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
- v -
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.
- vi -
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.
- vii -
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
- viii -
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.
- ix -
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
- x -
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
- 1 -
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,
- 2 -
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).
- 3 -
“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,
- 4 -
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
- 5 -
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
- 6 -
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
- 7 -
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
- 8 -
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.
- 9 -
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:
- 10 -
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.
- 11 -
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
- 12 -
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
- 13 -
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.
- 14 -
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
- 15 -
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)
- 16 -
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
- 17 -
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.
- 18 -
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
- 19 -
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
- 20 -
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.
- 21 -
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
- 22 -
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
- 23 -
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
- 24 -
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
- 25 -
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.
- 26 -
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
- 27 -
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
- 28 -
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
- 29 -
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-
- 30 -
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
- 31 -
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
- 32 -
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.
- 33 -
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
- 34 -
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
- 35 -
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-
- 36 -
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,
- 37 -
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
- 38 -
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
- 39 -
(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)
- 40 -
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.
- 41 -
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
- 42 -
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
- 43 -
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
- 44 -
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.
- 45 -
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
- 46 -
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
- 47 -
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
- 48 -
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).
- 49 -
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.
- 50 -
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
- 51 -
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
- 52 -
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.
- 53 -
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)
- 54 -
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
- 55 -
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
- 56 -
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
- 57 -
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
- 58 -
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
- 59 -
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
- 60 -
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.
- 61 -
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
- 62 -
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).
- 63 -
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
- 64 -
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
- 65 -
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
- 66 -
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
- 67 -
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
- 68 -
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:
- 69 -
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
- 70 -
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:
- 71 -
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)
- 72 -
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
- 73 -
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
- 74 -
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
- 75 -
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
- 76 -
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.
- 77 -
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:
- 78 -
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
- 79 -
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.
- 80 -
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
- 81 -
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
- 82 -
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
- 83 -
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
- 84 -
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
- 85 -
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.
- 86 -
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
- 87 -
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.”
- 88 -
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
- 89 -
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
- 90 -
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
- 91 -
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
- 92 -
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
- 93 -
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
- 94 -
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).
- 95 -
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
- 96 -
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
- 97 -
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
- 98 -
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.
- 99 -
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)
- 100 -
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
- 101 -
(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:
- 102 -
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
- 103 -
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
- 104 -
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
- 105 -
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
- 106 -
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.
- 107 -
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.
- 108 -
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
- 109 -
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
- 110 -
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
- 111 -
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
- 112 -
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.
- 113 -
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.
- 114 -
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.
- 115 -
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
- 116 -
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
- 117 -
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
- 118 -
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
- 119 -
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
- 120 -
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
- 121 -
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
- 122 -
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
- 123 -
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
- 124 -
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
- 125 -
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.
- 126 -
Table 1: Sport Club Inquiry Participant Background Information
Pseudonym Gender Sport Coaching Structure
Estimated Out of Pocket Expenses
Offered an Athletic Scholarship
Alice Female Lacrosse Volunteer-coached
$300-500 No
Brad Male Lacrosse Volunteer-coached
$600 No
Connie Female Cycling Player-coached
$100 No
Dale Male Crew Paid-coached $250 No Damon Male Ultimate Player-
coached $300 No
Jacob Male Waterpolo Volunteer-coached
$200-300 Yes
Janet Female Waterpolo Volunteer-coached
$500+ Yes
Jason Male Soccer Player-coached
$200-300 Yes
Joan Female Soccer Player-coached
$15-200 Yes
Justin Male Tennis Paid-coached $25 No Keisha Female Soccer Paid-coached $450 Yes Kelsey Female Waterpolo Volunteer-
coached $100-200 No
Lucy Female Basketball Volunteer-coached
$65 No
Luke Male Crew Paid-coached $2,000 No Marcus Male Baseball Player-
coached $200 No
Mary Female Rugby Volunteer-coached
$400 Yes
Miles Male Lacrosse Volunteer-coached
$800 No
Paul Male Tennis Player-coached
$50-60 No
Philip Male Sailing Player-coached
$50-100 No
Sarah Female Lacrosse Paid-coached $1,000 No Tara Female Basketball Volunteer-
coached $60 No
- 127 -
Table 2: Varsity Athletes Focus Group Members
Focus
Group Pseudonym Gender Sport
NCAA
Level
Received
Athletic
Grant in
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
2 Caleb Male
Basketball/
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
3 Ray Male
Basketball/
Track & Field DIII No Starter
3 Mason Male Track & Field DIII No Role-player
3 Kirk Male
Football/
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
- 128 -
Table 3: Sport Club Focus Group Members
Focus Group Pseudonym Gender Sport
Coaching Structure
Estimated Out of Pocket Expenses
Offered an Athletic Scholarship
5 Nate Male Lacrosse Paid-coach $1,900 Yes 5 Abe Male Lacrosse Paid-coach $1,900 Yes
5 Peyton Male Cross Country Player-coached $400 Yes
5 Darren Male Fencing Paid-coach $350 No
5 Preston Male Baseball Player Coached $300 Yes
6 Raquel Female Soccer Paid-coach $400 Yes
6 Jamal Male Gymnastics Volunteer-coached $540 No
6 Jasmin Female Swimming Player-coached $350 Yes
6 Annette Female Volleyball Paid-coach $500 Yes
6 Kira Female Water Polo Player-coached $210 No
7 Elijah Male Ultimate Player-coached $75 No
7 Saul Male Lacrosse Player-coached $200 Yes
7 Tanner Male Lacrosse Player-coached $200 Yes
8 Maya Female Equestrian Paid-coach $800 No
8 Charity Female Basketball Volunteer-coached $75 Yes
8 Jackson Male Water Polo Player-coached $500 No
8 Titus Male Tennis Player-coached $300 Yes
8 Ruben Male Racquetball Volunteer-coached $150 No
8 Roland Male
Ultimate/ Aussie Rules Football
Player-coached $150 No
- 129 -
Table 4: Sense of Community Factor Comparison by Context
Sense of Community
Factor
Definition Varsity Club
Competition The challenge to excel against
both internal and external
rivalries.
Salient Salient
Leadership
Opportunities
Both informal and formal
opportunities to guide and
direct others within the
community.
Salient Salient
Equality of
Administrative
Decisions
Administrative level decisions
that demonstrated that all
community members were
being treated equal.
Salient Underlying
Social Spaces A common area or facility in
which athletes could interact
with one another.
Salient Underlying
Administrative
Consideration
The expression of care,
concern, and intentionality of
administrators and support
personnel within the university.
Salient Underlying
- 130 -
Common Interest The group dynamics, social
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).
Underlying Salient
Voluntary Action/
Amateurism
The self-fulfilling and self-
determining actions that
resulted from little to no
external pressure or incentive.
Underlying Salient
- 131 -
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
- 132 -
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
- 133 -
Figure 1: Sport Club Sense of Community Model
Leadership
Opportunities
Amateurism/
Voluntary
Action
Competition
Common
InterestAthlete
Gender
- 135 -
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?
- 136 -
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
- 137 -
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
- 138 -
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
- 139 -
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
- 140 -
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
- 141 -
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?
- 142 -
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?
- 143 -
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?
- 144 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 145 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 146 -
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,
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 147 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 148 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 149 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 150 -
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 &
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 151 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 152 -
(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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 153 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 154 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 155 -
(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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 156 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 157 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 158 -
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 &
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 159 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 160 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 161 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 162 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 163 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 164 -
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,
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 165 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 166 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 167 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 168 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 169 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 170 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 171 -
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).
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 172 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 173 -
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).
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 174 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 175 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 176 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 177 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 178 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 179 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 180 -
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.,
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 181 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 182 -
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
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 183 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 184 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 185 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 186 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 187 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 188 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 189 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 190 -
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.
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 192 -
Table 1
Participant Background Information
Name Gender Race NCAA Level
Sport Grant- In- aid
Athletic Role
Est. Team Winning %
Rank within Conference
Alexis Female White DIII Basketball No Starter > 75% Top
Anthony Male White DIII Swimming No Starter = 50% Middle
Avery Female Black DI Track &
Field
Yes Starter > 75% Top
Brandon Male White DII Soccer Yes Starter > 75% Middle
Bryce Male White DII Football/
Track &
Field
Yes Starter > 75% Top
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-
player
> 75% Top
Macie Female White DI Soccer Yes Starter >75% Top
Mason Male White DIII Football No Starter >75% Top
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 193 -
Table 1 (con’t.) Megan Female White DI Cross
Country
No Starter < 25% Top
Nadine Female White DI/DII
I
Rowing DI/
Track &
Field DIII
No Role-
player
> 75% Top
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-
player
> 75% Middle
Tanner Male White DI Football No Role-
player
> 25% Top
Terrance Male Black DI Basketball No Role-
player
>75% Top
Appendix F: Warner and Dixon (in review; see Appendix F) Varsity Athlete Sense of Community
- 194 -
Figure 1
Athlete Sense of Community Model
- 195 -
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.
- 196 -
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.
- 197 -
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.
- 198 -
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.
- 199 -
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.
- 200 -
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.
- 201 -
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.
- 202 -
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.
- 203 -
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.
- 204 -
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.
- 205 -
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.
- 206 -
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.
- 207 -
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
- 208 -
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.
- 209 -
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.
- 210 -
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.
- 211 -
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.
- 212 -
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.