commitment required of the varsity athletes, Social Spaces was a particularly vital factor in creating a sense of community for them. The actual participation in the sport clubs, on the other hand, created and seemed to serve the same function of Social Space for the sport club athletes. When presented with varsity model, the sport club participants felt like there was a social aspect that led to the creation of a sense of community, it was just that this particular element emerged differently. The common interest in the sport created a Social Space for the club athletes, but for the varsity athletes a more salient mechanism beyond the competition and practice area was needed.

Common Interest. The final factor that differed between the varsity and sport club sense of community models was Common Interest. The sport club members had a greater propensity to mention this element most likely because they were already on campus and then sought out a sport club due to their interest in the sport. This probably did not appear in the varsity sense of community model since many of the varsity athletes were recruited and likely chose their universities based on their sports programs (thus there was an assumed common interest). Annette (club, volleyball) summarized, “Sport clubs are definitely for the people who want to play year around and meet people with a common interest who share the same ideals.” However, when presented with the sport

- 88 - club sense of community model, the data from the varsity athlete focus groups indicated

Common Interest is certainly an underlying factor.

When you are trying to get a scholarship and you want to go and play somewhere

you can’t just get accepted and get on the team. You really have to see what

schools are interested in you and then from there you can make a decision. For

these people [sport club athletes] if they can find similar minded people, then they

can make it themselves. We aren’t really making something, we’re joining

something and we can feel a part it and help make it something more, but initially

we are just kind of joining something and seeing what happens after that. (Caleb,

varsity, basketball)

I’m good friends with a tennis player, but I’m not necessarily in their little

community because I don’t have that interest in common with them. But I love

all my teammates and I would spend so much time with them, and we have a

great community because we have volleyball in common. Yeah, I wouldn’t know

those people if I didn’t play volleyball. (Hanna, varsity, volleyball)

The teams aren’t close, but I have 2-3 friends on the baseball team and 2-3 friends

on the soccer team. And the only reason I met them was because I’m an athlete.

My community here is just all the athletics teams. (Evan, varsity, basketball)

My community consists of athletes as well, I feel like I can relate to them and

they can relate to me. We are all going through relatively the same process by - 89 -

trying to be a college athlete and going to school at the same time. (Caleb, varsity,

basketball)

Even though Common Interest was perhaps not as salient to varsity athletes (and did not appear in the varsity sense of community model), the focus groups clarified it was an essential element in creating a sense of community. It seems as though Common Interest is a prerequisite for starting any community (see McMillan & Chavis, 1984).

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity. Another factor that initially emerged under the sport clubs structure as key to creating sense of community was Amateurism/Voluntary

Activity. It was not as observable, however, among varsity athletes. Within the sport club model, participation was viewed in terms of “you get to determine your own involvement” (Jamal, club, Gymnastics) and “you have control of the sport for yourself again” (Peyton, club, cross country). It was these self-fulfilling and self-determining actions that demonstrated a commitment to the community and enhanced sense of community for the sport club athletes. Maya (club, equestrian) and (Roland, club, Aussie rules and ultimate) respectively explained:

Well, it shows that you care, not only about the team, but as a person it really

builds up the character. We have the opportunity to clean the basketball arena

[for fundraising], which is a pain and it sucks and you are there until like 3 in the

morning. But at the same time you are doing it with your team members and it

really does affect your sense of community. No one wants to be there, but you’re

making the best of it because it benefits the team. And as far as voluntary action

it is important to me, and as a team to get together and do something we don’t

- 90 -

have to be doing, but they want to because it will benefit the team and members

on the team.

Our practices were never voluntary, but obviously you aren’t going to lose a

scholarship if you don’t attend or anything like that. So in that sense they are.

There is definitely a sense of community that is derived from going and playing in

35-degree weather when it is rainy, windy, and cold and doing track workouts and

conditioning and suffering together. Those things you aren’t really forced to do,

but because of the team, you are.

Darren (club, fencing) then highlighted how the sport club structures seemed to foster this and the resulting sense of community:

It takes the commitment off of the sport and puts it on each other. That way you

are really connected to the other players, so you have more of sense of belonging

because you are doing this [sport club] because you want to, rather than you have

to. The lack of pressure I think is really important in this whole thing. It really

takes off the edge. You know because you are no longer doing this for someone

else’s superficial needs. You’re doing it for yourself and your teammates and

friends.

While it was evident that Amateurism/Voluntary Activity was central to cultivating a sense of community within the sport club structure, its influence with the varsity model varied. It was clear that some varsity participants have been surrounded by teammates and/or they themselves did not feel like their participation was voluntary. “Since, I’ve

- 91 - been here I’ve never felt it was voluntary—but I definitely can see how that could contribute to community. It’s [varsity sport] definitely more like a job than anything,”

Laura (varsity, soccer) added. In agreement Brittany (varsity, soccer) said, “I can see how the voluntary nature would create community. We don’t have that on our team; I mean people don’t want to be there. It’s not fun.”

While several participants referred to participation as their “job” (Laura, Brent,

Evan, Maxwell, Tanya, Lynn, Caleb, Evan), Maxwell (varsity, soccer) was quick to add,

“Don’t get me wrong I love my job. It is a job though.” Hanna (varsity, volleyball) further added:

It’s kind of interesting because ultimately we don’t have to play. We could have

gone somewhere and decided not to play or played club sports, but I think once

you are here as a varsity athlete you can get caught up in the ‘ah, I have to do this,

I have to be there’. But I can see how having to volunteer your time could create

a sense of community.

Although this helped explain why Amateurism/Voluntary Activity was not as salient within the varsity sport structure, it was still a factor in building a sense of community in this setting.

Well we have our novice team, and they are primarily walk-ons. There are no

scholarships and you get maybe 2 or 3 pieces of gear. It’s completely voluntarily

and at the beginning of the year, sometimes you start out with like 60 and by the

end of year you are down to like 25. Our novices drop like flies, but it is the

people who stick around, the people who show up to every practice are the ones

- 92 -

that want to be there. I think the voluntary action plays a huge part in that

community, because there is a huge sense of pride in everyone that finishes the

year. (Alexandra, varsity, rowing)

Under this varsity structure too, Amateurism/Voluntary Activity was more likely to manifest itself as being a detractor to the sense of community. “Our team has a lot of people who don’t want to be there. It’s pretty crappy,” Karen (varsity, soccer) stated.

Tucker (varsity, tennis) affirmed:

I do think once you weed out all the people that don’t want to be there and you are

left with the people that do, you can build a strong community. Because for our

teams if there is one person who is not feeling it or they are just not doing what

they are supposed to be doing it detracts from the sense of community.

Brent (varsity, baseball) suggested how his team overcomes this, “We try to make it seem like we have control of it—we try to make it fun. But really we know we don’t have control.”

Amateurism/Voluntary Activity was demonstrated to be a factor that influences a sense of community, yet it was not as prominent in the varsity model. This is finding is supported by Stevens’ (2000) work that suggested that an increase in commodification and professionalization could decrease a sense of community for its participants. Stevens asserted that the shift within Canadian Women’s Hockey to a high performance competitive sport model eroded the game and the resultant sense of community for participants. “The game has shifted from one of camaraderie to one of domination, a characteristic critically noted in the male game” (Stevens, 2000, p. 137). She further

- 93 - argued, “The commercial-professional values intertwined within that system are over- riding the community-voluntary value nexus of the female game” (p. 128). Thus, this study clearly implies that such a shift with a sport system was detrimental to the sense of community experienced for the participants. There is obviously more commodification and professionalization in the varsity sport system compared to the sport club system.

This may explain why Amateurism/Voluntary Activity was an added element that enhanced the sense of community within the sport clubs. Yet, within the varsity model it was more often mentioned as an element that detracted from a sense of community for the varsity athletes. The contingencies within the varsity model, such as the amount of time required and clear formalized expectations of participation, likely create an assumption that participants are there because they want to be there.

Perceived Outcomes of Sense of Community Among Athletes

In addition to assessing the similarities and differences between sense of community development within varsity sport and sport club systems, the purpose of the second phase was also to examine potential outcomes of sense of community for athletes.

The results indicated retention, elevated mood, greater attachment to the university, overall improved well-being, increased networking opportunities, continued sport participation, and greater involvement with other activities were among the potential benefits of a sense of community. Many of the outcomes are consistent with previous literature (e.g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Kellett &

Warner, 2010).

- 94 -

Student retention seemed to be the most frequently mentioned outcome of a sense of community. When asked what they felt were outcomes of a sense of community, the following responses capture this outcome. “I definitely view tennis and being on the club teams as a big reason on why I want to be here [at this university]” (Titus, club, tennis).

“I want to stay at this university because of my club, I want to stay because I want to continue to fence with other fencers that are here” Darren (club, fencing). To give another example, Charity (club, basketball) said:

I transferred from another school. I don’t know if it is specifically club

basketball, but I had a hard time getting involved in anything and they didn’t have

that many opportunities, I don’t even know if they have any sports clubs actually.

So I transferred after a year. And now comparing the two, club basketball has

been a huge part of my experience here. I’ve really enjoyed it here, and I’m sure

there are other factors as well, but I think being involved in any organization is a

huge part of retaining students. And if you don’t have that, whether it be club

sports or anything else, then you aren’t going to want to stay there.

It was clear that the sense of community fostered via sport played an important role in retaining these students.

This outcome of a sense of community is congruent with sense of community studies in the workplace that have indicated that retention is also a key outcome of workplace sense of community (Kellett, & Warner, 2010; McCole, 2006). Burroughs and Eby (1998) noted that due to the increased time spent working, individuals are seeking meaning and support from the workplace more often. Considering this, the

- 95 - varsity participants’ referrals to sport as “work” and a “job”, and the life stage of the participants (17-23 years old) the parallels to the workplace can easily been drawn. The workplace and extracurricular sport activities are both realms in which individuals are seeking meaning and support from outside of the work itself.

Experiencing a sense of community also seemed to promote involvement in other activities and broaden one’s social circle. For Maya (club, equestrian), she was already experiencing a sense of community on campus and her participation in a sport club just added to that. “I was involved in other things. I found my sense of community in other opportunities. It is definitely there with Equestrian, and I wasn’t expecting it and I like it a lot.” Conversely, Raquel (club, soccer) was not initially involved with other campus activities. Once she began to experience a sense of community through sport that quickly changed. “I got a job through sport clubs and involved in three other organizations because of my involvement with sport clubs.” Elijah (club, ultimate) explained why sense of community seemingly led to an increase in taking part in other university activities:

I think the sense of community on the team makes me feel more a part of the

university. If you have some place you fit in, then you see how other people

approach different aspects of university life than you can respect that a little bit

more and then you are open to do more things and become a bigger part of the

campus community.

This idea of a sense of community influencing participation in other activities was also suggested by previous literature that indicated a sense of community would likely impact

- 96 - civic participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990) and community involvement

(Bachrach & Zautra, 1985). A sense of community creates an environment of mutual respect that purportedly leads to the willingness and openness to take part in other community activities.

Along with a seemingly increased involvement in other activities, a sense of community also expanded one’s social network. Nate (club, lacrosse) explained:

For me joining the lacrosse team allowed me to expand my horizons. It allowed

me to acquire a different set of friends and gain better perspective on what the real

world is like. Not just one set of friends from one social status or area, but we had

a broad spectrum of different people.

Erica (varsity, golf) then offered:

Everyone is in a different major and we have girls in 3 or 4 different sororities, I

feel like if we weren’t in golf together we probably wouldn’t have ever met. Golf

brought us together and we all became friends that way. I hang out with the golf

team, but then I have another group of friends too. If we didn’t have golf I would

have never met someone in pre-med because I’m in business.

This openness to expanding one’s social network along with the increase in potential to be involved with other activities was an outcome of a sense of community. Ostensibly this was due to the nature of a sense of community to produce a reciprocal response from those experiencing it and a sense of security. That is, when an individual experiences a sense of community, a reciprocal relationship between the individual and the community seemingly develops. The individual feels a part of a community and responds in a way

- 97 - that would grow and sustain the community. It is also likely that experiencing a sense of community in one setting would also provide the security and confidence to explore other opportunities within different community.

Another outcome of a sense of community was an improved quality of life. The participants further explained this impact of a sense of community and the resulting improvements in life quality:

You just get a lot more friends out of it. It is just nice to be able to walk around

campus or sit down in the cafeteria and run into 5 people you know. Just to be

able to say hi and talk to them for a couple of minutes, I mean it makes the day a

lot better. (Titus, club, tennis)

Everyone needs a sense of community or they aren’t going to be happy where

they are. I’m a big believer in getting involved especially when you come to

college, because if you don’t you’ll just get lost in the numbers and masses.

(Jasmine, club, swimming)

Davidson and Cotter’s (1991) study demonstrated the relationship between a sense of community and subjective well-being (happiness, worrying, and personal coping). The current study further supports that claim by demonstrating the relationship between a sense of community in a sport context and an individual’s well-being.

Interestingly, along with the improved quality of life that resulted from a sense of community the participants also noted a performance aspect as being another outcome.

- 98 -

I think of a good sense of community, not just in terms of athletic performance,

but also in terms of happiness. It kind of creates a gestalt, where when you put all

the individual parts together what you have at the end is greater than the sum of

the individual components. Just on my own I’m a fine runner, but when you get

me in a group and I have some competition and desire I’m going to be a better

run. And I’m going to be a happier person. (Peyton, club, cross country)

Along with these benefits Darren (club, fencing) added, “You grow, you get better. I mean if you have a community, if gives you more a sense of accountability to do well for them and yourself and for the community.” Thus, these two examples of an improved quality of life were intertwined with the improvements in performance. This further demonstrated how a sense of community was beneficial to both the community and individual. This relationship is also noted in work settings where a sense of community was correlated with both enhanced work performance and enhanced well-being (see

Klein & D’Aunno, 1986).

Additionally, a sense of community also seemed to promote future participation in sport. “Sense of community is a big reason why you would continue to participate in your sport,” Karen (varsity, soccer) added.

I also think the community that starts in club sports will often continue on past

college. So once people graduate college and the next circuit is a lot of people you

already know and you are still friends with them. It is very easy to kind of go

with the flow. (Roland, club, Aussie rules and ultimate)

- 99 -

As far as sense of community, it will be great getting with people after you

graduate and everything. As far as riding, it is quite expensive and not everyone

can afford horses. So being in contact with members in your community and your

club benefits you if you want to go riding. It is always fun to have someone else

to go out with. (Maya, club, equestrian)

Continued participation is also an outcome of a sense of community to an extent is also supported by the literature. Several scholars have implied that social support is of particular importance to the enduring participation in sport and physical activity (e.g.,

Armstrong, Bauman, & Davies, 2000; Bowles, Morrow, Leonard, Hawkins, & Couzelis,

2002; Dixon, 2009; Salmon, Owen, Crawford, Bauman, & Sallis, 2003).

Furthermore, the sense of community literature supports that a strong sense of community is associated with reduced incidences of burnout in both the school

(McCarthy et al., 1990) and workplace contexts (Pretty, et al., 1992). It should be noted that all 19 of the sport club participants indicated they planned to continue to participate in sport immediately following college. Conversely, only 10 out of 20 varsity athletes planned to continue. Although other factors could play a role, this does allude to the fact it is possible that the sport club athletes are experiencing a stronger sense of community.

Burnout and the lack of seeing other sport opportunities (beyond professional sport leagues) are other contributors, but future research should consider sense of community as factor that may impact future sport participation.

Overall, the positive benefits of a sense of community were primarily discussed in the focus groups. However, the potential negative outcomes of a sense of community

- 100 -

(e.g., deviant behavior) were also specifically probed. The participants acknowledged that a sense of community could lead to deviance (e.g., excessive alcohol consumption, theft, violence). However, it was clear that whether or it did or not was dependent not on the sport context (i.e., varsity vs. club), but on the values of each specific community.

In the sport club system and its less structured environment, surprisingly, the sense of community that was fostered seemed to discourage deviance. Peyton (club, cross country) explained:

It [the sport clubs structure and ensuing sense of community] discourages

deviance, because we do something we need to keep our bodies healthy for, for

one thing. The other thing is we are paying for everything. You know the

university president isn’t writing that check, if we break something or mess up.

We have to pay for it. I would imagine it reduces deviant behavior because you

don’t have any organization behind you spending the money for you.

Abe (club, lacrosse) further explained the values of his community in comparison to one in which a varsity athlete might experience:

There is a sense of being bullet proof with varsity athletes. We (club athletes) are

really in touch with the consequences, even the little things like if we lose our

jersey or game shorts we have to pay for it. Having responsibility of the small

things can translate into other areas. If your cleats and pads are cleaned for you or

your whole facility is cleaned up for you, you don’t really appreciate what goes

into doing it. So you don’t really have a sense of responsibility in that manner.

Preston (club, baseball) then added to this:

- 101 -

There have been lots of club teams where if they have a party or anything, the

whole club gets suspended. Obviously, the Duke Lacrosse team a few years ago,

but I don’t know of any other varsity team in which the whole team got into

trouble for an off the field incident.

Jasmine (club, swimming) further expanded, “I don’t think sport clubs and that community fosters deviant behavior, I think it helps you grow from that behavior that for the most part that is going to be expressed anyways by younger college students.” In the sport club setting, the participants took on more responsibility and felt like the consequences were greater. Thus, there was a perception that each individual’s actions would have a direct impact on the entire community. Due to the contingencies with the sport club structure, it seemed that the outcomes of sense of community did not lead to deviance.

It seemed as though deviance could be an outcome sense of community, but due to the community values it was not. Hanna (varsity, volleyball) suggested:

I think it depends on what your community’s standards are. With our team we set

rules and we all agree on them. I think if your community doesn’t really address

that or care too much then that deviant behavior can come of it. I mean if your

teammate is doing something, you are more likely to do if they are. But I think

most teams and athletes are not going to take things too far, because I think they

realize we have to answer to a lot of people if we take it that far and do mess up.

As an athlete we are part of all these communities--our team and the larger athlete

community and then we have the administration. So if we are able to get out of

- 102 -

hand, we have all these communities that are able to help us kind of get back to

what volleyball or your team is all about and really realizing what you are doing

is not right. So I don’t think it leads to deviance really, but I guess it could.

Tucker (varsity, tennis) further supported this idea:

I can’t see how it would lead to deviant behavior. I mean if you have a

community supporting you doing all the things you are doing it seems like it

would be disrespectful to the team and community to do something deviant.

Although it did not seem as though deviance was an outcome of sense of community within either sport structure, some of the data did suggest that deviance maybe more likely to occur among individuals within varsity athletic systems. This seemed to be due to the perceived external pressure and overly structured environment.

For example:

I think people get really stressed with everything with sports and school and they

just want to let loose and just kind of be and have no structure. Because of the

stresses of the sport, varsity athletes tend to let loose more often and that is when

a lot of the deviant behavior goes on. With club, I have some friends that play

and it seems like any deviant behavior isn’t linked with the sport or it is just more

of their lifestyle. (Maxwell, varsity, soccer)

I think varsity sports are more likely to be deviant, because you are always

thinking, ‘man, I worked so hard I’m competitive and I focus only on winning. I

put in my work; I deserve to be able to party. I’m better than some of these

- 103 -

people who are just students.’ I guess it is your inflated sense of self-confidence,

and that could lend itself to deviant behavior. Whereas in club sports they are still

competitive, but winning and losing isn’t as big of a deal as just doing what is

right. There the integrity is the most important thing. (Malcolm, varsity, football)

These examples implied that it was not the sense of community that fosters deviant behavior, but rather too stringent of a community structure (i.e., rules-centered) that may encourage deviance. “I guess-it’s like the thing with parenting. If you are really strict or something, your kids might want to go nuts” Tucker (varsity, tennis) further explained.

While the anomie literature (e.g., Carter & Carter, 2007; Hirschi, 1969; Lukes,

1972) supports that a lack of community structure would promote deviance, this study suggested that too formalized and ridged of a community structure may also foster deviance. That is, if the community is heavily rules-centered, the pressure and strictness could encourage deviance. According to the anomie literature the less structured and regulated a community structure is the more deviance it should nurture; however, the findings of this study contradicted this. Presumably, the sport club system likely had enough structure and regulations to mitigate the potential of anomic conditions—but not so much structure that it fostered a pressurized and stressed arena for participants. In the varsity setting a strong sense of community may exist, but the pressure and strictness could outweigh the positive benefits of a sense of community. The sense of community literature supports that an increased sense of community has been associated with significantly less drug use and delinquent behaviors (Battistich & Hom, 1997); however, as previously mentioned the community values and contingencies within the community

- 104 - should also be considered. This study supports that a sense of community does not necessarily lead to deviance, but rather the values of the community and too structured of an environment could impact it.

Other negative aspects such as an increased felt sense of pressure and the potential isolation from the campus community (particularly among varsity athletes) were also mentioned during data collection. However, these other potential negative outcomes did not seem to be tied to the creation of sense of community. Rather it appeared as though these were the results of being in a community with particular values, too strong of an identification with a specific community, or too restrictive of an environment. The sense of community literature supports that increases in sense of community should lead to improved well-being and greater community involvement (e.g., Bachrach & Zautra,

1985; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Davidson & Cotter, 1991); however, the pressure and isolation revealed among the varsity athletes as a result of being a part of a community needs to be further explored. This potentially indicates the importance of further distinguishing and exploring the relationship between community membership, social identification, and sense of community. A better understanding of when and how athletes seemingly shift from reaping the positive benefits of being in community to experiencing this pressure and isolation and the catalyst for these negative outcomes would further advance both the sense of community and social identity literature.

In summary, many of the outcomes that emerged from this study (e.g., retention, elevated mood, improved well-being, and continued participation) were consistent with the previous literature, indicating that a sense of community seems to be related to a

- 105 - variety of positive outcomes and that fostering a sense of community leads to desirable outcomes for an individuals and the community. A direct relationship between deviance and a sense of community was not demonstrated in this study. Participants did acknowledge, though, if the community valued deviant behavior, community members would likely engage therein. Thus, if the community values promote actions that depart from what is typically acceptable in society, negative repercussions of athletes experiencing a sense of community are possible. However, community building and individuals experiencing a sense of community seems to promote typically more positive outcomes for all community members. It can be assumed that such outcomes consequently, would help sustain a community.

- 106 -

Chapter 5

Discussion and Conclusions

This study explored the mechanisms that foster a sense of community in a sport setting, and the potential outcomes of experiencing a sense of community for participants.

In doing so, the results revealed that in general the outcomes from a sense of community are beneficial for participants, thus lending support to the desirability of pursuing sense of community development in sport. The results also showed that the contexts shared some notable factors leading toward a sense of community and yet differed on others. Such a finding led to the development of two separate models—one for varsity athletes (Warner

& Dixon, in review) and one for club sport athletes (Chapter 3). Yet, after conducting, reviewing, and analyzing the focus group data from both groups (Chapter 4), it was apparent that perhaps the factors from both models could be considered together in a way that would allow the development of a broader model of sense of community in sport.

Thus, the first section of this chapter discusses this combined model and the ways that the factors seemed to manifest themselves differently in the two contexts.

Further, throughout the three data collections (interviews with varsity athletes, interviews with club sport athletes, and focus groups with both) several underpinning theoretical issues (i.e., competition vs. cooperation, manned contexts, and social identity vs. sense of community) emerged that deserve additional consideration and attention for future research. The second section of this chapter, therefore, addresses those issues and discusses how they might be examined in future research.

- 107 -

Finally, the study revealed several important practical implications, one of which is the tension between participant-led and professionally managed sport contexts. The third portion of this chapter addresses this issue of technocracy and examines several implications for sport management research in this area.

Sense of Community and Contextual Contingencies

Based on the sport club and varsity data two different models (see Figures 1 and

2) emerged that represented how a sense of community is created within a sport context.

The results of the focus groups, however, indicated that there are more similarities between the differing contexts than initially posited. As discussed in Chapter 4, evidence of all of the noted factors in the two models was observed in both a sport club and varsity context. However, the saliency of the factors and their manifestation in the two sport contexts differed considerably. That is, the focus groups illuminated that the factors not initially mentioned in one context were actually underlying factors that just were not as salient in that context. For example, it was quite evident that Social Spaces was critical to creating a sense of community for varsity athletes. This did not initially emerge from the sport club interview data; however, after the focus groups were conducted it became clear that this was also important to creating a sense of community for the sport club participants. In the sport club system the sport itself rather than a more obvious space outside the practice and competition arena (as observed in the varsity model), served this purpose for the sport club athletes. This was just one indicator that the essential elements to foster a sense of community within a sport context were captured in both the interviews and the focus groups. The focus groups allowed for cross-validation of the

- 108 - data, and lent further confidence to the results regarding the key factors in creating a sense of community.

The focus group data also indicated that the saliency and importance of the mechanisms leading to a sense of community is context dependent. As a result of this context dependency, the mechanisms that emerged need to be thought of items whose importance and contribution to a sense of community are impacted by the settings’ contingencies, which influenced the community members’ expectations. Depending on the sport context some of the elements were essential in creating a sense of community, while others were not. For example, Equality in Administrative Decisions was critical in the varsity context. If it was present, it added to the sense of community. If it was not present, it detracted from a sense of community. However, Social Spaces seemed to always enhance in both contexts, yet not detract from a sense of community if it was not present. Thus, not all factors seemed to impact a sense of community in the same way— how each factor impacted a sense of community was dependent on the sport context and its contingencies. Some factors enhanced a sense of community, but did not detract, while others detracted from a sense of community, but did not enhance it, and some did both.

This phenomenon has also been observed by other scholars. Among the most notable can be found in Herzberg’s (1966; 1968) work, in which he noted a similar issue when exploring job satisfaction. That is, he determined that some factors only contributed to job satisfaction, some factors only detracted from job satisfaction, and some had the capacity to contribute or detract. The main thesis of Herzberg’s work was

- 109 - that job elements should not necessarily only be considered in terms of satisfaction and dissatisfaction being on a single continuum (i.e., one-dimensional) because some elements could contribute only to satisfaction and not dissatisfaction, and vice versa. In other words, if something would lead to job satisfaction it should not be assumed that if it is not present it will lead to job dissatisfaction.

Building off of Herzberg’s work, the Kano model (Kano et al., 1984) for customer satisfaction was developed and further extended this thinking about multi-dimensional factors. The Kano model expanded Herzberg’s main ideas into a four-dimensional model, and most importantly, recognized that contextual contingencies and expectations should be considered. Using the logic that Herzberg suggested, the Kano model revolved around the varying customer expectations and placed product features into categories.

These categories included Attractive elements (i.e., factors that could only satisfy), Must-

Be elements (i.e., factors that could only dissatisfy), One-Dimensional elements (i.e., factors that can satisfy or dissatisfy), or Indifferent elements (i.e., factors that neither satisfy nor dissatisfy). Based on the consumers’ expectations, product features were classified into these categories to assist managers in product development.

Although, Kano’s model was originally intend to assist with product development it has been proven to be a value tool in contributing to theory development in sport and employment contexts (see Dixon & Warner, 2010). For example, Dixon and Warner

(2010) utilized Kano’s theoretical framework to demonstrate how coaches have certain employment expectations that are industry-specific and result from contextual cues in the industry. These expectations work in combination with job factors to increase or

- 110 - decrease satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction. Depending on the established expectations, certain job elements could lead to satisfaction or dissatisfaction, only lead to satisfaction, or only lead to dissatisfaction.

The Kano model is also useful for understanding the impact of multidimensional factors on human attitudes and behaviors because it recognizes that classifications can change based on situational factors, expectations, and context (Dixon & Warner, 2010;

Matzler, Fuchs, & Schubert, 2004). For example, Dixon and Warner concluded that given the contextual contingencies Salary would only ever lead to dissatisfaction within the coaching industry. Due to the expectations created by the contextual contingencies within the coaching industry, they observed that Salary could no longer promote satisfaction and would only lead to dissatisfaction if a coach’s salary expectations were not met. Accordingly, this broad overarching idea is also useful in explaining and theorizing the development of a sense of community, while also addressing the different contingencies within the sport context.

One way to conceptualize and frame the multidimensional factors in the current study is by using Kano’s and Herzberg’s conceptual frameworks. In fact, all of the identified factors in the current study can be placed in the four categories from Kano’s model: those that positively contribute to fostering a sense of community, those that detract from a sense of community, those that can add or detract from a sense of community, and those that are indifferent and do not add or detract from a sense of community (see Table 6). This provides evidence and further supports Hill (1996) and

Puddifoot’s (1996) assertion that sense of community is context dependent. Further, it

- 111 - makes an important theoretical contribution to the sense of community literature in that it demonstrates that the factors that contribute to a sense of community are context dependent and vary according to the community members’ expectations within a given context. Some of the factors are described in these terms below.

Equality in Administrative Decisions, as demonstrated in the focus groups, was a factor that was present in both models, but seemed to operate differently to impact a sense of community. The contingencies within the varsity model created a set of expectations for the varsity participants and as a result, Equality in Administrative

Decisions could both add and detract from a sense of community. In other words, it was a one-dimensional element, in that it could either add or detract from a sense of community. In the sport club context, however, the differing contingencies created within that system lead to differing participant expectations. As a result Equality in

Administrative Decisions only had the capacity to detract from a sense of community in this context. It did not necessarily have the potential to foster a sense of community because it was expected element. That is, the sport club participants had an expectation that equitable administrative decisions would be made. Thus signifying in the sport club context Equality in Administrative Decisions should not be viewed as a one-dimensional factor that has the ability to add or detract from cultivating a sense of community.

Rather, it is an element that only has the capacity to detract from a sense of community. It could not foster a sense of community in this context because due to contingencies within the sport club model the participants expected it to be present.

- 112 -

Leadership Opportunities, was not necessarily expected within the varsity sport context. The contingencies within the varsity created an environment where Leadership

Opportunities were not expected, and consequently, the data from that context showed that Leadership Opportunities in that context contributed to a sense of community (they were a “bonus” if they were available). The sport club context, however, created an expectation that Leadership Opportunities were available and consequently, in this setting Leadership Opportunities could add or detract from a sense of community.

Voluntary Action/Amateurism was one of the more intriguing findings. In the varsity setting, the participants only spoke of how when this element was not present it detracted from a sense of community. In the sport club setting, it was clear that this was one of the essential elements that almost always fostered a sense of community. These differences can further be explained by the contextual contingencies within the settings.

Due to the entry into varsity sports being more selective and the exit potentially more difficult since participation in sport likely influenced one’s college choice, voluntary action/amateurism is an expectation upon entry into varsity sport. Therefore the participants did not mention this element as cultivating a sense of community, but rather only as an element that detract from a sense of community when it was not present.

Among sport club participants Voluntary Action/Amateurism was only mentioned as an element that fostered a sense of community primarily because of the ease of entry and exit of the sport club model. Quite simply, if this was not present participants would leave the setting.

- 113 -

In summation, this conceptual framework is one way to consider and frame how to think about the mechanisms that create a sense of community and their context dependency. This study demonstrated how sense of community factors are context dependent even within varying sport settings. The differing contingencies within the distinct sport structures help mold a different set of participant expectations. Not only does this support previous literature, but it also expands the way we think about the factors leading to a sense of community. The contextual contingencies should be explored and considered when evaluating sense of community.

Important Theoretical Underpinnings

This study also highlighted a few underlying theoretical issues that should be further considered when assessing sense of community in a sport setting. More specifically this study emphasized the issues of competition versus cooperation, the importance of manning theory, social identity versus sense of community, and technocracy within sport management. These broader issues continually emerged from data, supported existing theory, and also produced meaningful insight that helped clarify and explain the observed differences between sport structures. As a result, this research also further contributes to the on-going discourse in sport management regarding the direction of the discipline and broad issues that should be explored.

Cooperation versus Competition

The results of this study brought to light the importance and value of competition among the participants. In both varsity and sport club settings, Competition was identified as a fundamental factor that added and/or detracted from a sense of community.

- 114 -

Considering the pervasiveness of competition in US society (see Kohn, 1992), it is not surprising it was so often mentioned. More importantly, the fact that it was a key factor in both settings further highlights the importance of exploring the contextual contingencies when evaluating a sense of community. That is, Competition may be an especially pertinent factor that impacts a sense of community within a society that highly values competition.

In this study, all of the participants were based in a US context, where

“educational, sport, work, and even social settings often require the individual to strive to attain some external objective” (Vallerand, Gauvin, & Halliwell, 1986, p. 465). Many authors (e.g., Duetsch, 1949; Kohn, 1992; Vallerand, et al., 1986) have argued that these arenas within the US highly encourage social comparisons and create zero-sum competitions in that one’s success is based on others’ failures. Such values are deeply embedded and very prominent throughout US society, so it is quite plausible that the findings regarding Competition are especially important to consider in a capitalist society.

All of the participants were native to the US and consequently, socialized to into a culture that heavily values and emphasizes competition.

It should be noted though, despite the fact that Competition was pervasive throughout the interviews, the literature supports that it is not necessarily the most productive way to produce social rewards, achievement, or retention for participants.

Rather, cooperation, what many would view as the opposite of competition tends to produce greater rewards (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999; Kohn, 1992; Madsen, 1971;

Orlick, 1978, 1981). So the findings related to Competition and sense of community are

- 115 - likely an artifact of the cultural setting. These findings do elucidate an important consideration, as competition in comparison to cooperation has been associated with negative outcomes.

Sherif and colleagues (1953; 1961) seminal work on the “Robbers’ Cave” experiment highlighted how competition promoted aggression, animosity, and hostility.

In his experimental study two groups of campers were formed and competed against each other. When the rivalries turned hostile and antagonistic, superordinate goals had to be introduced to minimize the negative effects of the intergroup competition. Superordinate goals are defined as “goals which are compelling and highly appealing to members of two or more groups in conflict but which cannot be attained by the resources and energies of the groups separately. In effect, they are goals attained only when groups pull together” (Sherif, 1958, pp. 349-350). Thus, Sherif’s work demonstrated that superordinate goals lead to cooperative efforts, which reduced hostility. Taking into account the pervasiveness of Competition, its antithesis “cooperation” and its contribution to a sense of community may have been overlooked. In fact Kohn (1992) argued, “The benefits of cooperation are so compelling that it seems even a competitive society must take action” (p. 151).

It also should be noted that during Sherif’s Robber’s Cave experiments a

“common enemy” was also introduced to decrease the tension between to the two camps.

The positive short-term effects that caused the two camps to engage in temporary cooperation against a common enemy, however, did not prove to be beneficial in the long-term. “Had we continued the ‘common enemy’ approach, we would have ended by

- 116 - merely enlarging the scope of the generalized effects of win-lose competition that had already occurred within our camps. In effect, we would have had a bigger war” (Sherif,

1976, p. 34). The Robber’s Cave experiments concluded that the introduction of superordinate goals without creating a “common enemy” promoted cooperation, which was ultimately more beneficial for community. Consequently, this also provide evidence that introducing superordinate goals in environments where Competition was especially likely to detract from a sense of community (i.e., for females) may be a productive way of negating the negative consequences of Competition.

Both varsity and sport club structures require cooperation to an extent. However, in the sport club structure the need for cooperation was more visible. It was not uncommon to hear stories of sport club participants finding creative solutions with opposing teams to ensure the games or match could take place. For example, if the opposing team did not have enough players the clubs would adjust the rules of the game or swap players. Within the varsity structure, most of the cooperation was handled by administrators instead of the participants, and the only cooperation amongst the participants was visible at the intragroup or team level. The more formalized structure tended to be more likely to promote competition rather than cooperation. In light of this, it is not surprising that some have argued for competition within certain guidelines produces social rewards.

Competition as a mutual challenge to achieve excellence is of course an ideal and

actual practices may deviate from it, this is so most often when competition is

viewed as combat, and when the competition is seen as a means to an end external

- 117 -

to the competition itself, namely when the reward of money is the aim. . . .

Competition when viewed as a mutual challenge to achieve excellence, no matter

the field, leads to progress, to respect for others, to friendship, and to excellence.

(Boxill, 2003, pp. 114-115)

In summation when competition creates a superordinate goal (i.e., mutual challenge toward excellence) greater potential for social rewards are possible. Competition in and of itself, though, should be carefully managed because the literature clearly points to competition doing more harm than good, reducing the social rewards of participation, and often causing players to quit (Chalip & Scott, 2005; Duetsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson,

1999; Roberts & Chick, 1984; Sharpe, 2003). “Intergroup rivalry might not only be unnecessary in producing ‘good in-group feelings’ but that it might do social harm”

(Dunn & Goldman, 1966, p. 311).

The capacity of Competition to either positively or negatively contribute to sense of community, should continue to be further explored in other settings. It is clear that sport structures that focus on cooperation rather competition have the potential to be more beneficial for the participants; however, the social forces and cultural influence should be considered (see Chalip & Scott, 2005; Voyle, 1989). While some may argue that competition is necessary to produce excellence, the educational research points to cooperative environments being more fruitful than competitive environments in terms of achievement and productivity (e.g., Duetsch, 1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1999;

Kohn, 1992). Hence, the common argument that competition prompts excellence is not always an empirically sound argument. Future research should continue to challenge

- 118 - both the social and performance outcomes of competitive versus cooperative sport settings. The literature supports that a sense of community has the capacity to improve both the social and performance outcomes (e.g., Davis & Cotter, 1991; Klein &

D’Aunno, 1986; Pretty et al., 1994), therefore, further probing these seemingly converse factors as they relate to sense of community is important.

Manning Theory

Manning theory (Barker & Gump, 1964) also may help explain some of the differences observed between the sport club and varsity sport models and in general, community building. Manning theory suggests that any behavior setting requires a minimum number of people to function. When a setting is undermanned or the optimal numbers of individuals are unavailable, individuals will recruit and be motivated to develop the skills necessary for the setting to function. The participants in an undermanned setting are highly invested in tasks at hand and are willing to take on tasks they might not otherwise think they are equipped or capable of accomplishing. Thus such a setting encourages participation and skill development (Wicker, 1968). Due to the lack of administrative structure, teams within the sport club structure are often undermanned. That is, as a result of the constant fluctuation in leadership due to students graduating and the very nature of a student-led organization the optimal number of individuals is not always available. Barker and Gump’s (1964) Big School, Small School suggested that such an undermanned setting would lead to individuals taking on more roles, participating in more activities, being less likely to quit those activities, and feeling more responsibility. Consequently, this helps explain why Leadership Opportunities

- 119 - were more salient in the sport club interviews and why it seemed as though sport club participants were more likely to participate in other activities and continue their sport participation. By the very nature of the club structure it seemed as though the undermanned environment created a strong sense of community and commitment. This is likely due to the undermanning effects, which also lead to individuals feeling a great importance and also more tolerance of others’ personal idiosyncrasies (Wicker, 1979).

Manning theory also illuminates some of the findings within the varsity sport model. The varsity sport setting compared to the sport club setting, is more likely to be characterized as being overmanned since all the administrative duties are taken care of by a more consistent leadership structure. Overmanning, however, discourages participation and is thought to lead to less satisfaction because individuals have less control and responsibility (Wicker, 1968). This could explain why varsity participants admittedly were less likely to continue in their sport post-college. This also highlights why creating more leadership opportunities are fundamental, as this may temper the possible negative effects of the potential overmanning within the varsity structure.

Hill and Green’s (2008) research within a youth sport setting posited and then confirmed how manning theory applied to this setting:

When compared with participants in overmanned settings, participants in

optimally manned and undermanned soccer teams will be less likely to miss

training sessions and competitive matches; take on a wider variety of roles,

including roles more central to the team’s success; have coaches, parents,

spectators, and other participants who are more accepting of all players in the

- 120 -

team, particularly athletes with lesser skills; be presented with more participation

opportunities such that weaker players will be included in play and receive extra

training to correct inappropriate or less skilled play; and feel an increased sense of

competence, belonging, satisfaction, and enjoyment. (p. 189)

Hill and Green’s work alluded to the idea that an undermanned or optimally manned environment within sport may better lend itself more to producing more social rewards for the participants. Thus, the lack of structure within sport clubs when compared to varsity athletes may create a “manned” environment that ultimately produces greater social rewards, which among them one might posit would be sense of community. Future studies should compare the levels of sense of community experienced in undermanned versus overmanned environments, and also further expound ways to create meaningful leadership opportunities (cf. Kleiber, 1983; Voyle, 1989) that lead to sense of community in overmanned environments.

Practical Outcomes

Both the literature related to competition versus cooperation and manning theory suggests bold implications for the field of sport management. Quite simply, these theories posit that a less competitive and potentially less formal focused sport structure may be better for producing social outcomes, such as sense of community. Researchers should continue to explore the social implications for participants under the current technocratic sport structure, which those in the field of sport management helped spur by formalizing, institutionalizing, and professionalizing sport systems (Corlett, 1997).

While there may be some value to a performance based elite sport model, this study and

- 121 - the literature points to some potential negative repercussions of a more competitive and formalized sport structure.

Interestingly, the sociological literature suggests that too lax of an environment would produce anomic conditions that would likely engender deviant behavior (Carter &

Carter, 2007; Hirschi, 1969; Lukes, 1972). The findings of this study when viewed from this sociological standpoint, therefore, are rather counterintuitive. Based on the data that emerged from this study the less formalized, less structured, and less “rules-centered” environment that was created via sport clubs seemingly promoted less deviant behavior and a strong sense of community. This is contrary to what one might expect, and posits that the sport clubs system might promote just enough relevant rules to alleviant potential anomic conditions. The more structured, formalized, and “rules-centered” environment that was rendered within the varsity sport system was seemingly more likely to promote deviance. This is noteworthy because a clear trend to formalize sports at all levels exists

(cf., Beal, 1998; Gruneau, 2006).

Considering sport settings are often criticized for cultivating and advancing an environment that promotes deviance, these finding should serve as a strategic signal to practitioners and researchers. The results of this study insinuate that too structured of an environment should be of greater concern than too lax of an environment. Perhaps in an effort to professionalize and address the criticisms that sport advances deviance some of our sport systems have been overcorrected. That is, while some structure is needed an overly structured environment can be just as destructive as an anomic environment. The challenge is to find an appropriate balance in terms of providing enough structure and

- 122 - support that will allow participants to thrive and reap the benefits of experiencing a sense of community. Interestingly, this study also posited that these findings might signify and further help distinguish sense of community from social identity. The data indicated that too structured or restrictive of an environment seemingly fostered feelings of pressure and isolation. This could be because such an environment cultivated individuals to have a strong identification with the community rather experiencing a sense of community. The conceptual and practical differences between these two constructs should be further explored, so that the nuances are better understood. Obviously, being a part of a community often creates in-groups and out-groups and this can lead to negative outcomes, such as isolation, pressure to conform, and deviance. Thus, further understanding the idiosyncratic community features that lead to such negative outcomes needs to be further explored. In the varsity setting, a few of the participants spoke of the felt pressure. However, it was not clear if these athletes were experiencing a strong sense of community, a strong social identity, or possibly both that lead to this unfavorable outcome. Disentangling and comparing and contrasting the sense of community experienced and the level of social identity or athlete identity might further elucidate additional community building information that would further assist practitioners and researchers alike.

As this embryonic line of research on sense of community within a sport context continues, the measurable outcomes of sense of community need to be further investigated and then these outcomes should be compared across sport contexts. This study provided the foundational research that helps clarify how and when a sense of

- 123 - community develops within a sport context, and has suggested possible outcomes of sense of community. Previous literature outside of sport supports that these noted outcomes and sense of community are correlated with performance (Klein & D’Aunno,

1986). Now, researchers should attempt to use this knowledge to better quantify sense of community and its relationship to the noted outcomes and performance.

The discipline of sport management should be further armed with this knowledge as the field moves forward. While the relative young discipline has made great strides in terms of the “business aspects” of sport, a critical reflection of the social implications of such strides should not be neglected. “Critical reflection offers us the challenge of reconstructing our social worlds in ways that are less distorted by relations of power and domination – of finding for ourselves new, less oppressive, and more just ways of creating and managing sport” (Edwards, 1999, p.79). This investigation of sense of community within sport contexts has suggested that the noted factors should be carefully created, managed, and reflected upon so that sport is delivered in a just manner that best serves the participants.

From a practical standpoint, this study further reiterated that sense of community is context specific (see Hill, 1996 and Puddifoot, 1996). And that sport managers should no longer simply assume a sense of community will develop as a result of sport programming. The results of this study clearly suggest that depending on the contingencies within a sport structure, certain factors will contribute or detract from the participants experiencing a sense of community. Thus, this study challenged one of the most common assumptions and justification of sport; sport will engender salubrious

- 124 - socialization and community development only if sport is properly managed and designed (see Chalip, 2006). Knowing the numerous life quality enhancing benefits that result from experiencing a sense of community, sport managers should use the data and results of this study to more carefully plan and construct sport experiences that better foster a sense of community.

As the discipline of sport management continues to grow, the social implications resulting from the design of sport structures should continue to be evaluated and assessed.

The technocratic structure that is often fostered within the sport management discipline is likely suffocating the potential social rewards for our participants. As result of this, sport managers should not shy away from the challenges of better designing our sport structures to meet a well-established need of our participants. In fact given the attention to a lack of individuals experiencing community and a general decline in social connectedness (McPherson et al., 2006; Paxton, 1999; Putnam, 2000), the discipline of sport management has opportunity to lead the way in seeing that these negative societal trends are reversed. In order to accomplish this venture the underlying socio-cultural issues that sport settings can seemingly exacerbate at times need to be addressed, so that a more participant-centered focus is not only possible, but is also more acceptable.

- 125 -

Table 1: Sport Club Inquiry Participant Background Information

Pseudonym Gender Sport Coaching Estimated Offered an Structure Out of Pocket Athletic Expenses Scholarship Alice Female Lacrosse Volunteer- $300-500 No coached Brad Male Lacrosse Volunteer- $600 No coached Connie Female Cycling Player- $100 No coached Dale Male Crew Paid-coached $250 No Damon Male Ultimate Player- $300 No coached Jacob Male Waterpolo Volunteer- $200-300 Yes coached Janet Female Waterpolo Volunteer- $500+ Yes coached Jason Male Soccer Player- $200-300 Yes coached Joan Female Soccer Player- $15-200 Yes coached Justin Male Tennis Paid-coached $25 No Keisha Female Soccer Paid-coached $450 Yes Kelsey Female Waterpolo Volunteer- $100-200 No coached Lucy Female Basketball Volunteer- $65 No coached Luke Male Crew Paid-coached $2,000 No Marcus Male Baseball Player- $200 No coached Mary Female Rugby Volunteer- $400 Yes coached Miles Male Lacrosse Volunteer- $800 No coached Paul Male Tennis Player- $50-60 No coached Philip Male Sailing Player- $50-100 No coached Sarah Female Lacrosse Paid-coached $1,000 No Tara Female Basketball Volunteer- $60 No coached

- 126 -

Table 2: Varsity Athletes Focus Group Members

Received Athletic Focus NCAA Grant in Group Pseudonym Gender Sport Level Aid? Role on Team 1 Alexandra Female Rowing DI Yes Starter 1 Carla Female Soccer DI No Non-starter 1 Hanna Female Volleyball DI Yes Starter 1 Tucker Male Tennis DI Yes Role-player 2 Sandy Female Volleyball DII Yes Starter 2 Lynn Female Soccer DII Yes Role-player 2 Tanya Female Soccer DII Yes Non-starter 2 Maxwell Male Soccer DII Yes Starter Basketball/ 2 Caleb Male Track & Field DII Yes Non-starter 2 Evan Male Basketball DII No Non-starter 3 Bianca Female Soccer DIII No Non-starter 3 Erica Female Golf DIII No Role-player 3 Malcolm Male Football DIII No Starter Basketball/ 3 Ray Male Track & Field DIII No Starter 3 Mason Male Track & Field DIII No Role-player Football/ 3 Kirk Male Track & Field DIII No Role-player 4 Brittany Female Soccer DI No Starter 4 Karen Female Soccer DI No Non-starter 4 Laura Female Soccer DI Yes Starter 4 Brent Male Baseball DI No Non-starter

- 127 -

Table 3: Sport Club Focus Group Members

Estimated Out of Offered an Focus Coaching Pocket Athletic Group Pseudonym Gender Sport Structure Expenses Scholarship 5 Nate Male Lacrosse Paid-coach $1,900 Yes 5 Abe Male Lacrosse Paid-coach $1,900 Yes Player- 5 Peyton Male Cross Country coached $400 Yes 5 Darren Male Fencing Paid-coach $350 No Player 5 Preston Male Baseball Coached $300 Yes 6 Raquel Female Soccer Paid-coach $400 Yes Volunteer- 6 Jamal Male Gymnastics coached $540 No Player- 6 Jasmin Female Swimming coached $350 Yes 6 Annette Female Volleyball Paid-coach $500 Yes Player- 6 Kira Female Water Polo coached $210 No Player- 7 Elijah Male Ultimate coached $75 No Player- 7 Saul Male Lacrosse coached $200 Yes Player- 7 Tanner Male Lacrosse coached $200 Yes 8 Maya Female Equestrian Paid-coach $800 No Volunteer- 8 Charity Female Basketball coached $75 Yes Player- 8 Jackson Male Water Polo coached $500 No Player- 8 Titus Male Tennis coached $300 Yes Volunteer- 8 Ruben Male Racquetball coached $150 No Ultimate/ Aussie Rules Player- 8 Roland Male Football coached $150 No

- 128 -

Table 4: Sense of Community Factor Comparison by Context

Sense of Community Definition Varsity Club

Factor

Competition The challenge to excel against Salient Salient

both internal and external

rivalries.

Leadership Both informal and formal Salient Salient

Opportunities opportunities to guide and

direct others within the

community.

Equality of Administrative level decisions Salient Underlying

Administrative that demonstrated that all

Decisions community members were

being treated equal.

Social Spaces A common area or facility in Salient Underlying

which athletes could interact

with one another.

Administrative The expression of care, Salient Underlying

Consideration concern, and intentionality of

administrators and support

personnel within the university.

- 129 -

Common Interest The group dynamics, social Underlying Salient

networking, and friendships

that resulted from individuals

being brought together by the

common interest of the sport

(and combined with a common

goal, shared values or other

unifying factors).

Voluntary Action/ The self-fulfilling and self- Underlying Salient

Amateurism determining actions that

resulted from little to no

external pressure or incentive.

- 130 -

Table 5: Perceived Outcomes of SOC

Perceived Outcome

Increased Retention

Elevated Mood

Greater Attachment to the University

Overall Improved Well-being

Increased Networking Opportunities

Continued Sport Participation

Greater Involvement with Other Activities

- 131 -

Table 6: Factor Impact on Sense of Community per Context

Impact on Sense of Community

Sense of Community Factors Varsity Sport Sport Club

Competition Contribute/Detract Contribute/Detract

Leadership Contribute Contribute/Detract

Equality of Administrative Decisions Contribute/Detract Detract

Social Spaces Contribute Contribute

Administrative Consideration Contribute Indifferent

Common Interest Contribute Contribute

Voluntary Action/Amateurism Detract Contribute

- 132 -

Figure 1: Sport Club Sense of Community Model

Leadership Opportunities

Amateurism/ Common Athlete Voluntary Interest Action

Gender

Competition

- 133 -

Figure 2: Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Model

- 134 -

Appendix A: Sense of Community Questions Semi-Structured Interview Guide

1. Tell me about why you decided to attend (university)? And why did you decide to join a sport club?

2. What does the term sense of community mean to you?

3. Can you tell me if you have ever felt a sense of community within your team or university? What was this like for you? Can you tell give me a specific example of when you felt a strong sense of community to your team or university?

4. Some people have said there are times when they didn’t feel a sense of community among your team or university? Have you ever felt that way?

5. Do you think you think your club had a stronger or weaker sense of community in comparison to other club teams? How do you think the structure of your club impacted the sense of community or lack thereof you experienced? How about in comparison to varsity athletes?

6. Some say sport can be a very competitive environment, and that competition can add or detract from feeling a sense of community? Can you tell me what effect competition had on your experience of feeling a sense of community?

7. Can you tell me if others (teammates, coaches, or administration) could have done anything to create more of a sense of community? How?

8. Some people say that the sense of community that they experienced as a student- athlete has influenced their involvement in sports today? What do you think about this?

9. Some people believe that on the field success leads to a greater sense of community. What do you think about this?

10. What would your team do if you didn’t show up for a practice?

11. Do you think your experience with your team has positively or negatively impacted your experience with the university? Probes: Tell me more about that. Can you give me an example? Can you describe how that felt? Can you define that?

- 135 -

Appendix B: Consent Form

IRB APPROVED ON: 06/21/09 EXPIRES: 06/20/2010

CONSENT FORM:

Title: Enhancing the Athlete Experience - Understanding Sense of Community From a Athlete’s Perspective Conducted By: Stacy M. Warner Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Marlene A. Dixon Of The University of Texas at Austin: Department of Kinesiology and Health Education; Telephone: 512.471.1273

You are being asked to participate in a research study. This form provides you with information about the study. The person in charge of this research will also describe this study to you and answer all of your questions. Please read the information below and ask any questions you might have before deciding whether or not to take part. Your participation is entirely voluntary. You can refuse to participate without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You can stop your participation at any time and your refusal will not impact current or future relationships with UT Austin or participating sites. To do so simply tell the researcher you wish to stop participation. The researcher will provide you with a copy of this consent for your records.

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of how and when athletes feel a sense of community or belonging. By determining the factors that contribute to the feelings of a sense of community, sport managers can be armed with the knowledge of how they can create and build community.

If you agree to be in this study, we will ask you to do the following things: • Participant in audio recorded one-hour interview regarding your experiences as an athlete or participant in an audio recorded one-hour focus group. • Review the written transcription of the interview and advise the researcher of any errors. Total estimated time to participate in study is 2 hours.

Risks of being in the study • The potential risks for this study are minimal, and no more than those encountered in daily living. The only risk is to be identified in a published version of the study (i.e., loss of confidentiality). However, extensive measures have been taken to reduce this risk. If you wish to discuss the information above or any other risks you may experience, you may ask questions now or call the Principal Investigator listed on the front page of this form.

Benefits: There are no benefits for participation in this study.

Compensation: • None

IRB Protocol 2008-04-0092 1/3

- 136 -

IRB APPROVED ON: 06/21/09 EXPIRES: 06/20/2010

Confidentiality and Privacy Protections:

• The data resulting from your participation may be made available to other researchers in the future for research purposes not detailed within this consent form. In these cases, the data will contain no identifying information that could associate you with it, or with your participation in any study. The interviews or sessions will be audio recorded; tapes will

be coded so that no written personally identifying information (i.e. name or university) is visible on them; tapes will be kept in a secure place (e.g., a locked file cabinet in the investigator’s office); tapes will be heard or viewed only for research purposes by the investigator and his or her associates; tapes will be erased after they are transcribed or coded.

The records of this study will be stored securely and kept confidential. Authorized persons from The University of Texas at Austin, members of the Institutional Review Board, and (study sponsors, if any) have the legal right to review your research records and will protect the confidentiality of those records to the extent permitted by law. All publications will exclude any information that will make it possible to identify you as a subject. Throughout the study, the researchers will notify you of new information that may become available and that might affect your decision to remain in the study.

Contacts and Questions: If you have any questions about the study please ask now. If you have questions later, want additional information, or wish to withdraw your participation call the researchers conducting the study. Their names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses are at the top of this form. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, complaints, concerns, or questions about the research please contact Jody Jensen, Ph.D., Chair, The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at (512) 232-2685 or the Office of Research Support and Compliance at (512) 471-8871 or email: [email protected]. You will be given a copy of this information to keep for your records.

IRB Protocol 2008-04-0092 2/3

- 137 -

IRB APPROVED ON: 06/21/09 EXPIRES: 06/20/2010

Statement of Consent:

I have read the above information and have sufficient information to make a decision about participating in this study. I consent to participate in the study.

Signature:______Date: ______

______Date: ______Signature of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Investigator:______Date: ______

IRB Protocol 2008-04-0092 1/3

- 138 -

Appendix C: Sport Club Participant Background Information

What is your Gender? ____female ____male

What year were you born? 19______How would you best describe the sport club you participated in? _____Instructional _____Recreational _____Competitive

What was the coaching structure of your team? _____Player Coached _____Volunteer Coached _____Paid Coached

How were often are practices conducted? ______

How much do you pay annually in out of pocket expenses to participate in sport clubs? ______

What sport(s) did you play? ______

Do you mostly compete in Team or Individual events or competitions? _____Team _____Individual

Were you offered an athletic scholarship or recruited by any university coaches? _____Yes _____No

What best describes your role throughout your sport club career? _____Leader/Officer _____Active Participant _____Causal Participant

On average how often did your team win? Please estimate. _____won over 75% _____won about 50% _____won about 25% _____I don’t know

- 139 -

Appendix D: Varsity Athlete Background Information

What is your Gender? ____female ____male

What year were you born?

19______

What NCAA Divisional level did you compete at? _____DI _____DII _____DIII

What sport(s) do you play?

______

Do you mostly compete in Team or Individual events or competitions? _____Team _____Individual

Did you earn an Athletic scholarship? _____Yes _____No

What best describes your athletic role throughout your overall career? _____starter _____role-player w/ significant playing time _____non-starter w/ little playing time

On average how often did your team win? Please estimate. _____won over 75% _____won about 50% _____won about 25% _____I don’t know

What best describes the university athletic program or athletic department you were a member of? _____top in conference _____middle in conference _____bottom in conference

- 140 -

Appendix E: Semi-structured interview guides for focus groups

Sense of community Semi-Structured Focus Group Guide—Sport Club Athletes

--Present the definition of sense of community—as being a characteristic of communities that results in the perception of similarity, acknowledgement and willingness to maintain interdependence, and the feeling that one is part of a larger reliable and stable structure

We were interested in finding out how and when a sense of community was created for athletes. We interviewed sport club athletes and after several interviews the following model developed. We determined that there were four main factors that seemed important for club athletes. Handout of the sport club model is distributed to participants.

1. Do you have any reaction to this model? i.e. do you think it reflects your experiences? Is there anything noteworthy that you think is missing? Explain –give examples.

2. For the second part of our study, we then interviewed varsity athletes? Is everyone familiar with varsity sports and how they operate? Just to give you an idea, they are more structured and for the most part administrator-run. The model that developed for varsity looked slightly different. Handout of the varsity model is distributed to participants.

3. Do you have any reactions to this model? Does anything standout? Why do you think some of the differences exist?

4. One of the more surprising findings was the importance of amateurism/voluntary action in the sport club model. These athletes repeatedly expressed the importance of the fact that they were doing it because they loved the sport and this idea the activity was voluntary and this idea the activity was voluntary was key to creating a sense of community. What do you think of this? Why do you think this didn’t show up within the varsity athlete study?

5. In both studies, this idea of Competition was important and that there was a gender difference. What do you think of this? Do you agree or disagree with this? Were you surprised by this? Why do you think that is?

Outcomes

5. Do you think sense of community is important? Why?

6. What happens to athletes who have a solid community? 7. What happens to athletes that do not have a solid community?

- 141 -

8. Do you expect to continue participating in sport beyond college? What do you think you will do? What kind of activities? Do you see yourself being involved in community sport leagues? Why or why not? Do you think you might have any trouble adjusting to that environment?

It also seemed from our study that club sport athletes were more likely to continue to participate in sports immediately following college. This wasn’t necessarily true for all the varsity athletes interviewed. What do you think of this? Why do you think that is?

9. What about the deviant behavior (partying, hazing, etc.) ? Do you think one structure lends itself to more of that?? Why?

Sense of Community Semi-Structured Focus Group Guide—Varsity Athletes

--Present the definition of sense of community—as being a characteristic of communities that results in the perception of similarity, acknowledgement and willingness to maintain interdependence, and the feeling that one is part of a larger reliable and stable structure

We were interested in finding out how and when a sense of community was created for athletes. We first interviewed varsity athletes and after several interviews the following model developed. We determined that there were 5 main factors that seemed important for varsity athletes. Handout of the sport club model is distributed to participants.

1. Do you have any reaction to this model? i.e. do you think it reflects your experiences? Is there anything noteworthy that you think is missing? Explain –give examples.

2. For the second part of our study, we then interviewed sport club athletes. Is everyone familiar with sport clubs or club sports and how they operate? Just to give you an idea, they are less structured and for the most part student run. They also compete against other universities (not just intramurals). The model that developed for sport club athletes looked slightly different. Handout of the sport club model is distributed to participants.

3. Do you have any reactions to this model? Does anything standout? Why do you think some of the differences exist?

4. One of the more surprising findings was the importance of amateurism/voluntary action in the sport club model. These athletes repeatedly expressed the importance of the fact that they were doing it because they loved the sport and this idea the activity was voluntary was key to creating a sense of community. What do you think of this? Why do you think this didn’t show up within the varsity athlete study?

- 142 -

5. In both studies, this idea of Competition was important and that there was a gender difference. What do you think of this? Do you agree or disagree with this? Were you surprised by this? Why do you think that is?

5. Do you think sense of community is important? Why?

6. What happens to athletes who have a solid community?

7. What happens to athletes that do not have a solid community?

8. Do you expect to continue participating in sport beyond college? What do you think you will do? What kind of activities? Do you see yourself being involved in community sport leagues? Why or why not? Do you think you might have any trouble adjusting to that environment?

It also seemed from our study that club sport athletes were more likely to continue to participate in sports immediately following college. This wasn’t necessarily true for all the varsity athletes interviewed. What do you think of this? Why do you think that is?

9. What about the deviant behavior (partying, hazing, etc.)? Do you think one structure lends itself to more of that?? Why?

- 143 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of

Community

Running Head: Understanding Sense of Community from the Athlete’s

Perspective

Understanding Sense of Community from the Athlete’s Perspective

Stacy Warner and Marlene A. Dixon

The University of Texas at Austin

Contact:

Stacy Warner

University of Texas

Department of Kinesiology and Health Education

222 Bellmont Hall; MS D3700

Austin, TX 78712

fax: 512-471-8914

phone: 512-471-1273

- 144 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community

Abstract

Sport programs are often charged with creating a sense of community (SOC), and it is thought that doing so will benefit participants on and off the field of play. Since SOC is setting specific (Hill, 1996) and most research has been conducted outside of sport, the literature has not yet fully demonstrated how and when SOC is created within a sport context. Utilizing a grounded theory and phenomenological approach, this study investigated the mechanisms for creating SOC within a sport setting. Twenty former US college athletes were interviewed regarding their sport experiences. The results revealed that Administrative Consideration, Leadership Opportunities, Equity in Administrative

Decisions, Competition, and Social Spaces were the most salient factors that fostered

SOC. The results contribute to community building theory, and provide practical solutions for enhancing the participant experience.

- 145 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community

Introduction

Creating and fostering a SOC within sport is important because of its potential to improve the life quality of those associated with sport organizations and programs. For example, the benefits of SOC include increased well-being (Davidson & Cotter, 1991), lower delinquency rates (Battistich & Hom, 1997), and increased civic participation

(Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Within a university setting, community building and the creation of a sense of community (SOC) is probably one of the most frequently utilized legitimations of sport. For example, a glance at mission statements of various athletic departments (e.g., Seattle Pacific University, Southern Methodist University, Duke

University) clearly affirms that fostering or enhancing a sense of community (SOC) is one of their goals. Sport is thought to bring together people of diverse backgrounds into a common community where people can feel a sense of belonging (Wolf-Wendel, Toma, &

Morphew, 2001).

Athletic departments, like other student services components on campus, are charged with creating smaller communities of interest and enhancing the well-being of their constituents. In the midst of increasingly diverse campus populations (HERI, 2007;

Wolf-Wendel et al., 2001), and a society that seems to provide fewer opportunities for meaningful social interaction (Putnam, 2000), it has been shown to be important to provide places for community within a college campus where students can feel safety, belonging, and attachment (Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett,

1994). Residence life programs, intramural and club sports, fraternities and sororities,

- 146 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community and varsity athletics are just a few of the ways that administrators attempt to help create and enhance a SOC for its constituents. Thus, while creating community across the larger university is important, it also is the charge of athletic departments (and other student services) to understand the ways that SOC is created among these different constituents.

In spite of the prominence of SOC, few studies have actually provided meaningful insight into the mechanisms that can lead to community building within sport. When viewed through a community psychology lens, SOC is concerned with the community characteristics that lead to members feeling a sense of belonging and attachment. SOC can be experienced at various levels (e.g., team, athletic department, university, geographical region). However, the primary concern with a SOC focus is not necessarily with whom or at what level the SOC is developed, but that the relevant environmental characteristics are present so that community members experience an enhanced quality of life.

This study specifically focuses on athletes within a university setting. The aim is to build SOC in sport theory that would better inform sport managers and administrators on potential context specific mechanisms that would improve SOC for this particular sector of university community members. Athletes are just one of the many university groups that would benefit from a better understanding of SOC. Athletes, however, were targeted for this study due to the visibility of intercollegiate athletics, the historical importance of sport on campuses, the need to better justify the value of sport, and the potential to elucidate sport specific mechanism that might also be important in other sport

- 147 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community sectors (e.g., community sport leagues, youth sport, professional sport). When examining the value and management of sport across contexts Chalip (2006a) argued, “The value of sport in each case depends on the ways that sport is managed. Factors that facilitate and inhibit optimization of sport’s contribution . . . must be identified and probed” (p. 1). In an effort to create the best possible experience for sport participants, the factors that lead to the development of a sense of community must be identified. Toward that end, research must first demonstrate if and when athletes have felt a SOC within a particular context, and what factors contributed to that feeling.

Theoretical Framework

Sarason (1974) initially posited the idea and importance of sense of community

(SOC). He contended that the perception of similarity, acknowledgement and willingness to maintain interdependence, along with the feeling that one is part of a larger reliable and stable structure, are some of the elements that constitute SOC. Later, Chavis and colleagues more concisely defined SOC as, “A feeling that members have of belonging and being important to each other, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met by their commitment to be together” (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandermans,

1986, p.11). While conceptually similar, SOC can be distinguished from group cohesion in that cohesion is typically task or goal oriented (e.g., Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer,

1998), whereas SOC does not require an output or goal. Pretty et al. (1994) further established that one can feel that he or she belongs and is supported by a community even if he or she cannot identify the specific individuals or behaviors that led to this feeling.

- 148 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Further, despite the fact that community members may leave and new members may be introduced to the community, this sense can endure. Sarason (1974) summarized this persisting sense: “The psychological sense of community is not a mystery to the person who experiences it. It is a mystery to those who do not experience it but hunger for it” (p. 157). Hill (1996) concluded, “Psychological sense of community has consistently been shown to be exactly what Sarason (1974) originally proposed it as, a characteristic of communities, not of the people living within them” (p. 5). Therefore, it is critical to identify the idiosyncratic features of a community that lead to individuals within that community experiencing a SOC. SOC is operationally defined for the current study as community characteristics that lead to members feeling a sense of belonging, attachment, and shared faith and interest in common goals or values (McMillan &

Chavis, 1986).

Furthermore, “community” is generally defined as either a neighborhood and geographical setting or a relational group that is centered on a common interest or activity

(Gusfield, 1975; Heller, 1989). For the purposes of a SOC inquiry, it should be noted that either of the aforementioned definitions of communities would be appropriate to evaluate. That is, one could study SOC among a collection of residential neighbors, town members, a church or religious group, a Boy Scout Pack, or a sport team. The importance of SOC lies in the fact of whether or not it is experienced and/or felt, not necessarily with whom or at what level. A SOC inquiry is concerned with the community characteristics that foster a sense of belonging and safety. Thus, “sense of community” can be

- 149 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community experienced by any individual or member of a geographic or interest group, even one that has little in common with the larger unit of which it is a part.

Developing SOC: Multilevel Determinants

Klein and D’Aunno (1986) proposed that SOC in the workplace was the product of multilevel factors including: 1) individual employee characteristics, 2) job characteristics, 3) leader characteristics, 4) work group characteristics, 5) organizational characteristics, and 6) extra-organizational characteristics (related to the organization’s environment). They suggested that these factors worked in concert to produce a shared

SOC among organizational members. They did not, however, specify the characteristics or mechanisms within each level (e.g., what job characteristics are important to creating

SOC). Although his research conceded that there are common elements to SOC, Hill

(1996) stressed that SOC is context-specific. Therefore, following Klein and D’Aunno’s broad multilevel approach, it is critical to examine SOC within the specific context of interest to determine which individual, leader, organizational, etc. factors are salient and how they work together to create or enhance SOC.

A few studies have attempted to pinpoint the distinguishing components that create a SOC within a sport context. For example, Swyers (2005) conveyed the

“unexplainable” sense of community that existed among regular bleacher fans at Wrigley

Field, which she attributed to the construction of social spaces and the feeling of ownership. A study on older adult or masters’ sport participants revealed that a shared sporting interest, camaraderie in continued activity, relevant life purpose, and giving back were the contributing elements to a SOC for the participants in this context (Lyons &

- 150 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Dionigi, 2007). These studies reveal specific contextual features of sport (e.g., social spaces, camaraderie, purpose) that may be particularly important for the intercollegiate sport context.

Gender Differences

Research has also provided evidence of gender differences in terms of how and when SOC is experienced. In their study of a public utility corporation, Pretty and

McCarthy (1991) found, “Men’s sense of community was related to peer cohesion, i.e., support from their co-workers, whereas women’s was primarily related to supervisor support, i.e., support from their upper mangers” (p. 9). Lambert and Hopkins (1995) also found informal support played a more significant role in explaining men’s SOC, while formal support was more important to women’s SOC. Pretty and McCarthy (1991) also found that despite the perception that work pressure was evenhanded for both male and female managers, work pressure was negatively related to SOC for women yet positively related to SOC for men. Further, they noted that this could signify that competition and performance may bring men together while it isolates women. In a sport context that is based in competition and in which performance is constantly being measured, it is essential to evaluate whether or not there are gender differences in how and when SOC is experienced.

Benefits of SOC

Scholars have demonstrated the benefits and consequences of an increased SOC in a variety of disciplines and social settings. For example community and school studies have shown that a strong SOC is associated with subjective well-being among members

- 151 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community (Davidson & Cotter, 1991), decreased levels of loneliness (Pretty et al., 1994), lower drug use and delinquency among students (Battistich & Hom, 1997), and increased civic participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In the workplace, Burroughs and Eby

(1998) demonstrated SOC was significantly related to job satisfaction. In addition, Royal and Rossi (1996) found SOC in the workplace to be associated with reduced role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload. The potential to reduce absenteeism, improve communication, reduce stress, and increase quality and intensity of work efforts have also been proposed as benefits of SOC in the workplace (Klein & D’Aunno, 1986).

In a university context, students living on campus, fraternity/sorority members, private school undergraduates, and out-of-state students tend to report a greater SOC

(Lounsbury & Deneui, 1995). This is perhaps an indication that the student-life or extracurricular programming for these students has in some way helped them to find an attachment or sense of belonging on campus. Interestingly, in these studies students did not usually find SOC linked with a broader attachment to the university, but typically viewed their SOC as a function of the smaller communities to which they belonged. A strong SOC among college students within a living environment has been associated with reduced incidences of burnout, which was also found to be related to academic performance (McCarthy, Pretty, & Catano, 1990). Notably, none of these university- level studies referenced SOC among athletes or linked the importance of athletic participation to SOC. In fact, few studies with the exception of Swyers (2005) and Lyons and Dionigi (2007) have explored the link between sport and SOC.

Sport, Higher Education, and SOC

- 152 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Early in the 19th century, college students began “to form their own activities to meet the vacuum created by a sterile curriculum and inadequate social, intellectual, aesthetics, and physical life. The college extracurriculum was born out of student necessity” (Smith, 1988, p. 15) to the overly structured college life. As part of this movement, sport played a particularly vital role in creating community among students in the university. Often sport-related class contests (e.g., freshman vs. sophomores, juniors vs. seniors) took place on college campuses, which served as a unifying function within the university that contributed to building a SOC among the student populations that were increasing both in size and diversity (Chu, 1989; Rader, 1983; Smith, 1988). Eventually, these student-initiated and student-run contests were replaced with intercollegiate athletics.

Many continue to attribute college sport participation with building an SOC for the campus and with positive outcomes for the athletes themselves such as satisfaction with the college experience, motivation to earn a degree, development of psychosocial skills, and leadership ability (Pascarella & Smart, 1991; Ryan, 1989; Zimbalist, 2001).

Conversely, critics view the professionalization of college athletics as a detriment to university’s educational mission and the welfare of the athletes (e.g., Bowen & Levin,

2003; Gerdy, 2006; Sperber, 2000), suggesting that commercialized sport detracts from the educational mission of universities and that athletes are an isolated sub-community within the larger university community. While this debate about the place of sport within higher education will certainly continue, most would argue that sport plays at least some role in creating a SOC on campus: either as a place of attachment and security for the

- 153 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community athletes (much like a fraternity, sorority, or other campus organization would), or as a central community builder for the entire campus, or both.

Use of Sport for Community Building

Despite the fact that SOC has not been clearly conceptualized in a sport setting, several studies have suggested that sport can be used as a tool to create a SOC at a variety of levels. Hardy (1982) asserted, “Residents in Boston and other cities continued to reshape and reestablish meaningful forms of community; often their efforts occurred within a sporting medium” (p. 197). Furthermore, he concluded that the creation of recreation spaces intended for adult-directed games were deliberate attempts to “directly shape or control the city so as to create a consciously defined sense of community” (p.

198). Also in the leisure context, camp settings and wilderness adventure programs are often charged with creating a SOC (Lyons, 2003; Sharpe, 2005). These programs have likely grown and developed due to the fact that “informal social connectedness has declined in all parts of American society” (Putman, 2000, p. 108). Still, few attempts have been made to examine the factors that lead to SOC or how it can/should be created in these contexts.

A qualitative investigation of First String, a Community Team, Inc., a grassroots baseball program that targets African American youths, revealed that the loss of SOC and nostalgia experienced by the founders served as the driving force that led to the establishment of the program (Glover & Bates, 2006). Furthermore, in Tonts’ (2005) investigation of sport and social capital in a rural region of Western Australia 91.2% of survey respondents indicated that sport was important in endorsing a local SOC. Chalip

- 154 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community (2006b) suggested that the communitas or a short-lived spontaneous SOC that develops in less structured environments (Sharpe, 2005), surrounding sporting events could be leveraged to enrich social lives, aid in building social capital, and advance social initiatives. For example, in the aftermath of a widely destructive hurricane in St. Croix,

Mitrano and Smith (1990) demonstrated how horse racing served a “socioemotional / therapeutic function” which maintained a SOC on the island. While the sport literature clearly claims that a SOC can be created via sport, it has not clearly measured or demonstrated how and when SOC is created in this context.

Researchers and practitioners must keep in mind that the legitimations of sport

(e.g., health, salubrious socialization, community development, pride) are not simply serendipitous outcomes, but are highly dependent on how sport is managed (Chalip,

2006a). In fact, a study of professional baseball in Cincinnati exposed that professional sport in this case did not contribute to a SOC; rather, Smith and Ingham (2003) concluded that funding a stadium for a professional sport team only further divided a community.

Along similar lines, an emphasis on commodification and professionalism in women’s hockey in Canada has reportedly contributed to a decrease of SOC for its participants

(Stevens, 2000).

The literature provides strong support for the importance and benefits of SOC across a variety of disciplines and settings. However, in all cases SOC was not automatic. That is, there were specific attributes of the community and mechanisms that created this sense for its members. Sport managers and scholars cannot unquestionably

- 155 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community assume a SOC will develop; the factors and mechanisms that contribute to building community must be identified and probed (Chalip, 2006a).

Although sport is frequently used as a tool to create a SOC, sport managers in particular must be provided with meaningful insight into the mechanisms that can be attributed to one feeling a SOC within a sport context. If the dynamics of how and when a SOC is or is not experienced in a sport setting becomes more clearly understood, sport managers can use this knowledge to better build and leverage community in ways that enhance the image of the region, university, or city, and even more importantly, improve the quality of life for its community members, including sport participants. Due to the nature of intercollegiate athletics bringing together students with a common interest, this context is likely fertile ground for SOC to develop and for athletes, in particular, to reap the benefits of an enhanced SOC. Therefore, research must first identify if athletes have felt a SOC and when this has happened. As a corollary, it is also important to understand how community members (i.e., athletes) perceive their community and the community characteristics that seem to enhance or create a SOC. This study utilized a qualitative approach that provides in-depth insights from the participants themselves to answer the following the research questions:

1) What are the mechanisms and factors that lead to collegiate athletes

experiencing a SOC?

2) Do these factors and mechanisms vary by gender?

Research Method

- 156 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community A grounded theory and phenomenological approach were utilized in the current study. A grounded theory approach is appropriate when little is known about a topic, while a phenomenological approach seeks to explain a phenomenon. “Both [methods] focus on the richness of human experience, seek to understand a situation from the subject’s own frame of reference, and use flexible data collection procedures” (Baker,

Wuest, & Stern, 1992, p. 1355). Furthermore, a grounded theory approach attempts to capture social processes in an effort to explain human behavior (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), while phenomenology focuses more on the psychological structures. Both grounded theory and phenomenological approaches were essential to gain insight from athletes’ experiences and fully capture the mechanisms that lead to SOC as experienced by athletes.

Instrument. A semi-structured interview format was used to collect data. This less formal interview format allowed the investigator to start with a broad question regarding the SOC experienced or not experienced by the athletes and then “follow the conversation to greater understanding as questions gradually become more focused”

(Munhall, 2007, p. 309). In addition, this format sought to gain a comprehensive description and better understanding of the participants’ experience without imposing any researcher-bound notions or assumptions that may have limited the inquiry (Fontana &

Frey, 2005). Interview questions were developed and adapted from the community psychology literature (Deneui, 2003; Lyons & Dionigi, 2007; McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

For example, participants were asked to recall times they felt especially a part of their team or university and times when they did not have this sense of community. Other

- 157 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community questions included: Can you tell give me a specific example of when you felt a strong sense of belonging to your team or university?; Can you give me example of when you did not feel this way?; Can you tell me what if anything could have been done to create more of a sense of community? In line with a grounded theory approach, it should be noted that the actual population or group level where SOC was experienced was purposefully left undefined, which allowed the participants to define their own community (e.g., team, athletic department, campus, region). The questions were reviewed for face validity by a panel of experts in sport management and in qualitative research. In addition, background information was gathered via a demographic questionnaire.

Participants. Twenty former NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association)

Division I, II, and III athletes participated in the study, which is a sufficient sample size for research taking a grounded theory approach (Creswell, 2002). Participants, representing 18 different institutions, were first identified through the researchers’ professional and social networks. Snowball and theoretical sampling were used to identify additional participants. That is, through researcher and participant contacts, every effort was made to ensure the acquisition of a diverse and balanced sample in terms of gender, sport played, race, NCAA divisional level, athletic role, grant-in-aid

(scholarship vs. non-scholarship), and team success (see Table 1). Such purposeful or theoretical sampling allowed the researcher to illicit rich description while achieving maximum variation. Maximum variation was important because it aided the researcher in discovering common patterns across different collegiate sport settings (Miles &

- 158 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Huberman, 1994). Former athletes, who were one to five years removed from their eligibility, were chosen as participants due to the fact that they have had time to reflect on their experiences. As a result, they were able to speak to the community features and experiences that truly resonated beyond their college sport experience and not just proximal experiences.

Procedure. Participants were contacted via phone or email and invited to participate. At that time voluntary written consent was garnered and arrangements were made to conduct interviews. Thirteen in-person interviews were conducted at locations chosen by the participants. Seven interviews were conducted via phone. Both modes of data collection proved to be valuable and allowed for the collection of rich data (see

Novick, 2008 for a discussion on the benefits of both types of interviews). All interviews were digitally recorded.

Data Analysis. The interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes to two hours. The data were then transcribed and analyzed with the aid of QSR International’s NVIVO 7 software. Using open coding, the data were initially coded line by line. Consistent with the grounded theory approach this process involved “inductive identification of substantive codes to name what is happening in the data” (Munhall, 2007, p. 252). This helped to condense the data into codes. These codes were then grouped into “abstract categories that reflect(ed) the domain of study at a descriptive level” (Munhall, 2007, p.

252). Then, through an iterative process, intuitive ideas about the properties and relationships of the codes were deductively checked with the data until broader themes emerged (Munhall, 2007). After multiple rounds of discussion with an independent

- 159 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community researcher who assisted with the data analysis, complete agreement was reached as to the meaning and content of the themes. To ensure accuracy of the results that emerged, member checks for interpretations and conclusions drawn were conducted post hoc with the participants (Munhall, 2007). More specifically, participants were able to view their transcripts and provide feedback to the researchers regarding both the content of the transcripts and the interpretation of the coding, the resultant themes, and the interpretation of those themes.

Results

The results revealed that Administrative Consideration, Leadership Opportunities,

Equity in Administrative Decisions, Competition, and Social Spaces were the most salient themes or community features that fostered SOC within a collegiate sport context. Each factor along with the mechanism through which SOC was created is illustrated in Figure

1. The five factors are presented along with representative quotations from the participants. Due the extensive and rich data, not all participant quotations can be presented.

Administrative Consideration

Although some participants mentioned the tangible university and athletic department support through funding and facilities, what really resonated with the participants and created a SOC for them was the care, concern, and intentionality of administrators and support personnel within the university. It is important to note that the critical element of this consideration was that it went beyond their athletic experience.

As Laura (DI, softball) explained, “I had a very good connection with my advisor and

- 160 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community counselor…‘cause [sic] they wanted me to succeed and get a job after college and not just drop me cause I am done playing.” It was this type of genuine concern beyond the athletic field that was indicated in several of the interviews as a key component for building a SOC. The participants expressed that when the university personnel “really cared about each individual athlete,” (Lynn, DI, women’s soccer) the athletes felt a sense of importance and belonging to the community.

When asked about when she felt supported, a core component of SOC, Megan (DI, women’s cross country) highlighted the importance of simple gestures by athletics personnel. She said, “When I walked across campus and someone from the athletic department would say hi and find out how I was doing [I felt supported].” Mason (DIII, football) described support from a more in-depth relationship that was created with an athletic trainer:

He and his wife were very good for me. I knew I could always count on them for anything I needed or if I had a question about anything. Like my freshman year, I had a flat tire. “Where do you take it?” Something like that, I knew I could count on them. And it turned into a really great relationship. . . . So I think that was one of those strong relationships that made my experience at [university].

The importance of Administrative Consideration was salient in all the interviews. For example, Terrance (DI, men’s basketball) experienced both the very lows and highs of athletic team success as a member of a high profile team that endured unprecedented losses and then secured a national championship for his university. He said that the consistent behavior of “the people who were in place that never left” demonstrated to him that the administration cared about people regardless of the competitive outcomes.

- 161 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Through both the turmoil and success, he summed up, more importantly, how he felt a

SOC was created.

It starts from the beginning [when you arrive on campus], then from the top and works its way down. You have to have the right people, people who care. Not only about the people in their department, but about the school. Once you get people like that into position to where they can hire people underneath them and then they can teach them, it just works its way down. . . . They [administrators and personnel] play a huge role, it goes back to [university] being a family. You get that sense of family everywhere you go inside of there, whether it is the people in the office, the security, the janitors, the bus drivers even. (Terrance, DI, men’s basketball)

These types of comments demonstrated that Administrative Consideration was a valuable and memorable part of their athlete experience that led to the creation of a SOC.

Leadership Opportunities

Serving in leadership roles, whether formal or informal, also contributed to the sense of belonging experienced by the participants. For example, nine of the participants mentioned that they held formal roles such as being designated a team captain or a representative on the Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC). In addition, almost all the participants mentioned holding informal leadership positions such as offering advice to underclassmen or just trying to represent their university’s athletic program in

“the best possible light” (Scott, DI, men’s soccer). The importance of being in a leadership position was that it created a sense of purpose for the participants. The participants used terms such as “accountability” (Alexis, Terrance, Hunter, Laura),

“ownership” (Brandon), and “responsibility” (Brandon, Hunter, Macie, Scott) to describe what resulted when they were placed into leadership roles. They argued that these feelings were instrumental to creating a SOC for them.

- 162 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community One of the most critical elements to holding leadership positions was the sense of ownership that the athletes felt when administrators were actually considering their thoughts and opinions on issues. Brandon (DII, men’s soccer) offered one example of this, “Our compliance person was actually in charge of SAAC. So we [the SAAC] did some new legislation, so I was like this is kind of cool. I mean we were actually giving our opinion on rule changes.” When Hunter’s (DI, men’s soccer) team was faced with replacing a beloved coach who passed away, he emphasized the significance he found in his athletic director’s approach to the situation. “When we were making the decision to either keep the interim coach or hire outside, he held individual meetings with every single guy on the team to get decisions from us.” When athletes were able to offer input that was taken into account by administrators, it created a strong community atmosphere where participants felt a sense of ownership and responsibility.

After Scott (DI, men’s soccer) spoke of his experience, it was evident that being a SAAC representative was central to his athletic career. When prompted as to whether or not this enhanced his sense of belonging, Scott described the influence this leadership role had on his felt SOC.

I think it definitely did [enhanced the sense of community]. It gave me a broader view; it was no longer about me as a student, an individual student-athlete. I looked at things from a larger perspective, all 13 teams, all 300 student-athletes, all of the coaches. So I think just being a student-athlete, sometimes people get absorbed in your role as an athlete. All you think of is your team, your teammates, and what you’re doing, and your specific goals. . . .so I think that experience definitely opened my eyes, and changed how I viewed the [athletic] department and the university as well.

- 163 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community As indicated in the above quote, athletes that participated in decisions felt an enhanced

SOC in the athletic community as well as gaining broader perspective on the campus community as a whole.

While formal leadership roles were highlighted, informal leadership roles such as a coach defining a student-athlete’s particular function on a team or participating in community service also influenced SOC. These types of informal leadership roles created the feeling of contributing to a greater cause and being able to a make a difference or have an impact through that role. By defining, bestowing, or simply encouraging such roles, the athletes felt a greater sense of belonging. For example, Avery

(DI, women’s track and field) spoke of the role her coach gave her, “I was the person in charge of the hurdler groups, showing them drills and such. I was the leader for the hurdler groups. I was doing something I wanted to do for the team [italics added].”

When asked about her SOC, Macie (DI, women’s soccer) illustrated further how it was an informal leadership role that contributed to her experiencing a SOC.

I was never a captain. That's probably because I wasn’t like the best player. I definitely had a lot of girls that would come to me to talk, wanting advice about life and how they felt lost in life and I would talk to them. . . . I felt like that’s why I was there, but nothing that like had a title on it or anything, but definitely people would say go talk to Macie. For sure I felt like that created more of a community, but that took until junior year to develop. But for sure it did; I felt more of a mom figure at that point. I knew that what was going on off the field was more important than what was going on on the field because lives are more important than soccer.

Eric (DII, men’s soccer) pinpointed a time when his coach became ill and he and his teammates had to lead their own practices. The community that was created as a result of being thrown into a leadership role was an important contributor to his SOC. In addition,

- 164 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community several others noted how serving the broader local community with their teammates and

“achieving a greater purpose” (Macie, DI, women’s soccer) created a SOC for them.

Overall, throughout the interviews the idea of formal and informal Leadership Roles and the accountability, ownership, responsibility and purpose that came from such roles fostered a SOC among the participants.

Equity of Administrative Decisions

Another salient theme that emerged from the data as a contributor to SOC for the participants was Equity of Administrative Decisions. This theme encompassed athletic department level administrative decisions that demonstrated support for all the teams and the program as a whole (as opposed to individual athletes) in terms of funding and facilities and even attendance at events. And it was specifically vital that the athletes deemed such actions and support as appropriate, just, and fair. That is, more than anything, athletes wanted to feel that their teams were treated and supported in an equitable manner across the department. It is important to note that the data revealed this component was not just about financial resources and allocations, but also about how the teams were treated and viewed. Anthony (DIII, men’s swimming) talked about how this manifested itself at his university:

I was really impressed with the kind of sense of community that they [his institution] had. I mean, the athletic director would come to pretty much every home meet that we had. And I thought that was a big deal, especially for a swim team, because I mean swimming is a pretty boring sport—a non-swimmer to come sit through an entire swim meet. The university president would come to a few meets a year, too. And stuff like that; it was just really impressive.

- 165 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community In addition, Lynn (DI, women’s soccer) explained how equitable decisions in terms of support added to her sense of belonging despite on-the-field issues.

I mean there are times when I hated my coaches, but I never hated the university. And although things didn't go how I would have liked for my soccer career, how I was treated as an athlete, . . . how they treat all of their athletes, no matter how much [scholarship] money they're on, or if they are a walk-on… I think [university] treats their athletes great. Even if things aren't going well with your team, I think there's always that sense of “you’re a [university] student-athlete”.

Nadine (DI, women’s rowing) was in agreement with the importance of equitable decisions. When asked what led to her feeling supported she added, “When they [athletic department] would give us equal facilities and practice times.”

While equitable actions contributed to SOC, any deviations from support in terms of equitable treatment decreased the participants’ level of SOC. Unfortunately, this was a common thread in many of the interviews. Brandon (DII, men’s soccer) explained:

It is the same thing everywhere. It is going to be the sports that have traditionally been more financially rewarding. In our case no one makes money. It’s all a financial drain. We always felt there was more attention placed on football and basketball. . . . our home field was pretty much on a flood plain. So anytime it rained we had to have our home games on our practice field, which was like….other sports were getting new lights and things like that and we had no lights and played every game during the day and the field was terribly flooded half our games. It was kind of frustrating in that aspect.

Ivie (DII, women’s volleyball) added, “You know the budgets that we had, you could see a large difference in what each team could get comparatively.” Bryce (DII, football and men’s track and field) was also well aware of the athletic scholarship differences at his university. “When you looked at what else everyone was getting from the pie. . . .That kind of stuff was tough when you find out. People talk.” Whether it was “university events held for only certain sports, like tailgate parties for men’s basketball, but no body

- 166 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community else” (Ivie), inadequate facilities (Brandon, Eric, Jaden, Scott), budget differences

(Alexis, Brandon, Bryce, Ivie), the number of pairs of shoes received (Jaden, Ivie), “not being football” (Jaden), or the athletic director or university president attending only certain sports events (Alexis, Ivie), or “basketball players on one pedestal and everyone else was below them” (Eric) almost all participants highlighted how discrepancies in equitable support decreased their SOC.

Other examples showed how equitable treatment by the athletic director impacted their sense of importance and belonging in the department. Nadine (DI, women’s rowing) told how a local newspaper ran a story that was framed in a manner that made the women’s crew team appear as though it was in place only to meet Title IX requirements.

“[The athletic department] could have squashed the article a little sooner. They could have probably done a little more to make us feel like we did in fact matter. And not just to keep the football program alive.” On a more positive note, Eric (DII, men’s soccer) summed up how a newly appointed athletic director instantly created a SOC at his university. “The biggest thing was that he came in and right away he sat in on meetings with all athletes from all the teams and he reassured us that everybody would be treated similar.”

In essence, athletes wanted to be treated fairly and any administrative action that refuted this did not going unnoticed by athletes. In fact, Paige (DI, women’s basketball) spoke of how such an instance involving a team issue and unfair treatment impacted her and her teammates’ decisions to transfer.

- 167 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community As far as seeking some help from the athletic department, they [my teammates] didn’t get any and that definitely had a play on me. . . . I didn’t want to leave. A few more things happened and I felt further from that community that you look for. . . . they [my teammates] didn’t receive help from the people above the coach; they didn’t have any other place to go, other than leave. So that affected me.

It was clear that athletes were aware of the decisions being made within their athletic department, and sometimes even decisions that did not directly impact them. If these administrative decisions were considered to be fair and just, SOC was enhanced; any instances that digressed from that resulted in diminished levels of SOC.

Competition

The idea of being a part of and sharing the challenges and struggles to excel in sport with others also emerged as a factor that impacted the creation of a SOC for the participants. This community feature was labeled Competition. Intrinsic components of sport such as enmity, pressure, tension, and mutual respect for those participating comprised this theme. Further, this community feature encompassed the rivalry and inherent nature of sport to determine who was athletically superior. Interestingly, this aspect was referred to by the participants almost exclusively as internal team competition rather than competition against other teams. Further, the influence of competition on

SOC varied by gender. That is, male participants tended to note that internal team competition was a positive aspect that contributed to their SOC while most females cited this as an aspect that reduced their SOC. Tanner (DI, football), whose team faced frequent criticism for poor on the field performances, explained:

The competitive nature of sports at least from our situation, it definitely added to our sense of community. Because we weren’t very good, there was a lot of stuff

- 168 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community talked about us in the media and around campus. The group of guys you had on the team was all you had. Because you didn't get any respect outside of the locker room. Everybody was down on you. We kind of had to rally around each other. As far as competition within the team, it stayed on the field. People I felt did a good job with that. You would have a position battle and the two guys battling for position would go out and have dinner afterwards. There was a lot of “us against the world”.

In contrast, Avery (DI, women’s track and field) described the “tension” that competition created among her teammates. She added, “It was hard being the best athlete at the university and you had others who think they are better than you.” Other female participants mentioned that there were times they worried about being resented for their personal success, and that some teammates were more “sensitive” (Alexis) and “couldn’t handle” (Paige, Ivie) the criticism. Alexis (DIII, women’s basketball) described it as women simply being “hard-wired” differently. As Macie (DI, women’s soccer) explained, “They're [males] all better at turning it on and off. I feel like girls wouldn't be like that, you know, no way. I feel like they take that off the field. For whatever reason, I don’t know if it’s a sensitivity thing, emotional or whatever.”

Hunter (DI, men’s soccer) who now coaches women at the DIII level considered whether the differences he’s observed were attributable to gender or the level of play, noted:

I think that for me as a women’s coach, I have been able to kind of see some difference in regards to how men and women respond to the competitive environment. I think on the men’s team that I was on, there was never sort of any malcontent or bitterness. If someone was starting ahead of you or anything that like that, you would just have to keep pushing and support that teammate. I mean just that decision had to be made about that. I think it is good to be a little bit bitter about it or upset, I mean everyone wants to play. But you know you have to maintain a good attitude and everything like that. I think if you want to get down to specifics one of the biggest things that we see is accountability. I think that in

- 169 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community the playing environment that I have been in, if there is any sort of lack in effort or demonstration of poor attitude and things like that . . . more times than not it was your teammates that are going to come down on you and address that, and let you know that that is just not acceptable. I just find with our girls, there is very little sense of keeping each other held accountable within themselves. The girls are very afraid to step on each other’s toes and show that leadership and that even comes through in games when our girls are very timid about getting after each other a little bit. You need to do that. So, yeah and I think in the bigger picture…a lot of girls just kind of lack that edge. Very rarely do you see, especially in our [DIII] environment.

Laura (DI, softball) and Macie (DI, women’s soccer), however, dismissed any notion as to whether or not this varied by level of play. When asked if the competitive nature of sport added or detracted from the belonging they experienced, both candidly highlighted the impact gender may have on their SOC:

Oh, especially with females, it detracts. ‘Cause it is personal. Very personal, it is not just that you happen to have the love for the game and the talent; it is “you’re going after me, you’re taking my position.” And that had happened a few times with some of the girls. When it did happen, it was bad. It split the team into a few cliques. It is the not the physical part of competing. It is the verbal assault, behind each other’s backs. And, it kind of ruined our bond. Certain players that were starting, weren’t anymore. . . . it would become smack talk, behind the back, found out because girls talk to everyone. And “oh, she struck out how many times? And I don’t strike out, but she is still starting.” Petty stuff. I don’t think that happens nearly as often in baseball or they just don’t say it. Or in any men’s sports, they probably just get over it. (Laura, DI softball)

It detracts. I can't speak for other sports, I feel almost like in football that it's different. Soccer…girls can be so evil. I just think of things that have made me so much stronger…. “if you're not good, you're not hanging out with us after the game if you didn't play well.” I don’t know if my sense of that is exacerbated by something that I went through when I was younger, with snobby girls that were really good at soccer, but the competition [aspect] was hard. I just feel like girls can just go behind your back and so much talking behind your back. (Macie, DI women’s soccer)

The female participants did not attribute reduced SOC to their own personal feelings about the value and place of competition. Rather, they were more prone to attribute the

- 170 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community reduced SOC and increased tension to the lack of ability by other teammates to cope with the internal team competition appropriately.

While Laura and Macie clearly felt that competition detracted from the SOC they experienced, Bryce (DII, football and men’s track and field) took the opposite view when asked about the role competition played on his SOC. “I think it adds, I have been a fan of competition.” When he further elaborated on this aspect he described the “attitude” and

“respect” for others going through the same thing that enhanced SOC for him. “I think it is a mutual respect that competition creates…well in football it was the brotherhood-- because you beat the crap out of each other and you are just waiting for a game to come so that you guys together can beat up someone else.” Overall, it was obvious that the

Competition within sport was influenced by gender as it impacted SOC.

Social Spaces

Another theme that emerged from the data as a contributor to SOC was the importance of having a common area or facility in which to interact with other athletes.

Interestingly, the athletic training room was the most often mentioned place that helped develop a SOC for the participants. In addition, classrooms, weight rooms, areas of the dining hall, or a common gathering area on campus “where you knew you could find other athletes” (Ivie, DII women’s volleyball) created important Social Spaces for the participants. Regardless of where this physical area was located, it served as an important community feature that aided in the creation of SOC. It was a location where the athletes felt “comfortable” (Hunter, Macie).

- 171 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Several participants even talked about the divide in the classroom among athletes and non-athletes. Macie (DI, women’s soccer) explained why she thought such a divide existed, “I guess just because you feel more comfortable with them. I remember having a class where it was probably 50% athletes and the classroom was split down the middle— athletes on one side, regs [regular students] on the other.” When asked why and how she would end up sitting by other athletes in classes, Lynn (DI, women’s soccer) reiterated what several others noted, “All the athletes don’t dress up to go to class.” It seemed as though this behavior created an identifying mark of commonality among the participants.

In fact, many of the participants were quick to refer non-athletes as “normies” or “regs” because to them, these students were normal or regular students in comparison to how they viewed themselves and other athletes. The athletes acknowledged that Social

Spaces strengthened their own sense of belonging. However, it was noteworthy that these same spaces might have also divided them from non-athletes.

Scott (DI, men’s soccer) described how his university’s limited facilities created a shared mentality and SOC among athletes, “We were out there with each other—side-by- side—working, working to represent the university to the best of our ability.” Jaden (DI, women’s volleyball) and Brandon (DIII, football) both noted the importance of congregating with other athletes for a meal in the dining hall. In fact, several of the athletes mentioned having a specific table where they always sat. Jaden said:

In the cafeteria, on the upper level were the black students and on the lower level were the sorority students and we [athletes] were at the big table. It was like every athlete. It didn't matter what color you were we would always sit all at the huge table. That was the only integration [of races], pretty much. So it was really, really weird. I never ever had that [experience] before.

- 172 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community

The Social Spaces were not limited to on-campus locations. For example, Tanner (DI, football) spoke of what he called the “pack mentality” when he would go out with teammates.

I had my football friends and I had another separate group of friends from the dorm that were regular students. And the people that did not play sports did not get the relationship you have with your teammates. . . . They don't understand when you would go out and it would be that pack mentality. That was something that was kind of foreign to them.

There was a commonality, cohesion, and shared interest among athletes that when combined with social spaces or physical location facilitated SOC.

Discussion

The rapid decrease in social connectedness and increase in social isolation that have been recently identified within U.S. society (cf. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, &

Brashears, 2006; Putman, 2000) provides the discipline of sport management with great potential to utilize sport to build community and improve the quality of life for many. In fact, many sport organizations clearly identify community building as a mission of many of their programs. In order to build community, however, sport managers must no longer rely on research outside the sport context, anecdotal and lay evidence, and gendered ideas about when and how a SOC is created for participants. Rather, researchers must challenge and probe this assumption and common justification that sport automatically creates a SOC and belonging, and in doing so advance the sport management discipline and enhance the sport experience for participants (cf. Kuhn, 1996).

- 173 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community From a theoretical standpoint, the results of this study support Hill’s (1996) assertion that SOC is comprised of context-specific community features. That is,

Administrative Consideration, Leadership Opportunities, Equity in Administrative

Decisions, Competition (varied by gender), and Social Spaces were found to be the most salient community features that fostered a SOC in a collegiate athletic setting. These results also support Klein and D’Aunno’s (1986) broad multilevel approach, which demonstrated it is critical to examine SOC within the specific context of interest to determine which individual, leader, organizational, etc. factors are salient and how they work together to create or enhance SOC. With the exception of Equity in Administrative

Decision, the findings of this study are somewhat congruent with previous SOC research.

However, the combination of the noted five salient community features seemed to be idiosyncratic and context-specific to a university sport setting (Hill, 1996).

Leadership Opportunities and Social Spaces are fairly consistent with previous

SOC studies in sport. For example, Leadership Opportunities is comparable with the relevant life purpose and giving back that Lyons and Dionigi (2007) identified as contributing to SOC for older adult or master’s sport participants. Social Spaces was found to be an important attribute in creating a SOC among bleacher fans at Wrigley

Field (Sywers, 2005). In non-sport related work setting Pretty and McCarthy (1991) found that supervisor support, which to some extent is comparable to Administrative

Consideration, was an important factor in fostering SOC in workplace. Pretty and

McCarthy also indicated that Competition in workplace should also be evaluated when

- 174 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community assessing SOC in future studies. The blend of these four factors along with Equity in

Administrative Decisions created SOC in this specific sport context.

Considering the life stage that the participants reflected upon (all were 17-23 years old), it is not surprising Administrative Consideration, Leadership Opportunities, and Social Spaces were prominent in the interviews. Research strongly supports that at this life stage, individuals become less dependent on their parents, make more independent decisions, and face numerous social and relational challenges as they emerge into adulthood (e.g., Arnett, 2000; Hicks & Heastie, 2008; Pittman & Richmond, 2008;

Sherrod, Haggerty, & Featherman, 1993). As a result of this newly found independence, individuals at this life stage may be more attuned to Administrative Consideration and

Leadership Opportunities. Therefore these factors helped frame their SOC by creating an environment that led to these athletes feeling a sense of belonging and attachment. In addition to this, research also indicates that peer support is especially vital during various life transitions (Hirsch, 1980), which the participants would have been going through as they entered into a collegiate environment and likely began living on their own for the first time. Consequently, this may explain the importance the participants placed on

Social Spaces for building SOC, where this essential peer support was found.

The salience of Equity in Administrative Decisions was also noteworthy and can be expounded by Inequity Theory, which asserts that fairness is perceived when resources or outputs are allocated in proportion to the efforts or inputs (Adams, 1965).

That is, when individuals feel a balance is met, in comparison with others, between their contributions and the rewards received, justice is perceived. When individuals do not

- 175 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community feel this balance exists, there is a felt inequity and a stress or strain to resolve the inequity. When administrative decisions were viewed as fair and just, this contributed to

SOC; however, when administrative decisions were not viewed in this manner it detracted from the participants’ SOC. Based on the data gathered from this study and other financial reports (United States Department of Education, 2008), scholarships and athletic department resources varied immensely among the sport programs and teams that were represented in this study. For example, even though teams would presumably put forth similar amounts of time and effort (inputs), it was made clear that preferential treatment in terms of resources (outputs) was given to football or basketball programs in many of the cases. Thus, inequity in administrative decisions may be particularly characteristic of a collegiate athletic setting, where the inputs are fairly similar, yet the resources (outputs) are often limited and large discrepancies in funding typically exists

(see Fulks, 2005 and United States Department of Education, 2008). Thus, it is notable that Equity in Administrative Decisions was of particular importance in creating a sense of belonging, attachment for the athletes in this study.

Although Competition is seemingly an innate characteristic of sport, the financial lure of athletic scholarships in this particular setting may have also enhanced the emphasis the participants placed on internal team Competition. Although the literature is replete with evidence that suggests that external conflict or threat (i.e. common enemy, rivalry) promotes internal cohesion (c.f. Levine & Morehand, 2006; Stein, 1976), when considering SOC the participants focused primarily on the internal competition and not external rivalries. This indicates a potential key difference between group cohesion and

- 176 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community SOC and possibly a context specific community characteristic that should be considered for future research.

Among most NCAA Division I and II teams, athletics scholarships (also known as grants-in-aid) are not awarded to every member of a team, and scholarship distribution is based on performing better than others. These financial incentives do not end once an athlete enters college as scholarships are awarded and distributed on an annual basis. In fact, one participant noted her family could not have afforded the private university she attended without an athletics scholarship, and she feared that her athletics scholarship would be taken away and given to someone who performed at higher levels. This dynamic financial landscape may help explain why the pressure and competitiveness were especially prominent in this context; however, it does not provide us with any insight as to why this feature was influenced by gender. Alternatively, the fact that

Competition varied by gender is either due to innate biological tendencies of the different genders (see Knight, 2002) or, more likely, is a result of the socialization process. That is, through interactive social processes individuals are exposed to norms, values, and role expectations and learn to behave in accordance with these (Bandura, 1977; Greendorfer,

1993; Nixon, 1990). This process is often gendered in that certain behaviors and roles are considered gender-appropriate for either males or females. Consequently, the gender differences in how competition was perceived in this study may be a result of gendered socialization. In other words, males may have been socialized to view competition in a more positive manner than females. Pretty and McCarthy’s (1991) work suggested that gender differences would possibly exist in how competition is perceived in terms of SOC.

- 177 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Further, Gneezy, Leonard, and List (2006) conducted an experimental study that revealed that societal structures were tied to gender differences in terms of competiveness. Dixon,

Warner, and Bruening (2008) also demonstrated that boys and girls express gender differences in their early socialization into sport, which also has an impact on their lifelong participation patterns. Although, their work did not specifically address competition, it does reveal some of the social structures that likely would impact gendered socialization into sport. Their work highlighted the enduring impact of parental role modeling and being providers and interpreters of the sport experience. Thus, early parental socialization into sport along with subsequent peer and coach influence would likely provide insight and further explanation into the gender differences regarding how

Competition influenced SOC among athletes.

The data revealed that a SOC is not an automatic serendipitous outcome of a sport setting. Rather, these community features worked alone or in some combination with one another to facilitate, or in some cases impede, the creation a SOC for participants in this specific setting. For example, based on the specified community features noted in this study some participants (e.g., Anthony, Lynn, Sally, Terrance) felt a strong SOC throughout their collegiate career while others rarely felt a consistently strong SOC (e.g., Avery, Brandon, Ivie). Thus, SOC for all the participants was dependent on the absence or presence of the noted community features. Interestingly, although all participants were asked about times that they experienced a reduced SOC, their responses all referred to Equity in Administrative Decision and Competition (for the female participants). This may be an indication that these particular components with a

- 178 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community collegiate athletics setting should be weighed more heavily in regards to their impact on

SOC.

Through understanding the idiosyncratic features of a sport community, this study expands current thinking about community building and the way sport is managed. From a theoretical standpoint, the data supported that gender differences exist in how SOC is shaped. Thus, Pretty and McCarthy’s (1991) proposal (i.e., competition would potentially create SOC for men, while it would detract from SOC for women) was supported by this study. The gender differences that were revealed should serve as an auspice for future inquiry on SOC within various settings. The gender differences regarding competition that were noted in this study need to be further explored by sport managers and researchers who desire to see more individuals reap the benefits of experiencing SOC via sport.

Conclusion

From a practical standpoint, the results of this study suggest that community features can be designed and managed. Knowing the benefits of SOC and the fact that many sport programs are often charged with creating a SOC, this study has implications for pragmatic solutions for enhancing the participant experience. The community features identified by former college athletes are already contributing to building a SOC for some athletes on various university campuses and thus can be maintained or enhanced. For example, given the importance of Administrative Consideration, athletic administrators should take more time to inquire about how an athlete is adjusting to college life. In addition, a higher priority can be placed on seeing that more equitable

- 179 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community administrative decisions are made and that decisions that may be perceived as unfair are explained to athletes. Additional leadership opportunities can be created for the athletes, and facilities and other social spaces can be better designed to allow for social interaction. Finally, providing insight to coaches on how competition is perceived could also assist in enhancing the athlete experience. The evidence suggests that coaches of males should encourage internal team competition and inter-team rivalries, while coaches of female teams would most likely want to encourage their athletes to focus on personal improvement rather than inter-team competition with their peers. Each of these examples would foster a stronger SOC.

It is noteworthy that the participants in this study defined their sense of beloning in terms of their team or as the athletic department and not necessarily as the campus community as a whole. While some would suggest that this is problematic and leads to athletes becoming too isolated from the university community (Bowen & Levin, 2003), others would suggest that the rationale behind any extracurricular activity is to create a

SOC for the people who participate in that activity or group, thus creating different points of attachment, safety, and security for different groups of individuals on campus

(McMillan & Chavis, 1986). It is important not overlook the emotional safety and intimate bonds that are formed as a result of the membership and boundaries of these different communities, including sport communities (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).

This study provided insight on how athletes understand and perceive their communities and how to enhance their experience. Future research needs to continue to examine the interaction of community sectors like athletics with other sectors (i.e.,

- 180 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community fraternities, living communities, etc.) and the campus community as a whole, how they interact and how they can better meet the needs of community members while enhancing the SOC of the university members as a whole. One such investigation, particularly involving NCAA Division I athletes, should examine with whom and at what level SOC is experienced and how to create athletic communities on campus that would better reflect the positive value of athletics and its place within the educational mission of a university. Future work should also examine if and how sport can enhance the SOC of athletes and the broader university community simultaneously,

From a broader perspective, if sport managers understand how SOC develops within different sport contexts this knowledge can be eventually used to leverage social initiatives that would benefit community members and potentially even the broader community. That is, evidence supports that increased levels of SOC results in greater civic participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In this case, if SOC is increased and a higher value is placed on education within the mechanisms posited by this study, it is very likely that the broader community (e.g., university community, geographical community) would also benefit by the athletes taking a more active role in their surrounding environment. Research has also demonstrated that increased SOC has been associated with lower levels of drug use and delinquent behavior (Battistich & Hom,

1997). Thus, if sport can provide a context that enhances SOC, the broader community would benefit.

This study provided the initial steps in evaluating and uncovering how and when

SOC develops within a sport context; however, the findings are not generalizable beyond

- 181 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community the sample represented in the study. In effort to expand the potential impact and contribution sport can have in the lives of various individuals, researchers must continue to probe the mechanisms and community features highlighted in this study and across broader sport contexts. Future research should verify this study’s results through more generalizable designs. It is also recommended that future research be conducted in other sport contexts to explore the specific features of SOC that might exist in those contexts.

Such studies would allow for comparisons between different sport contexts and would perhaps reveal some of the idiosyncratic features of sport that impact community. Such knowledge would potentially benefit sport managers as they design and maintain sport communities. Finally, the impact and outcomes of SOC within intercollegiate athletics should also be considered for future research.

Simply assuming SOC is created via sport programs has not served athletes or the discipline of sport management well; research must continue to move beyond this common assumption and better inform practitioners of the ways to enhance the participant experience while maximizing the impact that SOC can have on the life quality of sport participants

- 182 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community References

Adams, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic

Press.

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens

through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P.N. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded

theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355-1360.

Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their

school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American

Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.

Bowen, W.G., & Levin, S.A. (2003). Reclaiming the game: College sports and

educational values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A

measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community

Psychology, 26, 509-532.

Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). The measurement of

cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise

psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information

Technology.

- 183 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Chalip, L. (2006a). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport

Management, 20, 1-21.

Chalip, L. (2006b). Towards social leverage of sport events. Journal of Sport Tourism,

11, 109-127.

Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment:

A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.

Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J.H., McMillan, D.W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of

community through Brunswick’s lens: A first look. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 14, 24-40.

Chu, D. (1989). The character of American higher education and intercollegiate sport.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Davidson, W., & Cotter, P.R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and

subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3),

246-253.

Deneui, D. (2003). An investigation of first-year college students' psychological sense of

community on campus. College Student Journal, 37, 224-235.

- 184 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Dixon, M.A., Warner, S.M., & Bruening, J.E. (2008). More than just letting them play:

The enduring impact of parental socialization on female sport involvement.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 25, 538-559.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The Interview: From neutral stance to political

involvement. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., pp. 695-727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fulks, D. (2005). 2002-2003 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I and II

Intercollegiate Athletics Programs. Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate

Athletic Association.

Gerdy, J. R. (2006). Air ball: American education's failed experiment with elite athletics,

Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for

qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

Glover, T. D., & Bates, N. R. (2006). Recapturing a sense of neighborhood since lost:

Nostalgia and the formation of First String, a Community Team Inc. Leisure

Studies, 25(3), 329-351.

Gneezy, U., Leonard, K.L., List, J.A. (2006). Gender differences in competition: The role

of socialization. Manuscript, University of Chicago.

Greendorfer, S. (1993). Gender role stereotypes and early childhood socialization. In

G.L. Cohen (Ed.), Women in Sport: Issues and controversies (pp. 3-14). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Gusfield, J. R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.

- 185 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Hardy, S. (1982). How Boston played: Sport, recreation, and community 1865-1915.

Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 17, 1-15.

HERI. Higher Education Research Institute. (2007). American Freshmen: Forty-Year

Trends 1966-2006. Chronicle of Higher Education Website.

http://www.chronicle.com

Hicks, T., & Heastie, S. (2008). High school to college transition: A profile of the

stressors, physical and psychological health issues that affect the first-year on-

campus college student. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 15 (3), 143-147.

Hill, J. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research.

Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 431-438.

Hirsch, B.J. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major life changes.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 8(2), 159-172.

Klein, K., & D’Aunno, T. (1986). Psychological sense of community in the workplace.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 365-377.

Knight, J. (2002). Sexual stereotypes. Nature, 415, 254-256.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Lambert, S. J., & Hopkins, K. (1995). Occupational conditions and workers' sense of

community: Variations by gender and race. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 23(2), 151-179.

- 186 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Levine, J. M., & Morehand, P. L. (2006). Small groups: key readings. New York:

Psychology Press.

Lounsbury, J.W., & DeNeui, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus.

College Student Journal, 29, 270-277.

Lyons, K. (2003). Exploring the meaning of community among summer camp staff.

World Leisure, 4, 55-61.

Lyons, K., & Dionigi, R. (2007). Transcending emotional community: A qualitative

examination of older adults and masters’ sports participation. Leisure Sciences,

29, 375-389.

McCarthy, M., Pretty, G., & Catano, V. (1990). Psychological sense of community: An

issue in student burnout. Journal of College Student Personnel, 31, 211-216.

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America:

Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological

Review, 71, 353-375.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitrano, J., & Smith, R. (1990). The socioemotional functions of sport and the

maintenance of community: Hurricane Hugo and horse racing in St.Croix. Arena

Review, 14(4), 47-58.

Munhall, P.L. (2007). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (4th ed.). Sudbury,

MA: Jones and Barlett.

- 187 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Nixon II., H. (1990). Rethinking socialization and sport. Journal of Sport and Social

Issues, 14, 33-47.

Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?

Research in Nursing and Health, 31, 391-398.

Pascarella, E.T., & Smart, J.C. (1991). Impact of intercollegiate athletic participation for

African American and Caucasian men: Some further evidence. Journal of

College Student Development, 32, 123-130.

Pittman, L.D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and

psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 76(4), 343-361.

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among

men and women of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351-

361.

Pretty, G., Andrewes, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents’ sense of

community and its relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology,

22, 346–358.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rader, B.G. (1983). American sports: From the age of folk games to the age of

spectators. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

- 188 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Royal, M., & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community:

Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395-

416.

Ryan, F. (1989). Participation in intercollegiate athletics: Affective outcomes. Journal

of College Student, 30, 122-128.

Sarason, S.B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community

psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sharpe, E. (2005). Delivering communitas: Wilderness adventure and the making of

community. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 255-280.

Sherrod, L.R., Haggerty, R.J., & Featherman, D.L. (1993). Introduction: Late

adolescence and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence,

3, 217-226.

Smith, J.M., & Ingham, A. G. (2003). On the waterfront: Retrospectives on the

relationship between sport and communities. Sociology of Sport Journal, 20, 252-

274.

Smith, R.A. (1988). Sports and freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big-time college sports is crippling

undergraduate education. New York: Henry Holt.

Stein, A.A. (1976). Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature. The Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 20 (1), 143-172.

- 189 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Stevens, J. (2000). The declining sense of community in Canadian women's hockey.

Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 9(2), 123-140.

Swyers, H. (2005). Community America: Who owns Wrigley Field? The International

Journal of Sport History, 22 (6), 1086-1105.

Tonts, M. (2005). Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural

Studies, 21, 137–149.

United States Department of Education (2008). Equity in Athletics disclosure website.

Retrieved August 30, 2009, from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Wolf-Wendel, L., Toma, J., & Morphew, C. (2001). There’s no I in team: Lessons from

athletics on community building. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 369-396.

Zimbalist, A. (2001). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time

sport. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

- 190 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community

- 191 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Table 1

Participant Background Information

Name Gender Race NCAA Sport Grant- Athletic Est. Team Rank Level In- Role Winning within aid % Conferen ce

Alexis Female White DIII Basketball No Starter > 75% Top

Anthony Male White DIII Swimming No Starter = 50% Middle

Avery Female Black DI Track & Yes Starter > 75% Top

Field

Brandon Male White DII Soccer Yes Starter > 75% Middle

Bryce Male White DII Football/ Yes Starter > 75% Top

Track &

Field

Eric Male Black DII Soccer Yes Starter = 50% Bottom

Hunter Male Hispanic DI Soccer Yes Starter = 50% Top

Ivie Female White DII Volleyball Yes Starter = 50% Top

Jaden Female Hispanic DI Volleyball Yes Starter =50% Middle

Laura Female White DI Softball Yes Starter > 75% Top

Lynn Female White DI Soccer Yes Role- > 75% Top

player

Macie Female White DI Soccer Yes Starter >75% Top

Mason Male White DIII Football No Starter >75% Top

- 192 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Table 1 (con’t.) Megan Female White DI Cross No Starter < 25% Top

Country

Nadine Female White DI/DII Rowing DI/ No Role- > 75% Top

I Track & player

Field DIII

Paige Female White DI Basketball No Both Both Both

Sally Female Black DIII Tennis No Starter < 25% Bottom

Scott Male Black DI Soccer No Role- > 75% Middle

player

Tanner Male White DI Football No Role- > 25% Top

player

Terrance Male Black DI Basketball No Role- >75% Top

player

- 193 - Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community Figure 1

Athlete Sense of Community Model

- 194 -

References

Agnew, R. (1997). The nature and determinants of strain: Another look at Durkheim and

Merton. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The future of Anomie Theory (pp. 27-

51). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Allan, T. H., & Allan, K. H. (1971). Sensitivity for community leaders. Proceedings of

the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6, 577-

578.

Armstrong, G., & Giulianotti, R. (1997). Entering the field: New perspectives on world

football. Oxford: Berg.

Armstrong, T., Bauman, A., & Davies, J. (2000). Physical activity patterns of Australian

adults: Results of the 1999 National Physical Activity Survey. Australian Institute

of Health and Welfare: AIHW Cat No. CVD10. Canberra: Australia.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Bachrach, K.M., & Zautra, A.J. (1985). Coping with a community stressor: The threat of

a hazardous waste facility. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 127-141.

Baker, C., Wuest, J., & Stern, P.N. (1992). Method slurring: The grounded

theory/phenomenology example. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1355-1360.

Barker, R.G., & Gump, P.V. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and

student behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

- 195 -

Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students’ sense of their

school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American

Journal of Public Health, 87, 1997-2001.

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal

attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,

497-529.

Beal, B. (1998). Symbolic inversion in the subculture of skateboarding. In S. Reifel (Ed.),

Play and culture studies: Vol. I. Diversions and divergences in fields of play.

Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Benzies, K.M., & Allen, M.N. (2001). Symbolic interactionism as a theoretical

perspective for multiple method research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 33, 541-

547.

Berg, B.L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Boston:

Pearson.

Berkman, L.F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T.E. (2000). From social integration to

health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 843-

857.

Bess, K. D., Fisher, A. T., Sonn, C. C., & Bishop, B. J. (2002). Psychological sense of

community: Theory, research and application. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B.J.

Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and

Implications (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

- 196 -

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspectives and method. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bowles, H., Morrow, Jr., J., Leonard, B., Hawkins, M., & Couzelis, P. (2002). The

association between physical activity behavior and commonly reported barriers in

a worksite population. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 464-470.

Boxill, J. (2003). The Ethics of competition. In J. Boxill (Ed.), Sports ethics: An

anthology (pp. 107–115). Oxford: Blackwell.

Boyer, E. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie

Foundation for Advancement of Teaching.

Braun, T.J. (1989). Extramurals in higher education: A valid counterpart to

intercollegiate athletics. National Intramural-Recreation Sport Association

Journal, 14 (1), 50-52.

Brubacher, J.S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of

American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction

Publishers.

Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A

measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community

Psychology, 26, 509-532.

Camp, W.C. (1885). College Athletics: Youth the time for physical development. The

New Englander, January, 138-140.

- 197 -

Carlson, D.A. (1990). Sport clubs: From the classroom to the office-Academic and

continuing career preparation. National Intramural-Recreation Sport Association

Journal, 14 (3), 35-37.

Carter, E.M., & Carter, M.V. (2007). Social psychological analysis of anomie among

National Football League players. International Review for the Sociology of

Sport, 42, 243-270.

Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport

Management, 20, 1-21.

Chalip, L., & Scott, E.P. (2005). Centrifugal social forces in a youth sport league. Sport

Management Review, 8, 43-67.

Charmaz, K. (1990). Discovering chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social

Sciences and Medicine, 30, 1161-1172.

Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment:

A catalyst for participation and community development. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 18, 55-81.

Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J.H., McMillan, D.W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of

community through Brunswick’s lens: A first look. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 14, 24-40.

Chenitz, W., & Swanson, J. (1986). From practice to grounded theory: Qualitative

research in nursing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

- 198 -

Chipuer, H., & Pretty, G. (1999). A review of the Sense of Community Index: Current

uses, factor structures, reliability, and further development. Journal of

Community Psychology, 27, 643-658.

Chu, D. (1989). The character of American higher education and intercollegiate sport.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Coakley, J. J. (1994). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (5th ed.). St. Louis:

Mosby.

Coakley, J. J. (2001). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (7th ed.). Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Corlett, J. (1997). Political philosophy and the managerial class: Implications for the

administration of sport. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 250-262.

Cullen, F.T., & Wright, J.P. (1997). Liberating the anomie-strain paradigm: Implications

from social-support theory. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The future of

Anomie Theory (pp.187-206). Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Diversity in sport organizations. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb

Hathaway.

Cunningham, G. B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimination in intercollegiate

athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 29, 148-163.

Davidson, W., & Cotter, P.R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and

subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246-

253.

- 199 -

Deflem, M. (1989). From anomie to anomia and anomic depression: A sociological

critique on the use of anomie in psychiatric research. Social Science & Medicine,

29, 627-634.

Deneui, D. ( 2003). An investigation of first-year college students' psychological sense of

community on campus. College Student Journal, 37, 224-235.

Dixon, M.A. (2009). From their perspective: A Qualitative examination of physical

activity and sport programming for working mothers. Sport Management Review,

12, 34-48.

Dixon, M.A., & Warner, S. (2010). The dynamics of worker satisfaction: The role of

work and non-work factors. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 139-168.

Dixon, M.A., Warner, S.M., & Bruening, J.E. (2008). More than just letting them play:

The enduring impact of parental socialization on female sport involvement.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 25, 538-559.

Duetsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-

152.

Dunn, R.E., & Goldman, M. (1966) Competition and noncompetition in relationship to

satisfaction and feelings toward own-group and nongroup members. Journal of

Social Psychology, 68, 229-311.

Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society translated by George Simpson.

New York: The Free Press.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology translated by George Simpson and

John A. Spaulding. New York: The Free Press.

- 200 -

Edwards, A. (1999). Reflective practice in sport management. Sport Management

Review, 2, 67-81.

Fine, G.A. (1986). Small groups and sports: A symbolic interactionist analysis. In C.

Roger Rees and Andrew W. Miracle (Eds.), Sport and Social Theory (pp. 159-

169). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1993). The Group Interview in Social Research. In D. L.

Morgan (Ed.), Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art (pp. 20-

34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gerdy, J. R. (1997). The successful college athletic program: The new standard.

Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.

Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Glover, T. D., & Bates, N. R. (2006). Recapturing a sense of neighborhood since lost:

Nostalgia and the formation of First String, a Community Team Inc. Leisure

Studies, 25, 329-351.

Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2004). Gender and competition at a young age. American

Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 94 (2), 377-381.

Gneezy, U., Leonard, K.L., List, J.A. (2006). Gender differences in competition: The role

of socialization. Manuscript, University of Chicago.

Gruneau, R. (2006). ‘Amateurism’ as a sociological problem: Some reflections inspired

by Eric Dunning. Sport in Society: Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics, 9, 559-

582.

Gusfield, J.R. (1975). The community: A critical response. New York: Harper Colophon.

- 201 -

Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997). Anomie, social capital, and street criminology. In N.

Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The Future of Anomie Theory (pp.124-141). Boston:

Northeastern University Press.

Heath, H., & Cowley, S. (2003). Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison

of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41, 141-50.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New York, NY: Cromwell.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard

Business Review, 46, 53-62.

Hess, L.A. (1971). Institutional commitment to the financing of sports club programs.

Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 42, 24.

Hicks, T., & Heastie, S. (2008). High school to college transition: A profile of the

stressors, physical and psychological health issues that affect the first-year on-

campus college student. Journal of Cultural Diversity, 15 (3), 143-147.

Hill, B., & Green, B.C. (2008). Give the beach the boot! Using manning theory to design

youth-sport programs. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 184-204.

Hill, J. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research.

Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 431-438.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,

Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hyatt, R.W. (1977). Intramurals sports: Organization and administration. Saint Louis,

MO: The C.V. Mosby Company.

- 202 -

Inglis, S. (1992). Focus groups as a useful qualitative methodology in sport management.

Journal of Sport Management, 6, 173-178.

Irwin, J. (1973). Surfing: The natural history of an urban scene. Urban Life and Culture,

2, 131-160.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational

Research, 57, 1-50.

Jeter, J.M. (1986). Extramural sport clubs and varsity athletics. In American Alliance for

Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Intramurals and club sports:

A Handbook (pp.101-103). Reston, VA.: AAHPERD Publications.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and

research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,

competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kano, N., Nobuhiko, S., Takahashi, F., & Shinichi, T. (1984). Attractive quality and

Must-Be quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14, 39-48.

Kellett, P., & Warner, S. (June, 2010). Developing a sense of community among umpires:

Retaining sports’ vital resources. Paper presented at the North American Society

for Sport Management Conference, Tampa, FL.

Kleiber, D. (1983). Sport and human development: A dialectical interpretation. Journal

of Humanistic Psychology, 23, 76-95.

- 203 -

Kleiber, D., & Roberts, G.A. (1981). The effects of sport experience in the development

of social character: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3,

114-122.

Klein, K., & D’Aunno, T. (1986). Psychological sense of community in the workplace.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 365-377.

Knight, J. (2002). Sexual stereotypes. Nature, 415, 254-256.

Kohn, A. (1992). No contest: the case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2008). Focus Groups. A practical guide for applied

research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, S. J., & Hopkins, K. (1995). Occupational conditions and workers’ sense of

community: Variation by gender and race. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 23, 151-179.

Lewis, G. (1970). The Beginning of organized collegiate sport. American Quarterly, 22,

222-229.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structures and action. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Lott, A.J., & Lott, B.E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review

of relationships with antecedent and variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-

309.

Lounsbury, J.W., & DeNeui, D. (1995). Psychological sense of community on campus.

College Student Journal, 29, 270-277.

- 204 -

Lukes, S. (1972). Alienation and anomie. In A.W. Finifter (Ed.), Alienation and the

social system (pp. 24-32). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Luschen, G. (1986). The practical uses of sociology of sport: Some methodological

issues. In C.R. Rees & A.W. Miracle, (Eds.). Sport and social theory (pp.149-

157). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Lyons, K., & Dionigi, R. (2007). Transcending emotional community: A qualitative

examination of older adults and masters’ sports participation. Leisure Sciences,

29, 375-389.

Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 835-848). London: Sage.

Madsen, M.C. (1971). Developmental and cross-cultural differences in cooperative and

competitive behavior of young children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,

2, 365-371.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Matzler, K., Fuchs M., & Schubert, A. (2004). Employee satisfaction: Does Kano's

model apply? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(9/10), 1179-

1198.

McCarthy, M., Pretty, G., & Catano, V. (1990). Psychological sense of community: An

issue in student burnout. Journal of College Student Personnel, 31, 211-216.

McCole, D. (2006). Sense of community among summer camp staff members. Paper

presented at the 8th Biennial Research Symposium for Coalition for Education in

the Outdoors Conference, Bradford Woods, IN.

- 205 -

McCormack, J.B., & Chalip, L. (1988). Sport as socialization: A critique of

methodological premises. Social Science Journal, 25, 83-92.

McDonald, W. M. (2002). Creating campus community: In search of Ernest Boyer’s

legacy. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory.

Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America:

Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological

Review, 71, 353-375.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mitrano, J., & Smith, R. (1990). The socioemotional functions of sport and the

maintenance of community: Hurricane Hugo and horse racing in St. Croix. Arena

Review, 14, 47-58.

Morgan, DL. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Munhall, PL. (2007). Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (4th ed.). Sudbury, MA:

Jones and Barlett.

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

- 206 -

Nuss, E. M. (2003). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives & D. B.

Woodward, Jr. (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed.)

(pp. 65–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002a). Sense of community in science fiction

fandom, Part 1: Understanding sense of community in an international community

of interest. Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 87-103.

Obst, P., Zinkiewicz, L., & Smith, S. (2002b). Sense of community in science fiction

fandom, Part 2: Comparing neighborhood and interest group sense of community.

Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 105-117.

Orlick, T. (1978). The Cooperative sports and games books: Challenge without

competition. New York: Pantheon.

Orlick, T. (1981). Positive socialization via cooperative games. Developmental

Psychology, 17, 426-429.

Patton, M.Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative research.

Health Services Research, 34, 1189-1208.

Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator

assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88-127.

Pittman, L.D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and

psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 76(4), 343-361.

Pretty, G. (1990). Relating psychological sense of community to social climate

characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 60-65

- 207 -

Pretty, G. M. H. (2002). Young people’s development of the community-minded self:

Considering community identity, community attachment and sense of community.

In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B.J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological Sense of

Community: Research, Applications, and Implications (pp. 183-203). New York,

NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Pretty, G., & McCarthy, M. (1991). Exploring psychological sense of community among

men and women of the corporation. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 351-

361.

Pretty, G., Andrewes, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents’ sense of

community and its relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology,

22, 346-358.

Pretty, M.H., McCarthy, M.E., & Catano, V. M. (1992). Psychological environments and

burnout: Gender considerations within the corporation. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 13, 701-711.

Puddifoot, J.E. (1996). Some initial considerations in the measurement of community

identity. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 327-336.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rader, B.G. (1983). American sports: From the age of folk games to the age of

spectators. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community Psychology: Values, research, and action. New York:

Rhinehart and Winston.

- 208 -

Roberts, J.M., & Chick, G.E. (1984). Quitting the game: Covert disengagement from

Bulter County Eight Ball. American Anthropologist, 86, 549-567.

Royal, M., & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community:

Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395-

416.

Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A., & Sallis, J. (2003). Physical activity

and sedentary behavior: A population-based study of barriers, enjoyment, and

preference. Health Psychology, 22, 178-188.

Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The

salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55, 609-627.

Sandelowski, M. (1993). Theory unmasked: The uses and guises of theory in qualitative

research. Research in Nursing & Health, 16, 213-218.

Sarason, S.B. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community

psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schimmel, K.S. (2003). Sport. In Karen Christensen & David Levinson (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of community: From village to virtual world (pp. 1334-1336).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sharpe, E.K. (2003). “It’s not fun anymore”: A case study of organizing a contemporary

grassroots recreation association. Loisir et Soceite/Society and Leisure, 26, 431-

452.

Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. The

American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349-356.

- 209 -

Sherif, C. (1976). The social context of competition. In D.M. Landers (Ed.), Social

Problems in Athletics: Essays in the Sociology of sport (pp.18-36). Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J. White, B.J., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, C.W. (1961). Intergroup

conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s Cave experiment. Norman, OK:

University of Oklahoma, Institute of Group Relations.

Simons, Y., & Taylor, J. (1992). A psychosocial model of fan violence in sport.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 207-226.

Smith, R.A. (1988). Sports and freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Spitzberg, I. J., & Thorndike, V. V. (1992). Creating community on college campuses.

Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Stevens, J. (2000). The declining sense of community in Canadian women's hockey.

Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 9(2), 123-140.

Swyers, H. (2005). Community America: Who owns Wrigley Field? The International

Journal of Sport History, 22 (6), 1086-1105.

Tonts, M. (2005). Competitive sport and social capital in rural Australia. Journal of Rural

Studies, 21, 137-149.

Vallerand, R.J. Gauvin, L.I., & Halliwell, W.R. (1986). Effects of zero-sum competition

on children’s intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. The Journal of

Social Psychology, 126, 465-472.

- 210 -

Voydanoff, P. (2004). Implications of work and community demands and resources for

work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 9, 275-285.

Voyle, J. (1989). Adolescent administration of a leisure centre: Lessons from sport

organizations. New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, 17 (2), 31-34.

Warner, S., & Dixon, M.A. (in review; see Appendix F). Enhancing the sport experience:

Understanding sense of community from an athlete’s perspective. Journal of

Sport Management.

Wicker, A.W. (1968). Undermanning, performances, and students’ subjective experience

in behavior settings of large and small high schools. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 10, 255-261.

Wicker, A.W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Wolf-Wendel, L., Toma, J., & Morphew, C. (2001). There’s no I in team: Lessons from

athletics on community building. The Review of Higher Education, 24, 369-396.

- 211 -

VITA

Stacy Marie Warner attended Philipsburg-Osceola High School in Philipsburg, PA. In

1996 she entered Lock Haven University in Lock Haven, PA. During the fall of 1999, she interned for the USOC in Lake Placid, NY. Upon receiving her Bachelor of Science

Degree in 2000, Stacy entered graduate school at the University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill where she was received a M.A. in Sport Administration. Following graduate school, Stacy worked for the NCAA and Trinity University in athletics administration, until she returned to UNC in 2002. She directed the Sport Club program at UNC from

2002-2006 prior to entering the doctoral program at The University of Texas at Austin, where she also served as a Research Assistant for the Sport and Life Quality Laboratory.

Permanent Address: 4401 Speedway - #301 Austin, TX 78751

This manuscript was typed by the author.

- 212 -