Issuu on Google+

!

Intercollegiate Athletics RESEARCH FROM THE FRONT PORCH

! ! ! ! Center for Leadership in Athletics Home Page | IAL Public Home Page | IAL Graduate Home Page ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Team Cohesion & Role of Coaches ! ! Are you satisfied with coach’s leadership? ! ! ! • Develop Coaches ! • Use Team Cohesion Activities Home Page UW Home Page ! • Mentoring Your Coaches ! Volume 1 Number 1 Fall 2009 ! Coaches face new challenges today in working with student-athletes and helping teams come ! together. This segment provides valuable information about how to implement strategies for ! coach leadership develop among your coaches…..….. ! ! For more on this Topic, click here ! ! These research findings and ! implementation ideas are drawn from Engaging Faculty in ICA ! the work of emerging researches in ! How can you strengthen relationships with faculty? intercollegiate athletics. This project is ! • Understanding Faculty Governance ! support by the Center for Leadership in ! • Teaching & Student-Athletes Athletics at the University of Washington. ! • Creating meaningful experiences with athletics for faculty. ! ! Faculty at DivisionFor I institutions generally neutral it comes to intercollegiate athletics moreare on Issues in when Intercollegiate ! in Athletics Home Page | IAL Public Home Page | IAL Graduate Home Page nter for Leadership UW Home Page on their campus………….. ! Athletic Leadership, visit the ! teams come Issues Archive ! For more on this Topic, click here rategies for !

cs

Working Paper Series

Fall 2009

Intercollegiate Athletics

SEARCH FROM THE FRONT PORCH

RELATED LINKS Gender Equity & Your Budget www.genderequity.com www.coia.com Responding to gender equity times. B o x 3 5 9 4in 8 5 , tough S e a t t l e , WA . 98195-9485 Te l : 2 0 6 . 6 8 5 . 4 9 2 6 • m i a l @ u . w a s h i n g t o n . e d u www.coachsource.edu w w w. e x t e n s i o n . w a s h i n g t o n . e d u / i a l / !

Fall 2009 !

• Understanding Faculty Governance • Teaching & Student-Athletes

eam Cohesion & Role of Coaches Author & Reviewer Profiles • Creating meaningful experiences with athletics for faculty.

Faculty at Division I institutions are generally neutral when it

TEAM COHESION e you satisfied with coach’s leadership? comes to intercollegiate athletics on their campus

Develop Coaches

Hannah Owings, Author University of Washington

U

F

Th im th in su At

Fo At Is

RE w w w

A

TE

H U

Je W

Jo U

Ji U

EN

D U

These research findings and Sa O implementation ideas are drawn fr Te the work of emerging researchesUi intercollegiate athletics. This proje D U support by the Center for Leadersh


Overview The Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership Program at the University of Washington proudly presents the first edition of the Issues in Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership Working Paper Series. The purpose of the series is to highlight topics specific to the intercollegiate athletics setting and discuss the implications of this research for athletic leaders. The Implications For Research section features key ideas and considerations for applying this research in practice. A working paper series is a common phenomenon throughout the social sciences, though new to the fields commonly focused around sport research. Annually, we invite authors to prepare papers for inclusion in the working paper series. Authors submit papers nearly ready for submission to a refereed journal and receive an external review as part of their participation in the series.

This year we highlight the work of Molly Ott from the University of Michigan. Molly’s paper, “University Faculty and Intercollegiate Athletics: How satisfied are they with their campus’s intercollegiate programs and what are the implications for athletics administrators?” investigates faculty satisfaction with athletics-specific aspects of their campus among Division I Football Bowl Subdivision institutions. This paper focuses on research that has the strongest implications for the relationship between athletics administrators and faculty. How faculty view intercollegiate athletics varies more by individual faculty characteristics than differences in the characteristics of their institutions. Faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics is related to the types of meaningful contact faculty have with student-athletes and the athletic department. Special thanks the following faculty for their contribution to the 2009 Working Paper Series as reviewers: Christian Anderson, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Educational Leadership & Policy Studies University of South Carolina

Joy Gaston Gayles, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Adult & Higher Education North Carolina State University

John J. Cheslock, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Center for the Study of Higher Education University of Arizona

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

1


Implications For Practice What are the best predictors of faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics? Among faculty respondents from institutions in the Division I Football Subdivision the strongest indicators of satisfaction with athletics are meaningful contact with intercollegiate athletics. Involvement in the governance of athletics and experience teaching student-athletes is positively related to satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics. KEY FINDINGS

 Most faculty are generally neutral (i.e., respond with “no opinion”) or are satisfied with intercollegiate athletics on their campuses

 The highest levels of satisfaction are observed for aspects of academics  Differences in faculty satisfaction vary according to who they are (individual characteristics) and where they work (institutional characteristics)

 Individual characteristics (e.g., rank, governance experience, discipline, and experience teaching student-

athletes) may offer a better explanation for faculty perceptions of athletics than do differences in the characteristics of their universities such as size, control, athletic team records, or students’ academic performance. There is a positive relationships between faculty satisfaction with athletics and faculty involvement in the governance of intercollegiate athletics and experience teaching of student-athletes

The more that faculty have meaningful contact with athletes/athletics, the more satisfied they are with different dimensions of the program.

QUESTIONS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS

1. What is the relationship between faculty and the athletic department at my institution?

2. Are faculty neutral, satisfied or unsatisfied with intercollegiate athletics at my institution?

3. What opportunities exist at my institution for faculty to participate in the governance and oversight of athletics?

4. How can faculty who otherwise might respond with “no opinion” engage with student-athletes in their classes?

6. What strategies would be effective to foster the relationship between athletics and academics at my institution?

5. Do we have opportunities to engage faculty in fostering academic success of our studentathletes?

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

2


Author Information Molly Ott is in her fourth year of doctoral study at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. She holds a Bachelor’s in Business Administration degree from the University of Notre Dame and a Master’s degree in Educational Policy and Leadership from Marquette University. Molly’s research interests are related to the sociology of higher education, especially social and institutional stratification. Her most recent work pertaining to intercollegiate athletics and/or faculty include a 2007 report to the Knight Commission titled “Faculty Perceptions of Intercollegiate Athletics”, a presentation at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education titled “Faculty and the Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics: A Study of Faculty Oversight of Intercollegiate Athletics and Implications for National Policy Initiatives”, and chairing a session about “Faculty Organization and Leadership in Higher Education” at the 2008 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Molly would like to acknowledge Dr. Janet Lawrence, as well as the Knight Commission, whose support made this analysis possible.

Author Information: Molly Ott University of Michigan 610 E. University Ave. School of Education Building Room 2117 Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259 mollyott@umich.edu

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

3


Research Summary This analysis extends a recent study sponsored by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (Lawrence, Hendricks, & Ott, 2007), which suggested that the majority of university faculty have moderate views of their campus’s athletics programs, though they acknowledge being uninformed about athletics-specific policies and practices. A sample of 2,071 faculty representing 23 Football Bowl Subdivision institutions responded in May 2007 to a survey about their views of and satisfaction with academic, financial, and governance aspects of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses. The focus here is how faculty satisfaction with athletics-specific policies, practices, behaviors, and conditions on their campus varies according to individual characteristics, such as gender, discipline, and governance experience, as well as according to institutional characteristics, such as athletics revenues, team performance, and graduation rates. Descriptive results suggest that most faculty are generally neutral (i.e., respond with “no opinion”) or are satisfied with intercollegiate athletics on their campuses. The highest levels of satisfaction are observed for aspects of academics. However, faculty writ large are not identically satisfied with intercollegiate athletics on their campuses; differences are observed according to who they are (individual characteristics) and where they work (institutional characteristics). Multivariate results indicate that individual characteristics account for more of the variance in faculty views than do institutional characteristics. In other words, when attempting to understand consistencies and differences in how faculty see intercollegiate athletics, individual characteristics (e.g., rank, governance experience, discipline, and experience teaching student-athletes) may offer a better explanation than do differences in the characteristics of their universities such as size, control, athletic team records, or students’ academic performance. Especially noteworthy are the consistent positive relationships between satisfaction and involvement in the governance of intercollegiate athletics and experience teaching of student-athletes; not surprisingly, the more that faculty have meaningful contact with athletes/athletics, the more satisfied they are with different dimensions of the program.

Keywords:

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

4


University Faculty and Intercollegiate Athletics: How satisfied are they with their campus’s intercollegiate programs and what are the implications for athletics administrators? Molly Ott University of Michigan Caricatures of faculty and athletics pervade the popular imagination and the blogosphere, with overly sympathetic professors willing to cut student-athletes extreme slack on one side juxtaposed against cruel academics who despise sports and maliciously target student-athletes on the other side. These anecdotes are certainly not representative of the over 700,000 full-time faculty employed at degree-granting universities, but little empirical evidence exists to adequately refute them. With a few exceptions, faculty are a largely overlooked entity by athletics researchers. Newspaper stories, opinion pieces issued by reform organizations, and unpublished doctoral dissertations provide the bulk of information about the relationship between faculty and intercollegiate athletics. Yet understanding how faculty view intercollegiate athletics is important. They are granted general governance responsibility over areas such as curriculum, instruction, and other aspects of a student’s educational experience, and a number of national organizations (AAUP, 2002; COIA, 2007) contend that faculty must also maintain responsibility over these same areas for student-athletes. The NCAA mandates that each campus have a Faculty Athletics Representative (although specific position responsibilities vary from school to school), and many campuses also have an athletics board with faculty membership. Faculty are therefore an important constituency whose views about athletics must not be taken lightly by campus athletic or academic administrators. This analysis extends a recent study sponsored by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (Lawrence, Hendricks, & Ott, 2007), which suggests that the majority of university faculty have moderate views of their campus’s athletics programs, though they acknowledge being uninformed about athletics-specific policies and practices. I focus here on understanding the degree to which faculty are satisfied with academic, financial, and governance aspects of intercollegiate athletics on NCAA Football Bowl subdivision campuses, as well as how I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

5


their views of athletics may vary among individual subgroups and across different universities. My discussion highlights the findings that have strongest implications for athletics administrators in terms of their relationships with campus faculty.

Literature Review Scholarship on faculty generally, as well as that pertaining to faculty and intercollegiate athletics, offers a conceptual grounding for this paper. General faculty satisfaction is a well-studied topic, but theoretical and empirical consideration varies quite a bit. Many scholars agree that faculty satisfaction is a multidimensional construct (Smart, 1990; Hagedorn, 2000), and it has been variously defined as contentment with career (Olsen, Maple, & Stage, 1995) and with overall work life (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Johnsrud & Heck, 1998); fulfillment derived from different aspects of their jobs (Johnsrud & Rosser, 2002; Seifert & Umbach, 2007; Tack & Patitu, 1992); and approval of the organization within which their jobs are embedded (Hagedorn, 1996; Johnsrud & DesJarlais, 1994; Olsen & Sorcinelli, 1992). Research pertaining to faculty and intercollegiate athletics is most consistent with this final definition and has been defined as satisfaction with the athletics program or and athletics policies and procedures generally (Cockley & Roswal, 1994). Intercollegiate athletics is certainly a large enterprise at many institutions, especially those in Division I’s Football Bowl Subdivision, and such global measures of satisfaction may not be adequate to capture the variation in views about different aspects of programs. A more nuanced definition is suggested by the most recent research (e.g., Lawrence, Ott, Hendricks, 2007) which parallels the NCAA’s Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Second Century Imperatives: Presidential Leadership - Institutional Accountability (2006) and proposes that faculty satisfaction with athletics may be measured across the three areas of academics, finance, and governance. Satisfaction with different aspects of faculty work life is affected by who they are. Female faculty are typically less satisfied generally than their male colleagues (Astin, Antonio, Cress & Astin, 1997; Blackwell, 1989; Rosser, 2004; Seifert & Umbach, 2007; Turner, 2002) and differences are also observed when faculty of color are I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

6


compared to whites (Seifert & Umbach, 2007; Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). Where intercollegiate athletics is concerned, men may be more “reform-oriented” than women in their views (Kuga, 1996), and women have more negative attitudes about whether female athletics programs are treated equitably at their schools (Feezell, 2005). Tenure status, rank, and career longevity also mediate faculty views generally (August & Waltman, 2004; Hagedorn, 1994; Rosser, 2004) and for intercollegiate athletics as well (Feezell, 2005; Engstrand, 1995). For example, faculty who have been employed at their institution for between one and five years are more likely to agree that a winning athletic team unifies their campus than faculty who have been at the institution longer (Engstrand, 1995).Whether faculty members’ general satisfaction varies by discipline is unclear, as some find no differences (Olsen, Maple and Stage, 1995) while others assert that faculty in fields with higher research production may be more satisfied with at least some dimensions of their work life (Seifert & Umbach, 2007). Several studies of intercollegiate athletics suggest that faculty from sports-related fields such as Kinesiology and Physical Education have more positive views of the role that athletics plays at their institution and the image of their campus’s athletics program (Harrison, 2004; Noble, 2004), although others do not find disciplinary differences in faculty attitudes (Feezell, 2005). Another individual characteristic that may influence views is the degree to which a faculty member is involved in the governance of intercollegiate athletics at their institution, typically committee membership or the Faculty Athletics Representative position. Faculty on athletic boards in both Division I and II are more satisfied with the state of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses than their peers who do not serve on the boards (Cockley & Roswal, 1994). Yet interestingly, compared to revenue sport coaches and athletics directors, Faculty Athletics Representatives at Division I-A universities have significantly more positive attitudes on academic, financial, gender, and social issues related to their campus’s athletics program (Friesen, 1992).

In addition to the mediating influence of individual attributes, research on faculty views suggests that

where they work is important as well. Faculty employed at private institutions are generally more satisfied (Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). Also, higher levels of undergraduate student quality is associated with higher faculty satisfaction (Zhou & Volkwein, 2004). The relationship between general satisfaction and other institutional variables is I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

7


less conclusive. Zhou and Volkwein (2004) find that faculty satisfaction increases with school size and wealth. On the other hand, Ethington, Smart and Zelmann (1989) report lower satisfaction among faculty at Research II and Doctoral Granting institutions (which are typically larger in size) and higher satisfaction among those at Liberal Arts institutions (which are typically smaller in size). General characteristics appear to influence faculty views of their campus’s athletics program as well. For example, faculty at private schools perceive that they have stronger governance power over athletics than their colleagues at public schools (Solow, 1998). Also, an institution’s size is related to faculty perceptions (Becker et al, 1986) as is the overall graduation rate of the student body (Solow, 1998). Characteristics of a campus’s athletics program may also impact faculty views. For example, Solow (1998) surveyed Faculty Athletics Representatives from all Division I-A schools and reports that those at schools with lower men’s basketball graduation rates perceive that faculty on their campus have diminished power where intercollegiate athletics are concerned. Although Solow observes no relationship with football graduation rates, the entering SAT scores of football team players has a significant relationship with faculty views. Several researchers find that men’s basketball and football teams’ on-field performance are associated with faculty attitudes as well (Becker et al, 1986; Solow, 1998). Faculty at schools with better records have more favorable views of athletics than do faculty at schools with less successful teams (Noble, 2004). Armenta (1986) surveyed faculty at Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and the University of Arizona and finds that Northern Arizona faculty respond in a consistently more positive manner compared to their colleagues at the other two schools. He concludes that these results are due to the variations in their university’s athletics programs. In Arizona, there are inherent differences in the attitudes of faculty members at the three state universities in regard to issues related to intercollegiate athletics. The major difference is between faculty at schools with ‘big-time’ athletic programs (as measured by athletic budget, national recognition, media coverage, stadium/arena size, attendance at athletic events, conference affiliation, coaches’ salaries, booster club donations, etc.) and faculty members at a smaller school in a relatively less prestigious athletic conference (p. 176 ).

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

8


My literature review did not produce any studies of faculty that simultaneously examined the relationship that individual and institutional characteristics might have with their views of intercollegiate athletics. Most studies examine faculty located within a single campus or faculty from several campuses but disregard possible institutional differences (Trail & Chelladurai, 2000). Overall, the literature base on the topic is not extensive nor does clear consensus exist among the national organizations of faculty who are involved in intercollegiate athletics service and reform. This study attends to this void by offering insight into faculty satisfaction with academic, financial, and governance aspects of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses as well as contributing to the wider conversation as to how views of athletics may vary across individuals and across different universities. The overarching research question to be addressed is, how does faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics vary according to individual and institutional characteristics, and what are the implications for athletics administrators?

Methods Data The data used in this analysis was collected as part of a study funded by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics to better understand faculty perceptions of and satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics at NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (formerly Division I-A) campuses. Survey instrument. The survey instrument was constructed by researchers from the University of Michigan, advised by the Knight Commission as well as a group of faculty involved in national reform efforts. In order to test basic assumptions about the survey direction, generate possible lines of questioning, and refine survey questions to make the instrument relevant to diverse institutional settings, a total of 47 faculty interviews were first conducted on five Football Bowl Subdivision campuses. The resulting instrument was pilot tested to small group of faculty and modified accordingly before distribution to the sample. The final survey is organized around three theoretically distinct and interrelated dimensions, governance, finance and academics, which are consistent with the foci of different national groups, previous empirical studies, I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

9


and the themes that emerged from the faculty interviews. Governance includes items related to faculty involvement in general campus decision-making bodies such as faculty senates, faculty involvement in athletics-specific roles and responsibilities, and faculty views of campus leadership. Finance includes items related to the institution’s economic condition, institutional and athletics budgetary decisions, and commercialization activities. Academics includes items related to admissions, advising, and student academic performance. The survey instrument itself is divided into five sections,1 but this analysis considers data from two sections only:

34 questions designed to measure the individual faculty member’s satisfaction with general and athleticsspecific policies, practices, behaviors, and conditions on their campus.

20 demographic questions pertaining to the respondents’ careers (e.g., tenure status, field, years at institution) as well as their experience with campus governance, intercollegiate athletics and athletes, their current investment of time in undergraduate teaching, research and service, commitment to their current institution, and their personal experiences as student athletes. Sample. The survey was distributed to a sample of faculty at 23 institutions selected to represent the 119

colleges and universities classified as Football Bowl Subdivision by the NCAA in 2007. Two institutions were randomly selected from each of the eleven Football Bowl Subdivision conferences and one independent school was selected as well. Individual faculty respondents were selected to include (a) all faculty currently involved in campus governance at the institutional level (e.g., senates and advisory groups) or in roles associated with the oversight of intercollegiate athletics (e.g., FARs and athletics advisory boards) and (b) faculty with tenure track appointments in fields/disciplines that typically have larger undergraduate course enrollments.2 Guided by the selection criteria, the researchers identified a sample of 13,604 faculty and collected e-mail contact addresses from publicly available online and paper campus directories. Adjusted for those who did not fully complete the survey,

1

The full survey instrument is included in the final report to the Knight Commission, which may be found online at http://knightcommission2.org/faculty_perceptions_final.doc 2

These disciplines are Biology, Business, Chemistry, Education, Engineering, English, History, Kinesiology, Mathematics, Music, Physical Education, Political Science, Psychology, Romance Languages, and Sociology. I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

10


faculty on sabbatical, emeritus faculty, and non-tenure track faculty, and administrators inadvertently included 3 the final individual sample size in this analysis is 2,071. A total of 3,005 individuals fully completed the survey, for a response rate of 23 percent. Supplemental Data. To assess the mediating influence of contextual characteristics on faculty views, the research team obtained supplemental information about each campus and athletic program from third party sources. Data pertaining to institutional characteristics, including sector, control, admissions and enrollment figures, graduation rates, and number of faculty, were gathered from the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Educational Data System (IPEDS). We identified the most recent figures for each variable of interest; most pertain to Fall 2006 while a few are for the 2005-06 academic year. Two sources provided athletic program data. Information about number of teams, number of athletes, gender breakdowns, and program revenues is from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reports for 2005-06. Data pertaining to team championships, bowl appearances, and NCAA tournament appearances is from the Official 2007 NCAA Men's Basketball Records Book and 2006 NCAA Divisions I-A and IAA Football Records Book. Measures Dependent Variable.

The dependent variable is represented by the number of “Satisfied” or “Very Satis-

fied” responses to questions regarding faculty satisfaction with athletics-specific policies, practices, behaviors, and conditions on their campus. 4 These items are grouped into three separate variables: satisfaction with academics, satisfaction with finance, and satisfaction with governance.5 Academics includes questions about admissions, advising, integrity, and classroom performance; finance includes questions about general fund subsidies, scholar-

3

Some campus senates include non-tenure track faculty, librarians, and administrators on their governing bodies. All attempts were made to exclude these individuals from the initial sample identification process 4

In addition to “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied,” the other response categories to these items were “Very Dissatisfied,” “Dissatisfied,” “No Opinion,” and “Not Relevant.” 5

The three dependent variables are correlated with one another between .619 and .779 at p<.001.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

11


ships, and commercialization; and governance includes items about faculty oversight and input as well as institutional control. The complete list of items included in each variable is in Appendix A. 6 For academics, faculty are satisfied or very satisfied with an average of four out of the nine items (see Table A1). The satisfaction distribution is relatively split; approximately 14 percent are not satisfied or very satisfied with any of the nine items, while seven percent are satisfied or very satisfied with all of the nine items. A high percentage of faculty have “no opinion” about several academic items – the role that coaches play in undergraduate admissions (53 percent), academic standards of student-athlete tutors (52 percent), academic standards of student-athlete academic advisors (41 percent), and academic standards that guide student athlete admissions (40 percent) – likely reflecting their lack of knowledge about these policies and practices on their campuses (Lawrence, Hendricks & Ott, 2007). Setting aside the “no opinion” responses and comparing faculty satisfaction with dissatisfaction only, more faculty are satisfied than dissatisfied with every item pertaining to academics. They are especially satisfied with the academic integrity of student-athletes in their classes (62 percent compared to 17 percent) and the level of responsibility that student-athletes take to complete assignments and make up for missed courses (60 percent compared to 19 percent). Satisfaction with governance is comparatively lower (see Table A2). On average, faculty are satisfied with just over three of the ten items, and 34 percent of respondents are not satisfied with any items at all. Almost seven percent are satisfied or very satisfied with all of the ten items. “No opinion” responses average approximately one third of the responses to governance items, with the highest percentage (49 percent) having no opinion about the practice of giving perks to faculty and administrators who serve on committees that oversee intercollegiate athletics on their campus. Comparing faculty satisfaction with dissatisfaction for governance, responses are mostly split. A relatively larger number of faculty are satisfied (36 percent) than dissatisfied (23 percent) with the

6 An

alternative measure of the dependent variables could have been to use factor scales rather than the summed count of responses. Factor analysis indicates that the items are conceptually consistent as I grouped them here, with Cronbach alpha values of .901 for academics, .819 for finance, and .958 for governance. However, the structure of the item responses include “Not Relevant” and “No Opinion” choices. These choices do not fit ordinally with the rest of the responses – so were I to use factor analysis, pairwise deletion would drop all cases with “Not Relevant” or “No Opinion” responses, reducing my sample for analysis by over 50 percent. My choice to structure the dependent variables as they are was made to minimize the loss of data as much as possible. I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

12


willingness of their colleagues who serve on governance groups to take positions at odds with those advocated with athletics administrators. More faculty are also satisfied with cooperation between athletics and faculty to uphold academic standards, attention given to student-athletes’ educational experiences by governance groups, institutional control over athletics, presidential oversight of athletics, and handling of external constituencies such as boosters. However, a relatively smaller number of faculty are satisfied (20 percent) than dissatisfied (43 percent) with the range of faculty perspectives considered by central administrators when institutional positions on intercollegiate athletics are formulated. Also, more are dissatisfied with the types of roles that faculty play in governance of athletics, the practice of giving perks, and extent to which faculty input informs decisions about athletics.

For finances, faculty are satisfied with approximately 1.4 out of four items (see Table A3). The distribution for finances (like that for governance) has a positive skew, with 38 percent not satisfied with any and 9 percent satisfied with all finance items. “No opinions” represent a significant number of participants, with 41 percent having no opinion or responding not relevant to satisfaction with the use of general funds to subsidize intercollegiate athletics on their campus. Of the remaining respondents to this item, 36 percent are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied and 21 percent are satisfied or very satisfied. On balance, the faculty are more satisfied than dissatisfied with the practice of awarding scholarships and their athletics department’s compliance with Title IX. They are split in terms of the balance struck on their campus between commercialization and the ideals of amateur athletics. Independent Variables. My choice of independent variables to include in the models is guided by the prior research on university faculty as well as analyses of the data that were part of the 2007 report to the Knight Commission. Descriptive statistics for all of the variables may be found in Table 1, and variable correlations may be found in Appendix B, Table B1.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

13


TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics. N Dependent Variables Satisfaction with Academics Satisfaction with Finance Satisfaction with Governance Institutional Independent Variables Public University a NFL/NBA Team ACT Composite 50th Percentile Score a Percent of Non-Tenure Track Faculty a Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment (in 1,000) a Athletics Revenues (in $10mil)b Men’s Basketball Four-Class Graduation Rateb Men’s Basketball NCAA Tournament Appearancesc Football Four-Class Graduation Rateb Football Bowl Appearancesc NCAA Violations Individual Independent Variables Teach Student-Athletes Athletics Governance Involvement General Governance Involvement Female White Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Other Rank Professional Discipline Natural Sciences Discipline Mathematics Discipline Humanities Discipline Social Sciences Discipline Music Discipline Kinesiology Discipline Natural Sciences Discipline General Satisfaction with Academics General Satisfaction with Governance General Satisfaction with Finances

Minimum Maximum

Mean

SD

2071 2071 2071

0.00 0.00 0.00

9.00 4.00 10.00

4.00 1.37 3.13

2.77 1.35 3.38

2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071

0.00 0.00 19.00 0.28 2.71 1.01 3.40 0.00 38.33 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 32.00 0.67 31.05 7.89 59.20 6.00 78.83 6.00 2.00

0.89 0.70 24.88 0.43 19.01 4.43 38.95 2.22 54.96 3.07 0.51

0.31 0.46 2.88 0.09 7.99 2.07 14.55 2.21 10.76 1.92 0.55

2071 2040 2033 2032 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071 2071

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 3.00

0.46 0.14 0.78 1.30 0.89 0.20 0.30 0.47 0.03 0.33 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.13 4.56 0.40 1.42

0.50 0.34 0.41 0.46 0.31 0.40 0.46 0.50 0.16 0.47 0.34 0.21 0.36 0.37 0.19 0.15 0.34 2.02 0.49 1.20

Note. Athletics governance involvement, general governance involvement, and gender are missing data because some respondents skipped items. Post hoc analyses suggest no pattern exists in the items that were skipped or the individuals who chose to skip them. a Information is from IPEDS reports from 2005-06 b Information is from EADA reports from 2005-06 c Information is from 2007 NCAA Men’s Basketball Records Book or 2006 NCAA Divisions I-A and I-AA Football Records Book and represent records for the six seasons from 01-02 through 06-07

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

14


At the institutional level, I include characteristics of the university in general as well as of the athletics programs specifically. Almost 90 percent of the sample – 20 of 23 schools – are employed at public universities. The structural differences in public compared to private schools may translate to differences in faculty satisfaction and knowledge, especially where governance and financial issues are concerned. Faculty views in general might also vary by geographic location; where views of intercollegiate athletics are concerned, however, the group of project advisors to the Knight Commission suggested that the presence of a professional sports franchise (i.e., NBA or NFL) in the same state as the university may be important, decreasing attention paid to the university’s high profile teams by athletics enthusiasts. Likewise, the size of a campus, proxied by undergraduate enrollment, may be an important mediator of faculty satisfaction. Larger campuses may be more likely to have disengaged faculty in institution-wide activities and initiatives such as intercollegiate athletics (Armenta, 1986; Cockley & Roswal, 1994). In this sample, undergraduate enrollment ranges from approximately 2,800 to 42,000 and the mean is 20,400. One of the most critical issues facing faculty today are the steadily decreasing availability of tenure track positions (Allen, 2004), and faculty satisfaction may vary according to the tenure composition of their campus. While the individual sample of faculty is intentionally comprised of those who are tenured or tenure track, their institutions vary a great deal in terms of tenure composition. On average, 43 percent of faculty are not on the tenure track at these schools, with a range of 28 to 67 percent. Finally, to proxy the general academic caliber of each campus, I include average standardized test scores for incoming first year students. For the campuses in this sample, the ACT Composite 50th percentile score of entering students ranges from 19 to 32, with an average of 24.9. I also include athletics-specific characteristic of the institution. Faculty and satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics likely varies according to their program’s budget (Armenta, 1986). Athletic revenues for the sample schools in 2005-06 range from $10 to $79 million, with an average of $44.25 million. On-field success may predict the degree to which faculty are satisfied with their programs as well (Solow, 1998), which I represent by recent postseason performance for two high profile sports, football and men’s basketball. For the six seasons between

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

15


2001-06 and 2006-07, the men’s basketball teams appeared in an average of two NCAA championship tournaments, and the football teams appeared in an average of three postseason bowl games. To represent off-field athletic success, I include the four-class men’s basketball and football team graduation rates, mirroring my choice of groups in the on-field success variables. Finally, I hypothesize that whether the athletics program has been publicly sanctioned may color faculty views. Since 2001, 14 schools in the sample have had no major NCAA infractions, and nine have had one or more major infractions. At the individual level, I control for demographic characteristics, such as self-reported gender and racial/ ethnic background. Approximately 30 percent of the sample is Female. Almost 90 percent identifies as White; due to the small numbers of minority respondents, the model includes only a single dichotomous variable representing Whites compared to all others. I also include positions and experiences associated with being a university faculty member, such as rank, discipline, governance involvement, and teaching experiences, hypothesizing that these may influence satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics on an individual’s campus. For rank, almost half are Professors, 30 percent are Associate Professors, 20 percent are Assistant Professors, and 2 percent identify with “other” ranks. The faculty vary according to their primary area of teaching: 23 percent are from the Professional schools (Business, Education, and Engineering), 12 percent are from the Natural Sciences, 10 percent are from the Humanities, 11 percent are from the Social Sciences, 5 percent are from Mathematics, 3 percent are from Music, 2 percent teach in Kinesiology or Physical Education, and 8 percent are from other fields. In response to questions about the nature of their typical contact with student athletes on their campuses, approximately 46 percent currently or in the past have had student-athletes enrolled in their courses. A number of respondents hold some sort of administrative appointment; approximately 78 percent report current involvement in school, college, or university-level governance generally. Far fewer have experience with the governance of intercollegiate athletics, as 86 percent of the faculty have never held an athletics-specific position. Finally, the survey included items pertaining to campus academic, financial, and governance context in general with the intention of juxtaposing findings about intercollegiate athletics in relation to respondents’ satisfaction with their campuses overall. To determine if a relationship does in fact exist between faculty views of their I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

16


campus and of athletics, I include a measure of the faculty member’s satisfaction with their campus generally. For example, the survey included an item gauging faculty satisfaction with the academic performance in their classes of undergraduate students who are not student-athletes, which parallels the two items measuring faculty satisfaction with the academic performance of football and basketball players and of other student-athletes in their classes. Due to survey length constraints, however, there is not a one-to-one match of athletics and general items. Responses of “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” to these general items are summed in the same way that the dependent variables are constructed. The appropriate general satisfaction measure is included in the corresponding regression model, i.e., the general academic satisfaction measure is included in the model with athleticsspecific satisfaction as the outcome and likewise for governance and finance. Analytic Strategy I am interested in the relationship between faculty members’ individual and institutional characteristics and their satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression is a statistical technique that isolates these relationships and indicates which characteristics, holding all others constant, influence faculty satisfaction and which characteristics are not significant. In the survey data, satisfaction is divided into three conceptually separate areas of academics, finance, and governance. I therefore constructed three separate OLS models, one for each of the aforementioned dependent variables, with identical set of 21 independent variables. I entered the variables into each regression in two blocks, the 11 institutional characteristics alone followed by the 11 institutional as well as 10 individual characteristics. Doing so permits me to assess how institutional and individual characteristics each contribute to faculty satisfaction.

One assumption of OLS regression is that each observation is independent from the others. I was con-

cerned that this might be violated due to the nested nature of the data – faculty are situated in universities and those in certain schools might be more satisfied due to this affiliation. I assessed this possibility by running oneway analyses of variance (ANOVA) for each of the dependent variables by school. The intra-class correlations are

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

17


modest in size and range from approximately 4 to 8 percent. In order to ensure that these relationships do not produce inaccurate standard errors in my results, I statistically adjusted for this clustering. Limitations This study assesses faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics on their own campuses. Little to no information was collected about faculty satisfaction with conference or national level issues pertaining to intercollegiate athletics. The purposive sample is limited to faculty in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision universities and created to maximize the chances that respondents had contact with student-athletes in class and/or currently serve in campus level and intercollegiate athletics governance roles.7 Generalizations about the findings should take these sampling parameters, as well as the modest survey response rate, into account. All institutional variables are derived from publicly available data and as such, several characteristics that likely mediate faculty views are not represented in these models. For example, Becker et al (1986) find that how an institution organizes its faculty governance responsibilities for intercollegiate athletics (e.g., the number of faculty on athletics advisory committees) has a significant relationship with how faculty perceive their governance power. A financial example is whether or not an athletics program’s budget and/or fundraising efforts are a part of the overall university’s processes or separately reported and managed entities, which is certainly a topic debated among national faculty reform organizations (COIA, 2007). These types of variables are omitted from my analysis as they are not readily accessible but likely vary across Football Bowl Subdivision campuses. Another limitation related to the institutional variables used here pertains to those that are athleticsspecific, such as men’s basketball and football graduation rates and athletics department annual revenues. A great deal of discussion surrounds how to accurately and appropriately measure these variables (NCAA, 2006). The

7 A clear

direction for further research is to conduct similar analyses of the remaining Division I as well as Division II and III schools. Several prior studies compare faculty views across the divisions. Division I faculty appear to be less satisfied with intercollegiate athletics than their colleagues at Divisions II and III schools (Cockley & Roswal, 1994) and Division II and III faculty have more consistently positive attitudes toward their campus’s programs than do Division I faculty (Briody, 1997; Feezell, 2005). However, the studies from which these conclusions are drawn rely upon bivariate correlation and whether the same individual and institutional characteristics observed here are important – or whether they vary across the divisions – is unclear. I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

18


decision about which measures to use in this analysis was made based upon advice from experts affiliated with the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. Conclusions about the relationship between these variables and faculty views should certainly proceed with caution, however, as they are imperfect measures likely subjected to inconsistencies across campuses. Capturing what exactly it is about a campus that influences those within is a challenging endeavor. Research on faculty views of their campuses suggests that not only are structural characteristics important in and of themselves, but so are how faculty perceive these structures (Lindhom, 2003). Institutional influence might be better measured by faculty perceptions of their campus and of intercollegiate athletics in addition to the variables that I use here. While the survey did measure perceptions, the missing data on these variables exceeds 50 percent on a number of items due to high levels of â&#x20AC;&#x153;donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t knowâ&#x20AC;? responses, therefore precluding inclusion in this analysis (see Lawrence, Hendricks, & Ott, 2007).

Finally, a statistical limitation of the analysis is the positive skew of the governance and finance depend-

ent variables. OLS regression assumes that dependent variables are normally distributed, although the technique is relatively robust to violations of the assumption. Tranformations did not improve the appearance of the distributions, but I conducted post hoc analyses which suggest the residuals do follow a normal curve.

Results The variables considered in these analyses explain roughly one third of the variation in faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics, although individual characteristics account for much more than do institutional characteristics. For example, the percent of variance explained (R2) for the academics model with the 11 institutional variables only is 7.3 percent (F11,2060=29.4, p<.001). When the 10 individual variables are added, the R2 increases to 37.1 percent (F21,2011=888.8, p<.001). As Table 2 illustrates, the same pattern is seen for the finance and governance models.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

19


TABLE 2 Regression Results for Faculty Satisfaction with Academics, Governance, and Finance. Academics Institution Only Model Institutional Characteristics Public University NFL/NBA Team ACT Composite 50th Percentile Score Percent of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Full-Time Undergraduate Enrollment (in 1,000) Athletics Revenues (in $10mil) Men’s Basketball Graduation Rate Men’s Basketball NCAA Tournament Appearances Football Graduation Rate Football Bowl Appearances NCAA Violations Individual Characteristics General Satisfaction Teach Student-Athletes Athletics Governance Involvement General Governance Involvement Female White Associate Professor a Full Professor a Other Rank a Professional Discipline b Constant R-Square F-Statistic N

Governance

Full Model

0.0013 0.2340 -0.0837 -0.0389 0.0524~ -0.0389 0.3202 0.4504 *** -0.0810 -0.0483** 0.0818 0.0018

0.0719 0.0046

0.0012

-0.0055

0.0125 0.1036~ 0.0602

2.6438* 0.0726 29.44 2071

0.0206 0.0990** -0.836

Institution Only Model

Full Model

Finance Institution Only Model

Full Model

-0.1216 0.1673 0.0487 0.7556

-0.5658 -0.0646 -0.0035 -0.6912

-0.0550**

-0.0221

0.0049 0.1109 0.0246 -0.1852 -0.0163*

0.3641** -0.0098 -0.0532

0.2498* -0.0013 -0.0950~

0.1320* 0.1007* -0.0032 -0.0043~ -0.0590* -0.0278

-0.0050 -0.0623~ -0.4290

0.0021 -0.4808 -0.3786

0.0016 0.0050 -0.0351 -0.0186 -0.1390 -0.0975

0.6226*** 1.0775*** 0.3627*** -0.1577* -0.2451* 0.1506 0.4472** 0.4131* 0.6804* 0.7613*** -0.0382 2.2005 0.3707 0.0423 888.82 20.97 2032 2071

0.1615 0.1272 -0.0060 -0.0826 -0.0130*

2.9276*** 0.3753*** 0.3445* 0.2923** 0.4832** 0.2073** -0.1633 -0.0471 -0.5389*** -0.0615 0.2617 0.1111 0.6455** 0.1039 0.9742*** 0.2077~ 1.0215* 0.3904~ 0.6992** 0.4025*** 2.111 0.8230 0.2460 0.2840 0.0335 0.2082 433.67 15.82 292.98 2032 2071 2032

~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Note. The dependent variables are the number of times a faculty member answered “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” to academic, governance, or finance items. A positive coefficient is interpreted as a higher level of satisfaction with the specific area of intercollegiate athletics. A negative coefficient is interpreted as a lower level of satisfaction with the specific area of intercollegiate athletics. a Comparison group is Assistant Professor. b This represents faculty in Business, Engineering, and Education. Comparison group is all other disciplines.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

20


Looking across all three models, a few patterns may be observed in terms of institutional characteristics that are consistently significant – and insignificant. Holding all else constant, university control, proximity to a professional sports franchise, overall entering ACT Composite scores, percent of non-tenure track faculty, and athletic program NCAA violations do not predict faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics in any of the three areas. Conversely, the single most consistent institutional predictor of faculty satisfaction with intercollegiate athletics is full-time undergraduate enrollment. Faculty at larger schools are less satisfied; for example, every 1,000 increase in students results in a .06 unit decrease in satisfaction with academics, controlling for the remaining individual and institutional variables. A similar pattern is observed for satisfaction with financial aspects of intercollegiate athletics. For governance, faculty at larger schools are less satisfied in the model with institutional variables only, but once individual characteristics are taken into account, this relationship is not significant. An athletics program’s revenue is significantly related to faculty satisfaction with athletics governance and athletics finance, controlling for institutional characteristics alone and after adding individual variables. Although no relationship is observed for satisfaction with academics, as the revenues for athletics increase so does faculty satisfaction with governance and finance. Recent success of the men’s basketball and football teams may have a relationship with faculty satisfaction. The more football bowls that a school’s team has appeared in over the last six seasons, the more satisfied faculty are with academic aspects of intercollegiate athletics on their campus. While football bowl success has a negative relationship with faculty satisfaction with governance when controlling for institutional characteristics only, this disappears in the final model. However, the more NCAA tournament appearances that a school’s men’s basketball team has appeared in over the last six seasons, the less satisfied faculty are with governance aspects of intercollegiate athletics on their campus even after controlling for institution and individual variables. Team success does not significantly influence satisfaction with finances in any of the final models, although in the model with institutional variables only, faculty satisfaction with finances diminishes as the men’s basketball team success increases.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

21


Compared to institutional traits, individual faculty characteristics more consistently influence faculty sat-

isfaction with each of the three aspects of intercollegiate athletics. The more that faculty are satisfied with academic, governance, and financial aspects of their campus generally, the more satisfied they are with the respective area pertaining to intercollegiate athletics. Of the demographic characteristics, race does not emerge as a significant predictor in any of the models. Gender has an influence on faculty satisfaction with academics and governance only. In both cases, ceteris paribus, females are less satisfied than males. Those faculty who are in the professional disciplines – business, education, and engineering – are more satisfied with academic, governance, and financial aspects of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses than their colleagues from other fields. In terms of faculty rank, associate, full, and other rank faculty are more satisfied with academic areas of athletics compared to assistant professors. The same is true for satisfaction with governance. Rank does not emerge quite as strongly where finance is concerned; full and other rank faculty are more satisfied than assistant professors but the relationship is only marginally significant, and no difference in the satisfaction of associate and assistant professors is observed.

Experience teaching student-athletes positively influences faculty satisfaction of academics, governance,

and finance. Likewise, faculty who are currently or have in the past participated in the governance of intercollegiate athletics on their campuses are more satisfied with each of the three areas than their peers who have no athletics governance experience. Examined separately, faculty participation in general governance does not significantly influence their satisfaction with governance or finances. However, those with general governance experience are less satisfied with academic areas of intercollegiate athletics than their colleagues who have not served in this capacity.

Discussion of Results

These findings are informative on several dimensions for athletics administrators. The high levels of “no

opinion” responses across all three areas of academics, finance, and governance suggest that faculty writ large are I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

22


not well-informed about the policies and practices surrounding athletics and student-athletes on their campus beyond what occurs in their own classroom. The regression results do demonstrate that faculty who have participated in athletics governance roles (as FARs, athletic committee members, certification committees, etc.) are consistently more informed about and satisfied with dimensions of their campus’s programs in academics, finance, and governance than their colleagues without such experience. Likewise, faculty who teach student-athletes are more informed and satisfied with each of the three dimensions. These two variables – athletics governance involvement and experience teaching student-athletes – are two of the most consistent and strongest predictors of faculty satisfaction, a consistent finding across all of the individual campuses. This suggests that outreach by the athletics department to create opportunities for faculty to interact with athletics may create more knowledge of the department and its activities, translating into goodwill. Programs such as faculty involvement in recruiting or attendance at athletic banquets may offer proactive opportunities for athletics departments to create positive rapport with campus faculty. While peer-reviewed research on the efficacy of such programs does not exist – nor were respondents to this survey asked about their knowledge of or participation in these – anecdotal evidence indicates that they may hold value. For example, the Chronicle of Higher Education published reflections about a “guest coaching” experience by a University of Mississippi faculty member, whose previously uninformed assumptions about his institution’s football team were changed for the positive after attending a game (Galef, 2002). Prior research suggests that intercollegiate athletics is perceived by the majority of Football Bowl subdivision faculty as separate from the rest of campus (Lawrence, Hendricks & Ott, 2007). However, the strong relationship between faculty satisfaction with their campus generally and with intercollegiate athletics specifically demonstrated here suggests that these areas may not be as separate as often assumed. For example, faculty who are pleased with the academic performance and integrity of the general student body, the level of faculty involvement in admissions and advising and the integrity demonstrated by advisers and admissions staff who serve all students are similarly satisfied with related items that pertain to intercollegiate athletics and athletes only. The same relationship is observed for governance and finance. While this finding might not come as a surprise, administrators at institutions that are concerned about faculty dissatisfaction with athletics would benefit from conI s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

23


textualizing these views within the larger campus environment. In some cases, athletics might offer a high-profile target that in fact reflects broader discontent. The main purpose of this study is to assess whether individual and/or institutional characteristics are associated with views of intercollegiate athletics. The results suggest that individual variables have more consistent relationships with faculty satisfaction than do those attributable to the broader campus. Nonetheless, some campus-level aspects are also important; controlling for the rest of the variables in the models, size and recent record of men’s basketball tournament appearances are negatively associated with faculty satisfaction while athletics revenue and football bowl appearances are positively associated with faculty satisfaction. Does this mean that faculty are unhappier when their men’s basketball team qualifies for the NCAA tournament but happier when their football team earns a bowl bid? Perhaps, but a more likely explanation is that these characteristics are proxying another feature of the campus for which I did not have a measure. This finding underscores the need for further discussion around which institutional variables might best capture the unique aspects of a school’s general and athletics-specific environment. As noted in the Limitations section, the variables here are from publicly available files and are likely not the most accurate measures. What variables are most appropriate? Armenta (1986) suggests athletic budget, national recognition, media coverage, stadium/arena size, attendance at athletic events, conference affiliation, coaches’ salaries, and booster club donations may be salient factors, but his research does not examine whether these are in fact critical factors. From an athletics competition perspective, the institution-level variable that receives a lion share of attention is conference affiliation. Much of the research on intercollegiate athletics uses conference as a basis of comparing schools, and many athletic policies are made at the conference level. Are conferences primarily geographically convenient artifacts, or are they indicative of anything else? Also, while the data here pertains to faculty, the question of which institutional characteristics might mediate individuals’ views extends to coaches and other athletics department staff, campus administrators outside of athletics, student-athletes, and the general student body. Certainly noteworthy are the descriptive results that demonstrate most faculty are generally neutral (i.e., respond with “no opinion”). In addition, the highest levels of satisfaction are observed for aspects of academics, I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

24


which is encouraging from the perspective that most public and media attention to the relationship between academics and athletics is negative. Stories about the negative influence of athletics on academics, such as cheating scandals (e.g., Kaczor, 2007) or â&#x20AC;&#x153;one-and-doneâ&#x20AC;? menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s basketball players (e.g., Forde, 2008), are emphasized in the press over the many academic success stories of student-athletes. Athletics administrators should be heartened by these findings, which belie media reports and stereotypes about student-athletes and faculty alike. Instead this analysis suggests that, harkening back to my introduction, most faculty are neither willing to cut student-athletes extreme slack nor do they despise sports. While their satisfaction certainly varies across specific issues, according to individual subgroups and experiences, and by campuses, most generally have moderate views of intercollegiate athletics.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

25


Bibliography Allen,
H.
(2004).

Employment
at
the
margins:

Nonstandard
work
in
higher
education.

In
The
NEA
2004
Almanac
of
 Higher
Education.

(p.
27‐38).

Washington
DC:
NEA
 
 Publications. American
Association
of
University
Professors
(2002).
The
role
of
the
faculty
 
in
the
governance
of
college
athletics.
Retrieved
November
9,
2006
from
 http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/About/committees/committee+repts/athletics‐reform.htm Armenta,
A.
(1986).
Faculty
attitudes
toward
intercollegiate
athletics
at
Arizona’s
state‐ 
 supported
universities.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
Arizona.
 Astin,
H.,
Antonio,
A.,
Cress,
C.,
&
Astin,
A.
(1997,
April).
Race
and
ethnicity
in
the
American
 
 professoriate,
1995‐1996.
Los
Angeles:
Higher
Education
Research
Institute.
 August,
L.
&
Waltman,
J.
(2004).
Culture,
climate,
and
contribution:
Career
satisfaction
among
female
faculty.
Research
 in
Higher
Education,
45(2),
177‐192. Becker,
S.,
Sparks,
W.,
Choi,
H.,
&
Sell,
L.
(1986).
Intercollegiate
athletic
committees:
 
 Dimensions
of
influence.
Journal
of
Higher
Education,
57(4),
431‐441. Blackburn,
R.,
&
Lawrence,
J.(1995).
Faculty
at
work:
Motivation,
expectation,
satisfaction.
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
 University
Press. Blackwell,
J.
(1989).
Mentoring:
An
action
strategy
for
increasing
minority
faculty.
Academe
 
 75(5),
8‐14. Briody,
J.
(1996).
Perceptions
of
the
impact
of
intercollegiate
athletics
on
academic
reputation.
 Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation:
University
of
Connecticut.
 Coalition
on
Intercollegiate
Athletics
(2007).
A
framework
for
comprehensive
athletics
reform.
Retrieved
October
24,
 2007
from
http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/FTF/FTFtext&appendix.pdf Cockley,
W.
&
Roswal,
G.
(1994)
A
comparison
study
of
faculty
members’
perceived
 knowledge
and
satisfaction
regarding
NCAA
athletic
programs.

Journal
of
Sport
 Behavior,
17(4),
217. Engstrand,
G.
(1995).
Faculty
control
of
athletics:
A
case
study
of
the
University
of
Minnesota.
 Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation:
The
University
of
Minnesota. Ethington,
C.
Smart,
J.
&
Zelmann,
M.
(1989).
Institutional
and
departmental
satisfaction
of
 
 women
faculty.
Research
in
Higher
Education,
30(3),
261‐271. Feezell,
T.
(2005).
Faculty
attitudes
towards
intercollegiate
athletics
at
NCAA
Division
I
and
 
 NCAA
Division
III
institutions.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation,
University
of
Idaho. Feldman,
D.
and
Turnley,
W.
(2001).

A
field
study
of
adjunct
faculty:
The
impact
of
career
 
 stage
on
reactions
to
non‐tenure‐track
jobs.

Journal
of
Career
Development,
28(1),
1‐16. Forde,
P.
(2008,
April
4).
One‐and‐done
frosh
more
‘athlete’
than
‘student.’
ESPN.com.
 
 Retrieved
4/18/08
from
 
 http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=3330261 Friesen,
R.
(1992).
A
comparison
of
NCAA
Division
I‐A
coaches
and
administrators’
attitudes
 toward
issues
in
intercollegiate
athletics.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation:
The
 University
of
Kansas. Galef,
D.
(2002,
November
22).
Pigskins,
pep
talks,
and
a
visiting
professor.
The
Chronicle
of
 
 Higher
Education,
49(13),
B5. Hagedorn,
L.
(1994).

Retirement
proximity’s
role
in
the
prediction
of
satisfaction
in
academe.
Research
in
Higher
Educa‐ tion,
35(6),
711‐728. Hagedorn,
L.
(1996).
Wage
equity
and
female
faculty
job
satisfaction:
the
role
of
wage
 
 differentials
in
a
job
satisfaction
causal
model.
Research
in
Higher
Education,
37,
569‐ I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

26


598. Hagedorn,
L.
(2000).

Conceptualizing
faculty
job
satisfaction:
Components,
theories
and
 
 outcomes.
New
Directions
for
Institutional
Research,
105,
5‐20. Harrison,
T.
(2004).
Internal
stakeholder
perceptions
of
intercollegiate
athletic
reform:
A
focus
 
 group
examination.
Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation:
The
Ohio
State
University.
 Johnsrud,
L.
&
DesJarlais,
C.(1994).
Barriers
to
the
retention
and
tenure
of
women
and
 
 minorities:
The
case
of
a
university’s
faculty.
Review
of
Higher
Education,
17,
335‐353. Johnsrud,
L.
&
Heck,
R.
(1998).
Faculty
worklife:
Establishing
benchmarks
across
groups.
 
 Research
in
Higher
Education,
39,
539‐555. Johnsrud,
L.
&
Rosser,
V.
(2002).
Faculty
members’
morale
and
their
intent
to
leave:
A
 
 multilevel
explanation.
The
Journal
of
Higher
Education,
73(4),
518‐542.
 Kaczor,
B.
(2007,
September
26).
Nearly
2
dozen
Florida
State
athletes
accused
of
cheating. 
USA
Today.

Retrieved
4/18/08
from
 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2007‐09‐26‐floridast‐cheating_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip Kuga,
D.
(1996).
Governance
of
intercollegiate
athletics:
Perceptions
of
faculty
members.
 Journal
of
Sport
Management,
10,
149‐168. Lawrence,
J.,
Hendricks,
L.,
&
Ott,
M.
(2007).

Faculty
perceptions
of
intercollegiate
athletics:
 A
national
study
of
faculty
at
NCAA
Division
I
football
bowl
subdivision
universities.

 Knight
Commission
on
Intercollegiate
Athletics.

Retrieved
10/24/07
from
 http://knightcommission2.org/faculty_perceptions_final.doc Lawrence,
J.,
Ott,
M.,
&
Hendricks,
L.
(2007).
Faculty
and
the
reform
of
intercollegiate
 athletics:
A
study
of
faculty
oversight
of
intercollegiate
athletics
and
implications
for
national
policy
initiatives.

 Paper
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
Association
for
the
Study
of
Higher
Education,
Louisville,
KY,
 November
8,
2007. Leslie,
D.(1998).
The
growing
use
of
part‐time
faculty:
Understanding
causes
and
effects.
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass. Lindholm,
J.
(2003).
Perceived
organizational
fit:
Nurturing
the
minds,
hearts,
and
personal
 
 ambitions
of
university
faculty.
Review
of
Higher
Education,
27(1),
125‐149. National
Collegiate
Athletics
Association
(2006).
The
second‐century
imperatives:
Presidential
 leadership
–
Institutional
accountability.
Retrieved
October
24,
2007
from
 http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/legislation_and_governance/committees/future_task_force/index.html Noble,
J.
(2004).
Faculty
attitudes
toward
NCAA
Division
III
athletic
programs.

Unpublished
 doctoral
dissertation:
University
of
Northern
Colorado. Olsen,
D.,
Maple,
S.,
&
Stage,
F.
(1995).
Women
and
minority
faculty
job
satisfaction:
 
 Professional
role
interests,
professional
satisfactions,
and
institutional
fit.
Journal
of
 
 Higher
Education,
66(3),
267‐293. Olsen,
D.
&
Sorcinelli,
M.
(1992).
The
pre‐tenure
years:
A
longitudinal
perspective.
In
M.
D.
 
 Sorcinelli
&
A.
E.
Austin
(Eds.),
Developing
New
and
Junior
Faculty,
New
Directions
 
 for
Teaching
and
Learning,
No.
50
(pp.15‐26).
San
Francisco:
Jossey‐Bass. Rosser,
V.
(2004).

Faculty
members’
intentions
to
leave:
A
national
study
on
their
worklife
and
satisfaction.
Research
in
 Higher
Education,
45(3),
285‐309. Seifert,
T.
&
Umbach,
P.
(2007).
The
effects
of
faculty
demographic
characteristics
and
 
 disciplinary
context
on
dimensions
of
job
satisfaction.
Research
in
Higher
Education,
 
 49(4),
357‐381. Smart,
J.
(1990).
A
causal
model
of
faculty
turnover
intentions.
Research
in
Higher
Education,
 
 31(5),
405‐424. Solow,
R.
(1998).
Faculty
athletic
committees
as
a
source
of
intercollegiate
athletic
authority.
 Unpublished
doctoral
dissertation:
The
University
of
Georgia. Tack,
M.
&
Patitu,
A.
(1992).
Faculty
job
satisfaction:
Women
and
minorities
in
peril.
(ASHE‐ERIC
Higher
Education
Report
 No.
4).
Washington,
D.C.:
The
George
Washington
University. I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

27


Trail,
G.
&
Chelladurai,
P.
(2000).
Perceptions
of
goals
and
processes
of
intercollegiate
athletics:
A
case
study.

Journal
of
 Sport
Management,
14,
154‐178. Turner,
C.
(2002).
Women
of
color
in
academe:
Living
with
multiple
marginality.
The
Journal
of
Higher
Education,
73(1),
 74‐93. Zhou,
Y.
&
Volkwein,
F.
(2004).
Examining
the
influences
on
faculty
departure
intentions:
A
 
 comparison
of
tenured
versus
nontenured
faculty
at
research
universities
using
NSOPF‐99.
Research
in
Higher
 Education,
45(2),
139‐176.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

28


Appendix A TABLE A1 Satisfaction with Academic Items Item

Very No Opinion Dissatisfied 1090 157 (52.6%) (7.6%)

The role coaches play in the undergraduate admissions process on my campus Academic standards on my campus that guide 818 214 admissions decisions for high school athletes (39.5%) (10.3%) in football and basketball Academic standards of academic advisors who 846 137 have responsibilities for student-athletes on my (40.8%) (6.6%) campus Academic standards of individuals who tutor 1071 93 student-athletes on my campus (51.7%) (4.5%) Academic integrity of student-athletes in my 208 55 classes (10.0%) (2.7%) Academic performance of football and basket- 356 170 ball student-athletes in my classes (17.2%) (8.2%) Academic performance of student-athletes in 197 35 sports, other than football and basketball, in (9.5%) (1.7%) my classes Level of responsibility student-athletes take to 203 88 complete assignments and acquire course ma- (9.8%) (4.2%) terials for sessions they miss in my classes Efforts of faculty in my academic department to 476 32 work with student-athletes and ensure the (23.0%) (1.5%) quality of their educational experiences

Dissatisfied

Very Not Satisfied Satisfied Relevant

247 (11.9%)

403 78 (19.5%) (3.8%)

66 (3.2%)

386 (18.6%)

503 92 (24.3%) (4.4%)

27 (1.3%)

273 (13.2%)

562 201 (27.1%) (9.7%)

22 (1.1%)

211 (10.2%) 297 (14.3%) 378 (18.3%)

520 (25.1%) 1068 (51.6%) 592 (28.6%)

17 (0.8%) 194 (9.4%) 471 (22.7%)

206 (9.9%)

1008 397 197 (48.7%) (19.2%) (9.5%)

307 (14.8%)

953 288 197 (46.0%) (13.9%) (9.5%)

177 (8.5%)

957 258 136 (46.2%) (12.5%) (6.6%)

126 (6.1%) 217 (10.5%) 57 (3.2%)

Note. The survey item reads, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please indicate how personally satisfied you are with each of the following on your campus.â&#x20AC;? Percents may not add up to 100% and frequencies may not add up to 2071 due to missing data because some respondents skipped items. Post hoc analyses suggest no pattern exists in the items that were skipped or the individuals who chose to skip them.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

29


TABLE A2. Satisfaction with Governance Items Item

Very No DissatisVery Not Satisfied Satisfied Relevant Opinion Dissatis- fied fied

Level of cooperation between the athletic department and faculty groups responsible for 791 ensuring that academic standards are upheld (38.2%) on my campus Attention given to the quality of student762 athletes' educational experiences by faculty (36.8%) governance groups on my campus Types of roles faculty play in the governance 714 of intercollegiate athletics on my campus (34.5%) Range of faculty perspectives considered by 700 central administrators when institutional posi- (33.8%) tions on intercollegiate athletics are formulated Practice of giving perks (e.g., trips to bowl games) to faculty and administrators who 1015 serve on committees that oversee intercolle- (49.0%) giate athletics on my campus Institutional control over intercollegiate athlet- 474 ics on my campus (22.9%) President's oversight of intercollegiate athlet- 528 ics on my campus (25.5%) The way campus administrators handle external constituencies (e.g., boosters, media, ven- 585 dors) with vested interests in intercollegiate (28.2%) athletics on my campus Willingness of faculty who serve on governance groups to take positions at odds with 778 those advocated by athletics administrators on (37.6%) my campus Extent to which faculty input informs adminis- 664 trative decisions related to intercollegiate ath- (32.1%) letics

203 (9.8%)

377 521 126 (18.2%) (25.2%) (6.1%)

18 (0.9%)

149 (7.2%)

397 564 139 (19.2%) (27.2%) (6.7%)

21 (1.0%)

270 462 467 101 (13.0%) (22.3%) (22.5%) (4.9%)

16 (0.8%)

424 473 363 58 (20.5%) (22.8%) (17.5%) (2.8%)

16 (0.8%)

253 277 292 52 (12.2%) (13.4%) (14.1%) (2.5%)

142 (6.9%)

260 (12.6%) 227 (11.0%)

161 (7.8%) 181 (8.7%)

7 (0.3%) 9 (0.4%)

257 404 650 118 (12.4%) (19.5%) (31.4%) (5.7%)

10 (0.5%)

151 (7.3%)

324 586 162 (15.6%) (28.3%) (7.8%)

20 (1.0%)

354 496 430 66 (17.1%) (23.9%) (20.8%) (3.2%)

9 (0.4%)

431 (20.8%) 336 (16.2%)

693 (33.5%) 742 (35.8%)

Note. The survey item reads, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please indicate how personally satisfied you are with each of the following on your campus.â&#x20AC;? Percents may not add up to 100% and frequencies may not add up to 2071 due to missing data because some respondents skipped items. Post hoc analyses suggest no pattern exists in the items that were skipped or the individuals who chose to skip them.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

30


TABLE A3. Satisfaction with Finance Items Very No Opinion Dissatisfied The use of general funds to subsidize intercol- 638 420 legiate athletics on my campus (30.8%) (20.3%) The practice of awarding scholarships to indi- 313 271 viduals based on their athletic abilities and per- (15.1%) (13.1%) formance My athletic department's compliance with Title 512 101 IX (24.7%) (4.9%) The balance struck on my campus between 324 360 the commercialization of intercollegiate athlet- (15.6%) (17.4%) ics and the ideals of amateur athletics Item

DissatisVery Not Satisfied Satisfied Relevant fied 320 356 74 (15.5%) (17.2%) (3.6%)

223 (10.8%)

358 929 146 (17.3%) (44.9%) (7.0%)

15 (0.7%)

197 (9.5%)

881 327 11 (42.5%) (15.8%) (0.5%)

494 724 119 (23.9%) (35.0%) (5.7%)

15 (0.7%)

Note. The survey item reads, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please indicate how personally satisfied you are with each of the following on your campus.â&#x20AC;? Percents may not add up to 100% and frequencies may not add up to 2071 due to missing data because some respondents skipped items. Post hoc analyses suggest no pattern exists in the items that were skipped or the individuals who chose to skip them.

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

31


Appendix B TABLE B1 Intercorrelations among dependent and independent variables Variable 1. Satisfaction with Academics 2. Satisfaction with Finance 3. Satisfaction with Governance 4. Teach Student-Athletes 5. Athletics Governance 6. General Governance 7. Female 8. White 9. Associate Professor 10. Full Professor 11. Other Rank 12. Professional Discipline 13. Public University 14. NFL/NBA Team th 15. ACT Composite 50 Percentile Score 16. Percent of Non-Tenure Track Faculty 17. Full-Time Undergrad. Enrollment (in 1,000) 18. Athletics Revenues (in $10mil) 19. Menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Basketball FourClass Graduation Rate 20. Menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Basketball NCAA Appearances 21. Football Four-Class Graduation Rate 22. Football Bowl Appearances 23. NCAA Violations

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

0.00 0.00

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.36

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.02 0.09 0.94 0.01 0.19 0.14 0.31 0.13 0.00 0.00

0.12 0.85 0.18 0.64 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.09

0.40 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.95 0.71

0.62 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.07 0.90 0.31

0.86 0.00 0.80 0.62 0.56 0.08

0.00 0.00 0.50 0.08 0.15

0.00 0.98 0.34 0.06

0.13 0.79 0.27

0.65 0.97

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.38

0.26

0.63

0.39

0.41

0.03

0.01

0.46

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.22

0.14

0.57

0.31

0.46

0.01

0.26

0.18

0.04

0.00

0.41

0.11

0.00

0.32

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.36

0.51

0.38

0.02

0.01

0.36

0.42

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.08

0.48

0.11

0.60

0.00

0.00

0.95

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.07

0.40

0.20

0.68

0.03

0.21

0.74

0.83

0.09

0.45

0.03

0.19

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.79

0.73

0.16

0.00

0.03

0.04

0.68

0.71

0.02

0.01

0.19

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.69

0.70

0.27

0.95

0.62

0.70

0.38

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.98

0.52

0.08

0.12

0.15

0.03

0.36

0.29

0.90

0.44

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.12

0.01

0.40

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.07

0.10

0.00

0.61

0.28

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.86

0.00

0.00

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

0.00

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

32


Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership Graduate Program U n i v er s i t y o f Wa s h i n g t o n

The University of Washington College of Education's Master of Education in Intercollegiate Athletic Leadership (IAL) is a unique degree program that prepares those who aspire to leadership positions within intercollegiate sports. The IAL program addresses the challenges common to athletic administration at all levels while providing a better understanding of the role of athletics within the educational setting. For more information on the Working Paper Series or our Graduate Program visit: http://www.extension.washington.edu/ial/

I s s u e s I n I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A t h l e t i c L e a d e r s h i p

Wo r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s

33


7