Chasing Paper: A qualitative systems analysis of the tensions between money, diplomas, and learning in high profile intercollegiate athletics Anne Browning A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2014 Reading Committee: James Soto Antony, Chair Edward Taylor Jennifer Hoffman Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Education, Leadership and Policy Studies - College of Education ii ©Copyright 2014 Anne Browning iii University of Washington Abstract Chasing Paper: A qualitative systems analysis of the tensions between money, diplomas, and learning in high profile intercollegiate athletics Anne Browning Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Associate Provost James Soto Antony Office of the Provost, Yale University At the heart of the academic issues embedded within intercollegiate sports are the tensions between institutional academic prestige, athletic department revenue, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) desire to defend the ideals of the amateur student athlete. This qualitative study focuses on the affordances and constraints acting on “special admits” in high profile sports during their first year at a Division I University. Participant observation data are triangulated with interviews with seven first-year football players at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic year; and 12 staff members throughout the year. Utilizing “Figured Worlds” and Activity Theory frameworks, this study explores the role of athlete academic centers as hybrid spaces and addresses a current gap in the literature by developing a systems-level analysis of athlete experiences that incorporates NCAA policy. iv Acknowledgements Thanks to the University of Washington for the financial support throughout my graduate career. Early on, I benefitted from receiving a University of Washington College of Education Top Scholar Award and an Education Faculty Fellowship. In support of this dissertation, I am very grateful for receiving a Center for Leadership in Athletics Dissertation Scholarship and a Doi Doctoral Research Award. I have been honored to work with my committee members on this research. Jim, thanks for being willing to let me put my cart before my horse on several occasions, believing that it would all work out in the end, and for your aggressive use of exclamation marks in the margins that helped me stay enthusiastic by seeing my work anew through your eyes. Ed, thank you for being a champion of research on intercollegiate athletics. You have brought your own experience as an athlete and scholar to bear on our conversations and this dissertation is better for it. Jennifer, thank you for being willing to jump into new territory through exploring theoretical frameworks with me. Your generosity with your time and energy both in supporting me on this project and in moving this line of research forward is inspiring. Alexes, thank you for your support in understanding the complexities of fieldwork. Discussing my coding and field notes with you early on helped me understand how to go from telling anecdotes to constructing theory. To my committee as a whole, your support, friendship, and mentorship has made this process so valuable to me. Many thanks. To my colleagues in Undergraduate Academic Affairs, thank you for your support in making the time and space for me to complete this work. To my family and friends, thank you for your patience, understanding, and support as I have disappeared into this project for the last couple years. To Nicole, my expert editor, my chief transcriptionist, and my endless source of support - this was a team effort and you have been a fabulous teammate. Thank you. To the Athlete Academic Center and staff of the athletic department at the University – your willingness to open your practices up to research shows your desire to do the best you can by the athletes you support. I have been honored to work with you, hear your stories, and support our collective work. And most of all, thank you to Darnell, Clarence, Clayton, Rob, King, Kevin, and Ricky for sharing your lives with me. I will continue to follow your paths long after the final pages of this project have been printed. v Table of Contents Page List of Figures viii Chapter One – Introduction 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 The Case of the Special Admit 1 1.3 Statement of the Problem 4 1.4 Structure of the Dissertation 6 Chapter Two – Background and Context 2.1 The Role of the NCAA 8 2.2 Athletics in the Media Spotlight 10 2.3 The Eligibility Game 12 2.4 Contradictions between Systems 15 2.5 The Landscape 18 2.6 Systematic Underperformance 21 2.7 The Role of Stereotype Threat 23 2.8 Athlete Stigma 24 2.9 A Shift toward Qualitative Insight 27 2.10 The Literature Gap 37 2.11 Research Question 39 Chapter Three – Theoretical Framework 3.1 Introduction to Theoretical Framework 41 3.2 A Focus on Contexts 41 3.3 Vygotsky’s Legacy 43 3.4 Components, Principles, and Generations of Activity Theory 44 3.5 The Generations of Activity Theory 46 3.6 Structure to Culture 52 3.7 Hybrid Spaces 55 3.8 Figured Worlds Imagined and Defined 56 Chapter Four – Methodology 4.1 Introduction to Methodology 63 4.2 Rationale for Using Qualitative Methods 64 4.3 Audience for the Work 64 4.4 Conceptualization 65 4.6 Synopsis of Qualitative Methods 66 4.7 Data Sources 69 4.8 Description of Field Site 70 4.9 Discussion of Integration 71 Chapter Five – Findings in Grounded Theory 5.1 Introduction to Findings in Grounded Theory 73 5.2 Summer Bridge: The Point of Entry 73 5.3 Athlete Narratives 75 5.4 Athlete Demographics 76 vi 5.5 Forced Out – Darnell 78 5.6 Not Released – Clarence 83 5.7 The Future Star – Clayton 88 5.8 The Downward Trajectory – Rob 91 5.9 The Forgetful Misfit – Ricky 97 5.10 The True Freshman – Kevin 102 5.11 The Fish Out of Water – King 107 5.12 Putting the Narratives in Context 111 5.13 Open Coding 112 5.14 Axial Coding 115 5.15 Selective Coding 116 Chapter Six – Affordances and Constraints 6.1 Introduction to Affordances and Constraints 118 6.2 Constraints 118 6.3 The Business of Football 119 6.4 Recruitment and Redshirting 120 6.5 Forced Out 122 6.6 Eligibility 124 6.7 Concerns of the Athlete Academic Center Staff 128 6.8 Relative Preparation 129 6.9 Schedule Constraints 131 6.10 Affordances and a Matter of Perspective 134 6.11 The Athlete Academic Center as an Affordance 136 6.12 Bridge – Closing the Preparation Gap 139 6.13 The Affordance of Tutoring 142 Chapter Seven – Accountability and the Central Paradigm 7.1 Introduction to Accountability and the Central Paradigm 144 7.2 Tracking Athletes 145 7.3 Staff Roles 150 7.4 Athlete Identities and Behaviors 152 7.5 Assumptions and Accountability in Advising 152 7.6 The Role of Learning Specialists and Academic Coordinators 161 7.7 Athlete Accountability through Academic Coordination 165 7.8 The Role of Tutoring 167 7.9 Tutor and Athlete Dynamics 170 7.10 Inside Tutoring Sessions 171 7.11 Outcomes of the Tutoring System 176 7.12 Tutoring as the Locus of Learning 178 7.13 An Emergent Explanation for Academic Underperformance 179 7.14 Learning within the System 184 7.15 Findings on Accountability 185 Chapter Eight – Theory Revisited 8.1 Introduction to Theory Revisited 187 8.2 Figured Worlds and Understanding the Athletic and Academic Domains 187 vii 8.3 Figurative and Positional Identities 192 8.4 Identities in Transition to the Academic Figured World 196 8.5 Changing Perceptions of Bridge over Time 196 8.6 Identities beyond Bridge 197 8.7 Context and Positionality 198 8.8 Behavior 202 8.9 Agency and Authorship 206 8.10 Systems-Level Analysis Using Activity Theory 207 8.11 High Profile Special Admits and Change over Time 209 8.12 Increasing Constraints as “Football Never Stops” 212 8.13 The Athletic Department’s Third Object – Compliance 220 8.14 Learning in the Athletic and Academic Domains 222 8.15 Accountability across the Activity Systems 226 8.16 Outcomes of a Return to Theory 228 Chapter Nine – The Conclusion 9.1 Introduction to the Conclusion 231 9.2 A Return to the Problem at Hand 232 9.3 Constraints and Affordances 233 9.4 Agency, Identity, and Authorship 236 9.5 System-Level Tensions and Contradictions 237 9.6 Academic Self-Handicapping and Academic Performance 239 9.7 The Pedagogy of Teaching and Learning 241 9.8 Tutoring, Accountability, and De-evolution 243 9.9 Recommendations (1-4) 246 9.10 Broader Systems-Level Recommendations 250 9.11 Big Picture Policy Recommendations 251 9.12 Discussion of Limitations and Complications 253 9.13 Final Thoughts 255 References 258 Appendices A – Athlete Interview Questions 271 B – Staff Interview Questions 281 C – Observation Protocol 283 Vita 284 viii List of Figures Figure Number Page 1.1: Percentage of Freshman Football Players Considered Special Admits by Institution 2 2.1: Timeline of NCAA Academic Reform 31 3.1: First Generation Activity Theory 47 3.2: First Generation as Applied to the Marvin Austin Case 47 3.3: Second Generation Activity Theory Applied to UNC 48 3.4: Contradictions with Second Generation Activity Theory Leading to Change 49 3.5: Third Generation Activity Theory Using the McAdoo Case 51 3.6: Visual Representation of Activity Theory 53 3.7: Activity Systems Experienced as Figured Worlds 54 4.1: Process Flow of Qualitative Methods Research Design 65 5.1: Salient Categories Developed during Open Coding 113 5.2: Map of Axial Coding 115 5.3: Map of Coding