Florida State University LibrariesElectronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2018

An Examination of the Challenges andOpportunities Facing Female Coaches inHigh Performance International Track andFieldWilma Fiona Proctor

Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

AN EXAMINATION OF THE CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FACING FEMALE

COACHES IN HIGH PERFORMANCE INTERNATIONAL TRACK AND FIELD

By

WILMA PROCTOR

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sport Management

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

2018

ii

Wilma Proctor defended this dissertation on March 05, 2018.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Joshua Newman

Professor Directing Dissertation

Gerald Ferris

University Representative

Michael Giardina

Committee Member

Hanhan Xue

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and

certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This journey has been challenging, but it produced the most gratifying experiences of my

life, most of which represent the relationships and friendships with individuals who contributed

to my professional and personal development en route to this PhD. Many persons provided

immense support; therefore, it is with humility that I acknowledge their contributions.

First, I would like to thank the nine women who willingly agreed to discuss their perceptions. I

am aware of their commitments and the demands of their positions and fully appreciate their

investments in my achievement. Second, I would like to thank Dr. James for giving me the

opportunity in the first place to pursue my goals and, importantly, for facilitating and providing

the invaluable support—assistantships, teaching, and mentoring—along the way.

There are no words to describe my gratitude to the professor directing my dissertation—

my advisor, my mentor, my teacher, and my friend all in one. I know that without Dr. Joshua

Newman navigating this course in each of those roles I would not have made it this far. So, to

you Dr. Newman, I express my deepest appreciation. I am also grateful to committee members,

university representative, and the Department of Sport Management faculty, staff, and doctoral

students. I express gratitude to Dr. Michael Giardina and Dr. Hanhan Xue for your support

academically and personally. I would also like to thank Dr. Gerald Ferris, my outside committee

member for his time and invaluable feedback. To other members of faculty and staff, and doc

students, I appreciate your assistance, support, and encouraging words. It would be remiss of me

not to single out, Dr. Matthew Horner, who began the journey with me as a cohort, but became a

mentor, cheerleader, and friend. Dr. Horner, I thank you and value your friendship and the

support of your entire family.

iv

There are persons who have ridden with me through the hills and dales, day and night on

this expedition. My two daughters, Shara and Shinelle, my appreciation is heartfelt and infinite.

My sisters Cherryl and Yvette, words of appreciation cannot be written. Claudine, my friend and

companion, you are the best co-pilot, and Melanie my best friend and mentor, forever grateful.

Finally, I give all the glory to God, for opportunities, support, relationships, and friendships, for

without Him my journey would not be possible.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 8

Track and Field, Coaching, and Gender Practice 11

Governance of Track and Field 11

Coaches in Track and Field 15

The (Re)Production of Gender in Sports 18

Hegemonic Masculinity 18

Constraints to Female Coaches 20

Different Approaches to Exploring Gender Issues in Sports 23

Foundational Concepts of Institutional Theory 28

Institutionalization of Organizations 31

Isomorphism 33

Organizational Fields 37

Three Pillars of Institutional Theory 39

The Role of Power and Agency—Institutional Entrepreneurship 42

Institutional Theory in Sport Management Literature 45

Applying Institutional Theory in Coaching Studies 48

Institutional Change in Sports 49

Summary 51

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 54

Qualitative Research 54

The Person(al) in this Research 55

vi

Research Method 58

Participant Selection 59

Interview Strategy 60

Analysis 63

Quality and Reliability 64

Ethical Considerations 65

Summary 67

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 68

Biographies of Participants 69

Institutionalized Gender Politics Within National Track and Field Organizations 73

Diffusion of Dominant Gender Ideologies and Gendered Organizational Practices Across Various High-performance Track and Field Organizations 77

The Impact of Gender Institutionalization in Track and Field 85

Strategies to Navigate 91

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION 99

Powerlessness or Deliberate Inaction 100

Hegemonic Masculinity in Track and Field 101

Institutionalized Gender Ideology 103

Normalized and Normalizing Protocols 106

Change Through Institutional Entrepreneurship 114

Limitations and Implications 117

Implications for Research 118

Implications for Organizations 120

Implications for Coaches 121

Conclusion 122

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 126

vii

APPENDIX B IRB APPROVAL LETTERS 129

APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT FORM 134

REFERENCES 136

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 148

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Interconnected levels in Institutional Theory 53

Figure 2. Gender Politics Influencing Organizations and Individuals 53

ix

ABSTRACT

The number of females participating in high-performance track and field continues to

increase. However, there has not been a corresponding increase in the number of women in head

coaching and other leadership positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Shaw & Allen, 2009). This

dearth of female coaches has been studied extensively in collegiate and professional team sports

(Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Kamphoff 2010; LaVoi & Dutove, 2012; Leberman & Palmer, 2009;

Norman, 2008; Robertson & Marshall, 2010). Accordingly, this dissertation extends this

literature by examining the phenomenon in an individual sport at the high-performance level.

Some sport management scholars have concluded that sports organizations are infused with

institutionalized gender ideologies that contribute to the marginalization of women (Burton,

2015; Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, Cunningham, 2008). Therefore, combining institutional

theory with gender concepts to analyze the gendered environment and gender politics of

coaching in elite track and field, I examine the opportunities and challenges of female coaches as

they work in a male-dominated environment.

The research was guided by the following questions: (1) How do female coaches perceive

the effects of institutionalized gender practices and discourse within (inter)national track and

field organizations? (2) According to women coaches, how are dominant gender ideologies and

gendered organizational practices diffused across various high-performance track and field

organizations? (3) How does the process of gender institutionalization influence female coaches’

professional development? and (4) In what ways do female coaches respond to and develop

strategies from which to navigate the process of gender institutionalization?

For this analysis, I used a qualitative approach and conducted nine semi-structured

interviews with elite-level female coaches from different countries to construct a representation

x

of these gender politics and institutionalization processes, the impact on their careers, and the

strategies they implemented to navigate opportunities and challenges they encountered within

organizational structures of track and field. My findings show that gendered policies, practices,

and behaviors marginalizing women in the sport are widespread and work across temporal,

geographic, and cultural boundaries. However, the emergent themes also highligted the

willingness and preparedness of the coaches to pursue their careers with dedication and

determination. They articulated the desire to effect change and be a part of change. Further, they

acknowledged they are already observing incremental change, as the number of women

competing in the sport, working in leadership positions, and coaching at all levels of track and

field has increased.

This analysis adds to existing research that has highlighted institutionalized

organizational processes and practices including gender ideologies as contributing factors to the

marginalization of women across the sports sector and organizations (Burton, 2015;

Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992). Additionally, it gives

voice to a minority population of female coaches in high-performance track and field. Finally,

this research underscores the existence of gender inequity in international coaching, but it also

confirms the viability of change.

Keywords: Gender bias, institutional theory, institutional entrepreneurship, track and field, high-

performance

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Subsequent to widespread legislation enactment and policy development, the number of

females participating in track and field in North America and around the world has increased

over the past four decades (International Olympic Committee, 2016; NCAA, 2016). Yet, in spite

of enacted legislation, changed policies, and increasing female participation in the sport, the

number of women in leadership roles—such as national team coaches and other high-

performance coaching positions—is decreasing relative to the number of men in the same roles.

In fact, research has shown that since the enactment of Title IX in the United States, the Sex

Discrimination Act in the United Kingdom, and similar legislative interventions in other nations,

the number of female coaches has consistently declined from decade to decade (Acosta &

Carpenter, 2012; Leberman & Palmer, 2009; Norman, 2008; Robertson & Marshall, 2010).1

Today, there are fewer female coaches than male coaches in track and field at all levels

across the globe (International Olympic Committee, 2016). Moreover, the “high performance”

level of the sport is where we find the greatest discrepancy in the number of female and male

coaches (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Division for the Advancement of Women of the United

Nations Secretariat, 2008). “High performance” in this context (and in this research) refers to the

level in track and field that includes competitive environments such as Olympic Games, World

Championships, and Diamond League events.2 High performance coaches are those who hold

1 Title IX is a federal law that was passed in 1972 by Congress in the United States to prohibit sex discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding. Similarly in the United Kingdom, the Sex Discrimination Act was legislated in 1975 to protect men and women from discrimination based on sex or marital status. 2 The Diamond League is the top professional league of track and field. The league comprises 14 Diamond League meetings in which a total of 32 events are contested around the world.

2

positions as head or specialized coaches of national teams, elite (professional) clubs, and of

individual professional athletes (athletes also employ personal coaches).

Researchers have contended that this disproportionate representation is symptomatic of

broader institutionalizing forces within various sports organizations (Cunningham, 2008;

Cunningham & Sagas, 2008; Walker & Satore-Baldwin, 2013). These scholars have argued that

governing bodies, associations, teams, and clubs across sports conform to norms that render

organizational practices and logics as similar to one another (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For

instance, in North America, O’Brien and Slack (2003) found that leagues of different sports—

namely hockey, basketball, football, and baseball—engaged in business transactions, and

established relationships with similar actors (media businesses) and enacted similar strategies

(innovative marketing) to achieve their organizational goals. In Europe and other parts of the

world, soccer, rugby, and cricket leagues similarly display organizational sameness in how they

transact business and interact with one another. According to sport management scholars, sports

organizations like other social entities are embedded within fields and share like strategies,

transactional relationships, and procedural patterns (Cousens & Slack, 2005; Kikulis, Slack, &

Hinings, 1995; O’Brien & Slack, 2003).

In sports’ leadership positions, few women have broken through the proverbial “glass

ceiling.” Researchers have identified institutionalized gender ideologies as contributing factors to

the marginalization of women across the sports sector and organizations therein (Burton, 2015;

Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992). According to Fink

(2008), gender and gender politics have a subtle taken-for-granted nature in organizational

structures, policies, and behaviors. Structures and policies in organizations are often seen to be

gender neutral as men—who dominate sport leadership—perceive and perpetuate behaviors that

3

they believe are representative of humanity, to the clear detriment of women in sports leadership

(Acker, 1990).

Actors within the sport-based organizational field have also adopted and perpetually

reproduced assigned behaviors to the female and male sex that align with how women and men

are ‘supposed to act.’ Men have historically been perceived as strong, aggressive and exemplify

leadership qualities, whereas women are viewed as weaker, more passive and endowed with

fewer leadership characteristics (Acker, 1990, 1992; Connell, 1995; Hargreaves, 1994; Kane,

1995; McKay, Messner, & Sabo, 2000). To that end, Kanter (1992) noted that women

predominantly remain in jobs on the lower rungs in organizations and often become “tokens” at

the top. On the field of play and in bureaucratic environments of sport, gender imbues regulatory

processes, mechanisms of management, and behavior of individuals. According to Knoppers

(1992) and Cunningham (2008), gender politics are institutionalized in sport such that

discrimination of women, patriarchal structures, and sexist practices have become normalized

within many sport settings.

Despite the marginalizing behavior and processes that appear to exist in sport, a

disproportionately small number of women have advanced to leadership positions, providing

scholars with, albeit limited, points of contact from which to examine opportunities and positive

outcomes. Accordingly, research has shown that women in leadership positions challenge

dominant cultural ideologies of gender and are able to shape opinions. Furthermore, in positions

of leadership, women participate in decision-making processes that influence organizational

strategies and practices (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Dixon & Bruening, 2007; Everhart &

Chelladurai, 1998; Hums, Bower, & Grappendorf, 2007; LaVoi, 2009; Marshall, 2001; Messner

& Bozada-Deas, 2009).

4

Despite some gains, such gender-based inequity in sports, particularly in leadership

positions and in coaching, is a widely researched topic. Researchers have pointed to

discrimination (Demers, 2009; Robertson & Marshall, 2010), lack of opportunities (Knoppers,

1992; Stangl & Kane, 1991), role conflicts (Dixon & Bruening, 2007) just to name a few.

However, a common thread in this area of research is the influence of patriarchy and gender

inequity, namely in how these formations might be interpreted and manifested in various sport

contexts. In fact, scholars have contended that gender is an institutionalizing force in sports

(Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003; Cunningham, 2008; Demers, 2009; Acosta & Carpenter,

2012). Moreover, sport management scholars have said that sports organizations are indeed

institutionalized (Kikulis, 2000; Cousens & Slack, 2005). Scholars have used both concepts—

institutional theory and gender concepts—separately to explain social phenomena in sports, but

there is minimal research that has used them together to examine the paucity of female coaches

in sports.

In this dissertation project, I examine the challenges and opportunities women coaches

encounter in organizational environments unique to one of the most popular global sports: high

performance track and field. Given the history of uneven hiring and retention practices within the

sport, I aim to explicate how institutional processes act upon, and to some degree largely shape,

women coaches’ opportunities and experiences within the sport. Much like in other sport

contexts, women coaches in track and field are significantly underrepresented in the coaching

ranks across various international organizations and federations. Despite the sport’s increased

rates of participation and popularity among women athletes in recent decades, the disparity in

hiring and retaining women coaches is stark.

For instance, at the 2012 Olympic Games a total of 10,568 athletes competed, of which

more than 20% (2,231) were track and field athletes. Economically, track and field generated the

5

greatest amount of revenue of all sports federations at the Games.3 This individual sport has

relatively fewer barriers for participation and skill development than team sports and other

individual sports. There is less dependence on other members as there is for team sports for

athletes to develop skills, improve, and participate. Also, unlike other individual sports like

swimming, or tennis, there are lower costs for infrastructure and equipment that could prohibit

participation.

At all levels of the sport, track and field is popular for male and female athletes. For

instance, in the year 2013 in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) more than one

tenth (27,127) of all female athletes (203,565) competing in collegiate sports were participating

in track and field. On the men’s side, the number was similar (27,021) and second only to

football (Burnsed, 2016). In England, also, according to British Athletics (2016), in 2013 there

was a 25% increase in the number of athletes participating in the sport—making it the most

populous sport at all levels in that year.

Despite these growth trends, the low number of female coaches at the high-performance

level underscores inequity and lost opportunities for women. To understand this inequity in track

and field, I drew on tenets of institutional theory to develop an analysis of how gender politics

and inequalities are manifested, operationalized, and contested within the coaching profession at

the high-performance level of track and field. Specifically, I used a qualitative approach to

investigate the complex social interactions of women coaches within gendered organizational

structures in track and field. While I acknowledge likely limitations of drawing on the

3 At the 2012 Olympic Games, 26 sports federations participated. The income generated during the games was divided among the federations based on their contributions to the event (ticket sales, broadcasting, and other sponsorship arrangements). Track and field received $47 million out of the $519 million IOC gave to member federations (International Olympic Committee, 2016).

6

experiences of women as opposed to both male and female coaches, it is a deliberate choice to

have women voice and interpret their own experiences. I want to provide space for women to

express their views about the environment in track and field and highlight their roles and status

in it. The experiences of these women most closely connected to the phenomenon under study

add meaning and understanding to this research. In short, these are the people who navigated

through the maze of obstructions, reached leadership positions, and remain in the profession.

In Chapter 2, I provide a literature review that begins with an overview of track and field

and coaching arrangements in high-performance levels of competition. This is followed by a

discussion of gender issues in sports, and a review of previous research conducted in sport

management on women in leadership and coaching positions. In the second part of the Literature

Review, I focus on foundational concepts of institutional theory and discuss its use in

organizational and in sport management literature. I conclude the chapter by explaining how I

will utilize various constructs and themes developed within these various literatures to move

forward with an analysis of women coaches’ experiences within the gendered and

institutionalized environments.

In Chapter 3, I discuss my methodology, which is grounded in a qualitative approach.

Philosophically moored to a constructivist paradigm, for my research design I employed semi-

structured interviews with female coaches, whom I purposively selected using snowball

sampling. Given the incredibly low number of women coaches working at the elite international

level, I actively sought interviews with anyone whom might be willing to speak with me. I

recorded, transcribed, and analyzed interviews for emergent and cogent themes about

opportunities and challenges of female coaches. This approach was chosen because it allows for

the exploration and in-depth analysis of a complex social phenomenon. Given that, I show how I

looked at multiple realities of female coaches as we constructed knowledge about their

7

experiences. I made the case that a qualitative approach offers a useful lens through which to

examine the coaches’ perspectives on institutionalized gender practices in sports organizations.

Using a qualitative approach in Chapter 4, I analyzed the empirical material obtained

from the interviews. I coded and categorized the empirical material to identify patterns and

emergent themes from the perspectives of the female coaches. This chapter includes biographical

information of coaches along with their perceptions of organizations and their experiences within

them. I refer back to literature during the analysis to identify connections and similarities of

gendered practices, behaviors, and structures in the different organizations from the experiences

of female coaches. Chapter 4 is therefore intended to be read in concert with Chapter 5, as it

helps to provide a thematic grounding of the experiences of women across different

organizations.

In Chapter 5, I engaged in a more inductive, exploratory, and interpretive examination of

emergent themes, discussed implications and limitations of this research, and considered

potential opportunities for future research. I analyzed how processes and behaviors reflective of

hegemonic masculinity impact female coaches in track and field. Additionally, I examined the

ways hegemonic masculinity become normalized or institutionalized. I then discuss the effects of

institutionalized gendered protocols on the careers of the coaches, and how they in turn develop

strategies to influence and circumvent these established norms. Finally, I conclude with a

summary of findings, limitations, implications, and future research ideas.

8

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter establishes the theoretical grounds for this dissertation. The chapter, much

like the dissertation more broadly, focuses on the challenges and opportunities female coaches

encounter in track and field. In it, I will briefly outline the research traditions from which this

study emanates and builds upon. Further, I define and explain the context as well as relevant

terms and vocabularies that I will use to examine the interplay between institutional pressures,

organizational conformity, and strategic choices of female coaches as they operate within the

sport. The review begins with an historical overview of track and field, and the organizations—

including coaching bodies—that govern the sport. This will be followed by a discussion on

gender in sports and the effect on female coaches. In the second section, I will discuss the

foundational concepts of institutional theory as they pertain to organizational action and

individual behavior. In the third section, I focus my attention on the institutionalization of sports

organizations and the agency of women as they navigate the coaching profession.

Previous research on gender and coaching has examined the causes for ongoing

marginalization of female coaches and has discussed systems that stymie their efforts to advance

within the profession (Cunningham, et al. 2007; Bracken, 2009; Danylchuk et al., 1996).

Research has shown that organizational actors are often inculcated with assigned sets of gender

behaviors. Men and women are expected to demonstrate characteristics that define and

differentiate them from one another (Hargreaves, 1994; McKay, Messner, & Sabo, 2000). For

instance, traditional norms often promoted within sport organizations would suggest that men

should be strong, physical, and active, while women should be soft, passive, and docile.

9

Scholars have pointed out that specific institutional mechanisms and systems embedded

in sports significantly influence and constrain female coaches’ experiences (Acker, 1992;

Chappell & Waylen, 2013). They looked at race and gender and made the argument that

competitive sport is a highly racial and gendered institutionalized environment that promotes and

reinforces negative social and cultural attitudes. This institutionalized and misogynistic regard

for female coaches has become formalized and embedded in various levels and types of

organizational structures and activities—such as hiring coaches—and this has led to shared racial

and sexual segregation in practice (Cunningham & Sagas, 2003; Knoppers et al, 1991; Stangl &

Kane, 1991; Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Although Cunningham, Sagas, and Ashley

(2001) looked at discriminatory hiring practices related to race and gender, they confirmed the

notion that institutional mechanisms embedded in sport lead to marginalization and

discrimination of women. Walker and Satore-Baldwin (2013) identified hegemonic masculinity

and institutionalized bias in men’s collegiate basketball. The researchers further contended that

there are institutionalized practices limiting women’s access to men’s sports overall.

Although there has been a growing line of inquiry describing how the institutional

environment of competitive sports culturally and socially constrains the behavior of female

coaches (Cunningham, 2008; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001; Knoppers, 1987, 1992), little

has been done to look at the strategic responses of female coaches as a result of the institutional

pressures that have been exerted on them. Some institutional theorists have argued that the

overemphasis on institutional constraints might lead to an underestimation of the role of

individual agency in promoting change in institutional environments (DiMaggio, 1988; Oliver,

1991; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).

In this dissertation, therefore, I seek to further explore the role of female coaches as they

practice their profession within traditionally patriarchal, sexist, and competitive sports

10

environments. To do so, I will examine the interplay between institutional pressures,

organizational conformity, and strategic choices of female coaches in the context of high-

performance track and field. I do so by drawing and building upon concepts from organizational

institutionalism such as isomorphism, organizational fields, and institutional entrepreneurship

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001).

More specifically, I look to explore the following questions: (1) how do female coaches perceive

the effects of institutionalized gender politics within national track and field organizations? (2)

According to women coaches, how are dominant gender ideologies and gendered organizational

practices diffused across various high performance track and field organizations? (3) How does

the process of gender institutionalization influence female coaches’ professional development?

and (4) In what ways do female coaches respond to and develop strategies from which to

navigate the process of gender institutionalization?

Given that the context of this research is track and field, I will first discuss the

organizational complexities and governance arrangements of coaching within international track

and field. I will then map out the influence of gender on structures, processes, and attitudes in

coaching. Since ideologies of gender are embedded in institutions (Acker, 1992; Chappell &

Waylen, 2013), I will use scholarship on gender in sport to highlight how women have been

marginalized and underrepresented in track and field. In addition, I will introduce institutional

theory as an analytical tool toward an analysis of how, through this project, we might better

understand how actors within track and field organizations are subjected to gender politics,

gender norms, and how women manage challenges and opportunities within the profession.

11

Track and Field, Coaching, and Gender Practice

Whereas previous scholarly work has highlighted the existence of discrimination against

women in the coaching profession across sports in general (Hart, Hasbrook, & Mathes, 1986;

Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000; Knoppers, 1992; LaVoi & Dutove, 2012), here I focus on

the challenges and opportunities female coaches experience in high-performance track and field.

I have chosen track and field for this research because (1) it is one of the most popular sports

globally, in terms of participation by male and female athletes, (2) the income generated in the

sport is significantly greater than other individual sports such as gymnastics and swimming

(International Olympic Committee, 2016), and (3) because the IAAF provides an important site

of analysis for the governance (financially and technically) and development of human resources

(athletes, coaches, administrators).

Moreover, international track and field is an important research context because—despite

upward participation trends particularly those indicators showing an increase in girls and women

participating therein—there has been a decline in women coaches coaching both male and

female athletes at the elite level. While girls and women in track and field are being afforded

greater access to the sport, women coaches are increasingly turning away or being turned away

from the coaching ranks. This research seeks to explore why this is the case, what can be done

about it, and how women coaches themselves might be able to provide insights into strategies by

which institutionalized organizations can be challenged from within.

Governance of Track and Field

Track and field was the first formalized sport to be featured in the Olympic Games

(Geesman, 1952). Before basketball or tennis, baseball or soccer, competitions of hand and foot,

hurling objects, and leaping for distance consumed arenas and were consequential for life. These

competitions in early Greece were restricted to men-only participation. Somewhat later, women

12

began participating in foot races. In essence, it has a long and storied history of women

participating sooner and in greater numbers than in any other sport (International Olympic

Committee, 2016). For decades, track and field was an amateur sport—athletes could not receive

income or other rewards for competing, limiting access to high-performance competition to

privileged and financially secure individuals—but the philosophy of amateurism changed when

interest in the sport grew. In the 1960s as television media covered events, athletes and the sport

gained exposure and captured the attention of other commercial entities regarding the value of

the sport. Financial benefits became available for athletes and other stakeholders and increased

as the popularity and commercial value of the sport grew.

The International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), which was founded in 1912 to

govern the sport, abandoned amateurism in 1982 and formally changed the name in 2001. The

IAAF now plays the leading role in operating and developing organizations and practitioners of

track and field. As the regulatory or sanctioning body, it is responsible for promotion of the sport

for and in member territories, which currently number 212 countries across all continents (IAAF,

2016). As members of the IAAF body, national federations (NFs) benefit from technical and

financial contributions. They receive annual financial grants and training for human resources

(athletes, coaches, technical staff, administrators).

Furthermore, through development programs funded by the IAAF, athletes receive

funding for training and travel to competitions; coaches and technical staff receive training,

certification, and travel grants; and administrators receive training and funding to IAAF

congresses, meetings, and other administrative gatherings. Male and female coaches benefit from

training and certification programs certainly, but statistical data of training programs from the

IAAF show far fewer women involved in coaching development programs. Statistics from the

six geographical area groups—Asia, Africa, South America, Europe, North America Central

13

America and Caribbean (NACAC), and Oceania—show that out of a total of 6759 coaches

trained, 5623 were men and 1136 were women during the period 1991-1998 (IAAF, 2016). The

sport also became accessible to a wider population, and participation at all levels increased for

male and female athletes. Significantly though, the statistics of the 2012 Olympic Games

indicate that the gap narrowed between male and female participation in the sport.

The IAAF is similar to other international governing bodies in that the organizational and

hierarchical processes and nuances are aligned to the procedures of a democratic government.

For example, the IAAF Council is comprised of 27 members4 who are elected by the Congress5

through a democratic process (one country, one vote) every four years to carry out the

administrative responsibilities of the association. The council members are elected from a pool of

individuals holding executive positions on, and nominated by, their national federations.

Although the membership of the council must have a minimum of six women, female

representation remains less than one-fourth in the organization responsible for global

administration of the sport. Individual member federations are responsible for the governance of

the sport within their territories, but they have constitutional oversight from the IAAF and must

comply with constitutional mandates to retain their association with the IAAF.

Whereas one of the key administrative functions of the IAAF is to develop policy for the

governance of the sport, other important roles are to organize international competitions, develop

athletes’ skill sets as well as the development of coaches and administrators. These features may

4 The elected members of the council include one president, four vice presidents, one treasurer, one representative from the six geographical area groups and 15 individual members. There is a guaranteed minimum of six women on the council. Each member is elected for a period of four years with no stipulation on the number of terms. 5 The Congress of the IAAF comprises of not more than three delegates from each National Member Federation. This body convenes every two years at the time and location of the World Championships.

14

be similar to other international sports federations, but in track and field, international

competitions are the signifiers of affiliation and success for stakeholders involved—the country,

coach or athlete.6 Also, it is important to note that the IAAF plays a leading role in the

development of coaches and administrators globally. Although the IOC governs the quadrennial

spectacle (Olympic Games), the IAAF has administrative and regulatory responsibilities for the

competition during the games and is fully responsible for other competitions such as World

Championships and Diamond League events.

The IAAF is one of the most solvent international sports federations (International

Olympic Committee, 2016), and as the world governing body, it plays a significant role in the

development of the sport and individuals in NFs. As one of the popular sports globally, the

biennial World Championships and Diamond Leagues attract commercial sponsorships and other

revenue earning business, contributing to enriching the federation. In addition, and as I

previously noted, the federation receives the largest portion of revenue distributed by the IOC to

sports federations from income generated during the quadrennial games. It is through their

affiliation that NFs benefit from this revenue in the form of grants, training, and technical

assistance.

The structuring of track and field organizations within NFs might differ, but as affiliated

members, the governance of the sport must comply constitutionally with the IAAF. For example,

several of the smaller NFs in the Caribbean and Pacific Islands that are affiliated to the IAAF,

are largely dependent on resources procured through that relationship for their development and

therefore must comply with rules and policies to maintain membership. In North America, the

6 National federations must send athletes to IAAF competitions to maintain affiliation; and coaches and athletes receive remuneration, sponsorship, capital, and other incentives to participate at high-performance events.

15

United States Track and Field Association (USATF) is the national governing body responsible

for governing the sport at all levels. However, the NCAA has a strong organizational presence

and influence on the sport. The NCAA plays a significant role as the stepping-stone to the

professional and high-performance level for athletes in sports in the U.S. and other countries.

Furthermore, high-performance coaches in track and field either currently coached or were past

coaches in American collegiate programs. Other nations, like Australia and England, have strong

club systems, which facilitate the development of athletes and coaches, but in all these territories

(USA, Australia, England), despite the influence of other internal organizations, at the high-

performance level, the national federations as affiliated members must operate within

constitutional boundaries of IAAF.

Coaches in Track and Field

Coaching arrangements at the high-performance level of track and field are unique and

often specific to individual nations, but the collective outcome shows a paucity of female

coaches. At this level, unlike team sports like basketball and soccer—where the team hires

coaches—in track and field, national associations, elite clubs, individual athletes, and

organizations such as Nike and Adidas employ coaches. It is not uncommon for coaches to be

hired by all entities simultaneously. Coaches work with national associations during World

Championships and Olympic Games, but athletes also employ personal coaches as well during

these and Diamond League events. This involvement of several entities adds greater

complexities to hiring and retention of coaches in track and field7.

In the United States, USA Track and Field (USATF) selects head coaches and other

7 High-performance coaches in track and field work for different organizations and entities simultaneously. Coaches may have connections with companies like Adidas or Nike, while working with National Federations, professional clubs, and individual athletes.

16

specialized coaches for each specific international event. In the 2016 Summer Olympic Games,

for instance, the coaching staff employed by USATF was comprised of eleven members, while

several other coaches simultaneously coached athletes on the team. A case in point, Rana Reider

coached the American triple jump gold medalist, Christian Taylor. However, Coach Reider was

employed by the Dutch Athletic Federation, had affiliation to Adidas, and coached athletes

representing Austria and Great Britain in addition to athletes representing the Netherlands and

USA. Also, Cliff Rovelto, one of the eleven-member USATF team, had been the current head

coach of Kansas State University for 24 years and coached athletes representing Barbados and

Jamaica at the games. Although USATF retained the services of eleven coaches, there were other

coaches working with athletes on the US team—the employment practices of USATF are not

uncommon, but on the contrary, are normal in high performance track and field.

Similar to USATF, Athletics Canada—the association that has purview for the sport in

Canada—employs a coaching staff during high-performance competitions. However, the

organization also hires a salaried head coach and other specialist coaches year-round on contract.

Furthermore, like the U.S., their athletes employ coaches and retain their services during

championships. For example, Harry Marra (American)—though not a member of the US team—

coached Team USA’s athletes and also coached Canada’s bronze medalist, Brianne Thieson-

Eaton. Another example is Canada’s female long jumper (Christobel Nettey), who was coached

by Dan Pfaff (American), who also coached five other athletes from five other countries

(Feschuk, 2016).

In Europe, employment of coaches in track and field is similar to that in North America.

In Holland, the Royal Dutch Athletics Federation hires year-round specialized coaches, and in

the United Kingdom, British Athletics maintains a cadre of coaches on staff year-round.

However, at the Games athletes retain the services of coaches who were not named as team

17

members of coaching staffs. In the Caribbean, with a few exceptions—notably, in Jamaica—the

majority of high-performance coaches are volunteers with their national federations. However,

athletes from the Caribbean also retain the services of coaches. Coaches’ employment at the

high-performance level of track and field is not as straightforward nor as continuous as with

other disciplines. Several entities and individuals may simultaneously influence the careers of

coaches, and as such issues related to hiring and retention may present alternative perspectives.

For track and field, despite the variety of organizations and diversity of rules and policies

regarding coach employment across different countries, underrepresentation of female coaches

remains a common phenomenon. While there may be an absence of definitive statistics on

coaches and population numbers in track and field, because of the fluid and complicated

arrangements noted above, nonetheless, research has cited percentages that show a disparity in

the number of female coaches. Acosta and Carpenter (2012) conducted a longitudinal study of

women in intercollegiate sports, including track and field in the NCAA, and found that the

percentage of female head coaches was 10% of all coaches. Norman (2008) reported that in

Canada, women coach 33% of all women’s teams, and only 20% of senior teams.

Leberman and Palmer (2009) also reported that women are more marginalized and

underrepresented in coaching at the highest levels in England and New Zealand. In fact, they

found that less than a quarter of all coaches are women, and few are appointed to coach

professional teams. According to Norman (2008), similar statistics were observed in Germany,

where data indicated six women out of a total of 120 were national coaches. The continuing

female underrepresentation in high-performance track and field coaching inarguably points to

inequity, and many scholars have attributed this to the gendered nature of sports (Hart,

Hasbrook, & Mathes, 1986; Knoppers, 1992; Inglis, Danylchuk, & Pastore, 2000; LaVoi &

Dutove, 2012).

18

The (Re)Production of Gender in Sports

According to Acker (1991), gender “refers to patterned, socially produced distinctions

between female and male, feminine and masculine” (p. 420). Further, according to scholars in

the social science field, gender pervades organizations and organizational practices, contributing

to ongoing inequalities between men and women (Acker, 2006; Connell, 2009). Moreover, sport

management scholars also argue that sports are permeated with gender politics and behavioral

prescriptions (Knoppers, 1991; Kane & Stangl, 1991; Pastore, 1992; Theberge, 1993), and that

sports are used to perpetuate the distinctions of gender and maintain the dominance of

masculinity, while subordinating femininity (Connell, 1995). Substantial sports management

literature has highlighted the gendered nature of sport organizations, the predominance of men in

leadership roles, and the marginalization of women through organizational practices and

procedures (Acker, 2006; Britton, 2000; Connell, 2009; Hovden, 2000; Shaw & Slack, 2002).

Acker’s idea that gender is a social process and Connell’s view that it is complex and

dynamic both advance the understanding that gender is more than a biological or reproductive

contrast of male and female (Acker 1991). Definitions of masculinity are linked to men and

attributed with superiority and leadership roles. On the other hand, femininity is associated with

women and accordingly assigned to subordinate roles. These associations typically become

dominant, or the norm, and according to Knoppers (1992), this collective dominance of men over

women is associated with hegemonic masculinity.

Hegemonic Masculinity

According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), hegemonic masculinity first emerged from a

field study of social inequality that later led to a proposal of multiple masculinities and power

relations. Subsequently, the concept has been used in several academic disciplines including

organizational studies (Cheng 1996; Cockburn 1991), criminology (Messerschmidt 1993),

19

education (Skelton 1993), and sports sociology (Messner 1992) to theorize and interpret issues

related to gender, power, leadership, and dominant groups. Although hegemonic masculinity has

been widely applied to various social phenomena, scholars have criticized the underlying

concept of masculinity in relation the essentialism of the male-female differences for example

(Connell & Messerschmidt 2005). Nonetheless, hegemonic masculinity has traction in academic

literature for understanding the interplay of gender dynamics and is useful in this research for the

examination of institutionalization of gender practices in sport organizations.

Hegemonic masculinity helps to understand the social context of gender relations. It

emphasizes the plurality of masculinities in society (Connell 1987), and provides understanding

of the social relationships men and women construct (Connell, 1995). This scholar argues that

the characteristics of men are constituted through prescribed dominant masculine styles found in

cultural and historical contexts. These masculinities according to Connell and Messerschmidt

(2005) are patterns of practice occurring in social settings and therefore can vary according to the

existing gender relations of particular settings. For example, in the context of sport the

characteristics of masculinity such as aggression, confidence, and forcefulness, along with

agentic qualities (e.g. assertive, competitive) are extolled and established as the patterns of

masculinity privileged in that social setting (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

Furthermore, according to Messner (1988), history and documents show that from the

inception of sports, men have been ascribed the aforementioned qualities of masculinity. As

such, their dominance in sport appears normal and rightful and is perpetuated by prevailing

discourses. Foucault (1984) described discourses as dominant forms of knowledge that are

created in social interactions. Further, discourses become the norm when they are adopted and

reproduced by individuals in positions of power. In the coaching profession, for instance, men

maintain dominance as they normalize definitions of masculinity with associated behaviors and

20

characteristics. Of significance in sport historically, the form of hegemonic masculinity

constructed for coaching corresponds to the masculinities assigned to men.

In spite of its variability or plurality, central to the concept of hegemonic masculinity is

the power of the dominant group in relation to other groups—femininities and subordinated

masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005). Sport scholars have shown that the dominant

masculinity is exalted and aligned with complex skills and attributed to men in sports. While

according to Eagly and Carli (2007), the characteristics of femininity that include sensitivity,

nurturing, sympathy, and communal qualities are undervalued. By association, men become the

dominant group and through policies, practices, and behaviors are able to maintain, legitimize,

and reproduce the dominance of men while subordinating women (Knoppers 1992). For

example, a plethora of research has shown that men receive higher pay than women in sports

organizations at all levels, and furthermore they also have greater access to the benefits

(networks and jobs) that reinforce and retain their position as superior leaders (Demers, 2009;

Robertson & Marshall, 2010; Shaw & Hoeber, 2003).

This characterization of hegemonic masculinity leads to an understanding that ideologies

of gender are diffused and firmly embedded in social environments such as sports organizations.

However, scholars have contended that with the changing dynamics in gender globally, the

possibilities of dominant masculinities changing in local cultures exist, given the effect of

globalization processes such as migration and social media (Morrell & Swart, 2005). This

therefore lends credence to the belief that dominant masculinities resulting in the marginalization

of women can change.

Constraints to Female Coaches

According to Adriaanse and Schofield (2013), gender is a practice that shapes behavior

and relationships—a concept that causes the analytical view that discrimination towards women

21

in sports organizations is the outcome of normalized and taken-for-granted gendering. These

processes, discourses, and behavior in organizations are institutionalized to produce hierarchical

control that elevates men to leadership roles while relegating women to predominantly

subordinate positions in sports organizations (Shaw & Frisby, 2006). Lovett and Lowry (1994)

found that male administrators and athletic directors hired men to coach male and female teams.

In spite of their qualifications and experience, women were overlooked in favor of less

experienced or less qualified male coaches (Hasbrook, Hart, Mathes, & True, 1990; Shaw &

Hoeber, 2003). Men have historically defined qualifications and skill levels required for a

profession, thus influencing hiring practices, wage distributions and career advancement

opportunities for women (Knoppers, 1992; Knoppers, Ewing, Forrest, & Meyer, 1989; Theberge,

1987).

According to Whisenant and Pedersen (2004), networking is beneficial for advancement

in sports, but women have few opportunities to take advantage of this benefit. Networking seems

to be male-dominated, as evidenced by the ‘good ole boys’ network. Moreover, research has

shown that male coaches gain access to jobs and promotions through their connections with other

men, while women are seldom afforded the same privilege (Greenhill, Auld, Cuskelly, &

Hooper, 2009; Knoppers, 1987). Since women are underrepresented in coaching, they also have

limited networking opportunities with one another. Furthermore, organizational policies and

practices support men while marginalizing women (Greenhill, Auld, Cuskelly, & Hooper, 2009).

In fact, Claringbould and Knoppers (2007) found that men in leadership positions influenced

hiring and recruitment practices despite affirmative action policies. Additionally, there is the

assumption that organizational practices are gender neutral, but according to Acker (1990), these

practices serve to reinforce prevailing gender hegemony.

22

Women experience discrimination as individuals construct their meanings of gender and

perpetuate their meanings in the way they operate in their jobs, how they relate to others at work,

and their decision-making processes (Acker, 1992; Kane & Stangl, 1991; Knoppers, 1991;

Theberge, 1993). With regard to the empirical evidence of gender inequalities in sports, Acosta

and Carpenter (2012), in their longitudinal study, highlighted ongoing organizational hiring,

retention, and promotion practices that demonstrated discrimination toward women. For

example, in 1972, women coached more than 90% of female teams in the NCAA. However, by

2012, the number was less than fifty percent (43.3%). During the same period, women coached

only 3.5% of men’s teams (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012). The decline of female coaches is partly

due to sport administrators perennially hiring male coaches over female coaches, even though

women are equally or more qualified than their male counterparts (Shaw & Hoeber, 2003). In

fact, Hasbrook, Hart, Mathes, and True (1990) empirically demonstrated that, in terms of

experience and certification, female coaches in the NCAA were more qualified than males.

Further, research has also shown that there is a correlation between the number of women

in leadership positions—including coaching—and the level of competitiveness and prestige of

sports. According to research done by Demers (2009) and Robertson and Marshall (2010), the

proportion of female coaches decreases as the competitive level of sports increases, as the

compensation rises, and as the prestige associated with the position improves. The same is true in

less competitive levels of track and field, such as youth, junior and amateur organizations.

In most historical and geographical/cultural contexts, men have dominated leadership

positions in sports. Positions, such as the role of coach in high-performance sports settings, are

frequently defined in ways that portray men as more superior, more capable, and more

knowledgeable than women. Research of gender inequity in sports has shown that men often

create, define, and appropriate—giving meanings to the occupation and the role of gender within

23

it. In the corporate world where women face similar discrimination and difficulties ascending to

positions of leadership, Eagly and Carly (2007), noted that the qualities of leadership have long

been defined in masculine terminology. Furthermore, even when women display these traits that

are deemed necessary to lead—aggression, assertiveness, and decisiveness—they face other

stereotypical obstacles that impede their progress and elevation to leadership positions. In other

words, when women adopt male defined masculine characteristics, they are often seen as

behaving differently or unacceptably rather than as leaders.

Nonetheless, Eagly and Carly (2007) also noted that in more contemporary times

definitions and terminologies of leadership have changed in the corporate world. Terminologies

such as negotiation and collaboration have become more commonplace as the socioeconomic

changes have impacted the landscape in organizations. These scholars suggested that workforce

diversity, competitive pressures, and fading geopolitical boundaries have changed the skill sets

for effective leadership. There is greater need for democratic and participatory decision-making

skills, which are regarded as more feminine, and as such connected to women. However, women

still encounter difficulties ascending to positions of leadership despite the need for more

feminine traits of leadership. Organizational change that supports women in leadership positions

remains a slow process as men continue to dominate leadership roles. Similarly in sports

organizations, men dominate leadership roles in coaching, although there is increased female

participation as athletes, a greater proportion of women at the lower levels of coaching, and

increasing numbers of female coaches similarly qualified as their male counterparts.

Different Approaches to Exploring Gender Issues in Sports

Scholars have employed different approaches, such as individual, structural, and social

relational approaches, to understand the decline of female coaches and gender inequity in

coaching (Knoppers, 1987). An individual approach assumes that experiences are based on

24

individual action; that is, experiences in the work environment are directly related to one’s

behavior (Kanter, 1977). For example, role conflict theory has been used to explain the reason

women leave coaching earlier than men. In a multi-level study of coaching mothers in NCAA

Division I schools, Dixon and Bruening (2007) found that female coaches struggled with

multiple roles as parents and coaches. However, the authors further suggested that role conflict is

not peculiar to women, as every working individual experiences the phenomenon, but failure of

organizations to provide support to women exacerbates their struggles. Role conflict sheds some

light on these struggles, but fails to account for organizational processes that create the

unsupportive environments (Knoppers, 1987).

In addition to role conflict theory, other individual approaches to describe

marginalization of women in sports include sex role socialization theory (Knoppers, 1992),

which stems from the premise that gender-associated behavior is learned during childhood

development from family, peers, school, church, media, and other social influences. Therefore,

as adults, women are less interested in coaching as a profession because they were inculcated in

their youth with the notion that it is gender inappropriate.

Another individual approach is human capital theory (Pastore, 1993). This theory invokes

the accumulation of qualifications—formally and informally—through education and

experience, and often concludes that women when compared to men lack the experience to

coach. However, this theory fails to account for the limiting impact of role conflict. That is, the

perceived conflicts of time and travel against their roles of wives and parents prevent women

from acquiring the capital to compete for high-level coaching positions.

Overall, the individual perspective focuses on women’s personal choices, individual

interest, personalities, identities, traits, and abilities, to explain women’s limited involvement in

coaching. The individual approach has received criticism as it reinforces differences between

25

men and women, makes an assumption that characteristics of femininity are deemed unsuitable

for sports involvement, and women therefore must become more masculine to cope with the

demand (Kanter, 1993). Stangl and Kane (1991) further criticized individual approaches for their

tendency to blame the victim. Knoppers (1987) argued that the individual approach tends to

ignore organizational and environmental factors. Further, Hart, Hasbrook, and Mathes (1986)

argued that empirical evidence was absent to support the claim of believed differences between

males and females.

In contrast to the individual approach, scholars who use a structural approach to

understand disadvantages and underrepresentation of women in the coaching profession have

focused on how three structural determinants of work environment—power, opportunity, and

proportion—impact women’s decision to pursue coaching careers or leave the profession

(Danylchuk, Pastore, & Inglis, 1996; Knoppers, 1987; Stangl & Kane, 1991). Essentially a

structural analysis looks at the role within an organization, the power and opportunity that come

with it, along with the mediating factor of numbers of people (Kanter, 1993).

Power refers to the ability to mobilize one’s resources. This is based on earned capital

from the formal position one holds in the organization and the characteristics of that position

along with informal networking (Kanter, 1993). For example, a coach accrues capital by

obtaining certification and experience, achieving good results (high winning percentage), and

coaching at the Olympic Games. In the formal capacity of an Olympic coach, he/she is bestowed

with capital—visibility, credibility, and prestige—that accompanies the Olympic brand.

Informally, this also capital helps with other exchanges and interactions that can lead to

increasing networking opportunities.

Opportunity is also a necessary component of increasing capital. In collegiate-level

coaching in North America, the opportunity to obtain a coaching position is often connected to

26

candidates’ previous work experience and appropriate training (Danylchuk, Pastore, & Inglis,

1996). Women who usually have less access to resources and skill development do not receive

the same opportunities men receive when applying for a coach’s position (Inglis, Danylchuk, &

Pastore, 2000). In particular, those in positions of authority, who are usually men, commonly

deny female coaches opportunities for development and advancement.

Proportion refers to the ratio of women to men in the same job (Kanter, 1977). The author

noted that a small ratio of women would result in fewer opportunities available for women to

network. Research shows that men interact and network more frequently with other men rather

than with their female colleagues (Knoppers, 1992). Women thus become isolated and less likely

to gain job opportunities, career advancement, and upward mobility that informal networks

provide (Knoppers, Meyer, Ewing, & Forest 1991). As a result, female coaches are less likely to

secure and remain in coaching positions (Stangl & Kane, 1991).

While the structural approach focuses on the determinant role of the structural

elements—power, opportunity, and proportion—on female coaches’ disadvantages in seeking

and securing job positions (Acosta & Carpenter, 1988; Knoppers, 1987; Stangl & Kane, 1991), it

actually neglects the interplay between structural context and individual modes of behavior

(Knoppers, 1988; Stangl & Kane, 1991). The culture within an organization is a reflection of

larger social contexts. Therefore, while the characteristics of a position can render the occupant

power and opportunity, the structural approach ignores relational aspects of social groups such as

class, race, and gender with their influence on structural determinants within an organization.

The social relational approach, which acknowledges individuals—although relational—fills this

gap. It highlights complex nuances between individual groups and other social units. Social

relational approach therefore provides a useful lens to look at gender and its role in the

construction of occupations in workplaces (Hovden, 2000; Knoppers, 1992; Theberge, 1987).

27

Socially defined groups associated with race, class, and gender, for instance, have values

and norms that influence attitudes and actions (Knoppers, 1992). These groupings become

embedded with agency and distribution of power that impact relations and processes in society

(Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001; Knoppers, 1987; Stangl & Kane, 1991). In fact, Acker

(2006) noted that in organizations these categories produce and perpetuate inequalities that also

contribute to discrimination of groups in everyday life. Socially defined groups reflect binaries

consistent with domination and subordination, where the dominant group prescribes meanings,

values, and norms. This generally leads to the material, ideological, and cultural

disempowerment of the subordinated group within societies and organizations.

The social relational approach highlights the intersection of social groups and the

complexities of social processes. Both class and race, for instance, complicate gender, and the

same can be said for the other groups. However, several studies have focused on one or the other

to understand the perpetuation of inequalities in society, whereas Acker (2006) suggested that the

intersectional nature of social groups is more complex. Although the social relational approach

acknowledges the interdependence that exists between individuals, groups, and larger social

units, it does not disentangle gender from other groups. Similarly, in this study, although I

recognize the intersections of other social groups, such as race and nationality, I focus on the

issue of gender. These other groupings likely add other layers of analysis to the issue, but to

separate gender from race and nationality is beyond the scope of this study.

These approaches—individual, structural, and social relational—all shed light on the way

gender is diffused in sports’ organizations through the dynamic nature of individual behavior, the

utility of structural elements, and the relational aspects of societal groups. However, these

approaches neglect the role of formal practices, policies, and structures of organizations

themselves and how they impact and are impacted by individuals, structural determinants, and

28

social categorizations in organizations. Therefore, in this research I move beyond the separate

view of these approaches to a new platform for understanding the ways women working in a

male hegemonic field influence taken-for-granted processes and behavior.

I will also address the issue of underrepresentation of female coaches from the

perspective of women by placing emphasis on the interconnectedness between institutions,

organizations, and individuals, (see Figure 1). In particular, I will look at track and field as an

institution, how track and field organizations become similar by adopting the gender practice

(organizational isomorphism—see Figure 2), and how individuals (female coaches) strategically

respond to the environment (institutional entrepreneurship). In doing so, this research will

provide insights into how those established and relatively taken-for-granted aspects of the social

world (institutions and organizations) play a key role in producing and reproducing gender

inequality.

To do so, it is necessary to discuss key concepts of institutional theory, such as fields,

homogenization, supporting sub-concepts (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, 1991), and the three

pillars of institutions—regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements (Scott, 2013). This

will be followed by a discussion of institutional entrepreneurship (DiMaggio, 1988; Lawrence &

Suddaby, 2006) with a view toward understanding agency of individuals and their impact on the

environment in which they operate.

Foundational Concepts of Institutional Theory

Although institutional theory is widely used in the organization and management

literatures, there still remains a lack of consensus about the way institutions are constituted and

their effects in society (Scott, 2013; Zucker, 1987). Therefore, to use institutional theory as a tool

for understanding gender bias and practices in the coaching profession, it is necessary to discuss

29

the meaning of institutions and institutionalization, along with the different ways scholars have

used the theory to understand social phenomena.

The term ‘institution’ is often used interchangeably with organization. In fact, Selznick

suggested that an institution is “an organization infused with value” (Selznick, 1949, p. 25).

However, according to Bittner (1965), an organization is a group of people engaged in combined

activities to achieve particular objectives. Greenwood, Oliver, Suddaby, and Sahlin-Andersson

(2008a) proposed that an institution is ‘‘more-or-less, taken-for-granted repetitive social

behavior that is underpinned by normative systems and cognitive understandings that give

meaning to social exchange and thus enable self-reproducing social order” (pp. 4-5).

Based on Greenwood, Oliver, Suddaby, and Sahlin-Andersson’s (2008a) description, an

organization might be viewed as an institution because it has defined purpose that necessitates

reproductive action. However, institutions exceed the scope of an organization. Like

organizations, institutions span time, geographical boundaries, generations, and space (DiMaggio

& Powell, 1991; Hughes, 1971; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1983), and they also transcend a

group of people, are difficult to change, and operate in global contexts while simultaneously in

localized systems of interpersonal relationships (Scott, 2001).

North (1990) similarly described institutions as “humanly devised constraints that

structure political, economic and social interaction. They consist of both informal constraints

(sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions and codes of conduct) and formal rules (constitutions,

laws and property rights)” (p. 97). According to Greenwood and Hinings (1993), institutions are

both material and symbolic—material being structures and practices, symbolic being assigned to

meanings and ideas. Both definitions highlight the fact that individuals and organizations

maintain and perpetuate institutions (Giddens, 1984). Therefore, in societies, production and

reproduction of rules, values, beliefs, frames, and governance structures become institutionalized

30

and are signified materially and symbolically by systems and actions—as in marriage,

presidency, academic tenure, sexism, a handshake, and other social arrangements (DiMaggio &

Powell, 1991).

Institutionalization is a process whereby structures, practices, meanings and ideas become

habitual, and are guided by formal and informal rules (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Zucker, 1983;

Greenwood & Hinings, 1993). Berger and Luckmann (1966) developed a model for the way in

which institutions are created, maintained, and changed. They noted the process of

institutionalization involves externalization, objectification, and internalization, which in

combination become a continuous cycle whereby actors’ ideas, behavior, and action become

realities and are reinforced, and perpetuated.

Zucker (1983) turned to a cognitive and cultural explanation for institutionalization.

Institutionalization is seen as an overall understanding and rationalization of specific behaviors

and assumptions that are considered the natural way of doing things—behavior and actions that

through one’s cognitive interpretations of environment and interactions become the norm. Later,

Greenwood and Hinings (1993) stressed the cognitive dimension in their study of organizational

forms or models and suggested that as a cognitive process rules, norms, values, and or systems,

for example, stem from an interpretive arrangement.

Meyer and Rowan (1977) suggested that it is a process whereby conventions take on a

“rule-like status in thought and action” (p. 64). Scholars continue to grapple to find an all-

encompassing theoretical framework for institutions and inherent processes, or agree on the way

in which they are constituted and perpetuated (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 2013).

However, institutional theory remains a dominant concept in literature because scholars use it to

help explain how processes and practices become entrenched and maintained in society and

certainly in organizations.

31

Institutionalization of Organizations

Scholars across academic disciplines have used institutional theory to explain issues of

social, political, and economic significance as they rationalized organizational action (DiMaggio

& Powell, 1991). In reviewing literature on institutional theory, we can surmise that scholars

have used it to link micro and macro processes, and connected past and present events to explain

individual behavior, organizational action, and societal influence (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott,

2013; Zucker, 1991). Consequently, there is voluminous academic literature in which scholars

have outlined concepts and models applying the theory to such issues as change, agency, power,

rule systems, and other mechanisms and/or structures that contribute to political, economic and

cultural environments of organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1988, 1991; Meyer & Rowan,

1977; Parson, 1956; Scott, 2013; Selznick, 1949,1957; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008; Zucker, 1991)

In the western world, organizations adhere to formal and informal rules that are incumbent

upon capitalistic society (Scott, 2013). Accordingly, organizations conform to systems that

reflect arrangements of formal structures and set cultural rules. Consequently, organizations can

look the same operationally and sometimes structurally—human resources are similar, processes

are comparable and they adhere to like state and societal rules. For example, Bank of America

and SunTrust Bank are both financial institutions, and like other banks they resemble each other

in many facets. They have organizational structures that include directors and accountants, their

operations involve lending and borrowing money, and one of the regulating agencies for both

entities is likely the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). As for banks, other entities

like learning establishments, legal systems, health care, and sports organizations, for instance,

are similarly homogenized as they adopt rationalized myths of the society in which they exist

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991).

32

Institutional theory is a dominant framework in the organizational and management

literatures, and beginning in the mid-20th Century and since, scholars have used it prolifically.

Furthermore, scholars have expanded the theory and introduced additional concepts since early

contributions by Selznick (1948, 1949). At that time, Selznick analyzed organizational processes

and procedures within an institutional framework of rationality and political expedience. Later,

Parsons (1956) and Selznick (1957), along with other scholars, put forward ideas that

organizations are structural and procedural expressions of rational behavior. Within this context,

the environment both within and external to the organization defines its systems and processes,

and at the same time influences its location and functioning within society. That is, economic

situations, governmental politics, legislative implementation, climate change and a host of other

factors may exert pressures and constraints that dictate the way organizations conduct business.

Additionally, personnel changes and individual actor’s interests and relationships within the

organization may also initiate institutional development—namely, by augmenting particular

processes to conform to institutional norms.

This approach by Selznick and Parsons (1956, 1957) to understanding organizational

activities stresses micro processes within the organization and macro processes outside of the

organization. Further, these theorists emphasized the constraining forces of institutions that exist

internally and externally as organizations conform to cultural pressures exerted from within by

internal constituents, and the outside environment by political processes and other elements

(DiMaggio & Powell, 2008). Selznick’s (1949) empirical work on the Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA) highlighted the comingling of state and internal personnel, as both constituents

influenced ideologies, procedures, and practices of the organization.

33

Isomorphism

According to Dacin (1997), isomorphism refers to organizational sameness, whereby

organizations react to environmental pressures by adopting similar procedures and processes to

achieve legitimacy and/or to survive. Meyer and Rowan (1977) added contributions to the idea

of isomorphism and the importance of rationalized beliefs as organizations achieved sameness.

However, they emphasized rule-like influences on organizational action from society and

constituents within—for example, the media, state, and professions. They suggested that in the

western world, organizations adhere to formal and informal rules that are incumbent upon a

capitalistic society, resulting in organizational uniformity. Notably, these scholars emphasized

the fact that organizations and individual actors adopt belief systems and cultural practices from

wider institutional frameworks promulgated in society. Their view that institutionalization is

based on organizations centering their existence and survival on mindless adherence to cultural

norms is moored to Weber’s characterization of rationalization. Accordingly, as organizations in

a western society pursue legitimacy with their stakeholders and other constituents, competition

and profit maximization drive them to adopt rationalized ideologies, professions, mechanisms

and processes that facilitate speed, precision, quality, and continuity (Weber, 1949).

Tolbert and Zucker (1983), similarly, emphasized rationality and adherence to capitalistic

rules but from a micro perspective. They focused on the role of individual cognition in the

development and maintenance of institutions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1993). These scholars

suggested that actors within organizations develop strategies that influence change and/or

augment institutional environments. Stinchcombe (1968) also emphasized the role of individual

actors and their agency in institutional processes. He privileged the notion that individuals or

groups within organizations contribute to the stability of institutions through allocation of or self-

assigned power that reinforce values and norms (Skocpol, 1992).

34

Scholars approached the study of organizations and the impact of institutionalization from

different perspectives, but they commonly posited homogenization driven by the attainment of

legitimacy (Washington & Patterson, 2011). Organizations appear to disregard functional

efficiency or expediency and instead adopt similar structures, systems, strategies and policies

(Cousens & Slack, 2005; DiMaggio & Powell, 1988; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; O’Brien & Slack

2003; Zucker, 1977). So, as the theory evolved, despite viewing and emphasizing different

perspectives, scholars explored various phenomena and sought to answer these and other key

questions related to isomorphism or homogenization of organizations.

Meyer and Rowan (1977), Zucker (1977), and DiMaggio and Powell (1983) further

extended the concept of isomorphism. In fact, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggested that

institutional isomorphism is a useful approach for understanding the politics and processes that

permeate organizations. Although scholars’ focus of institutional analysis differed—Meyer and

Rowan emphasized societal structures, whereas DiMaggio and Powell underscored

organizational fields—they all agreed on the underlying concept of isomorphism.

Meyer and Rowan (1977) emphasized the macro level of society and the imperatives of

capitalism, whereas DiMaggio and Powell (1983) privileged organizational fields and a meso-

level perspective of organizational interconnectivity. From both viewpoints, the scholars

attributed limited roles to individuals in the construction and perpetuation of institutions

(Thornton & Ocasio, 2008). However, from a societal perspective, there is an interconnectedness

of institutions, organizations and individuals that is comprised of interacting agencies—state,

regulatory groups, and competing professions (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Coronna, 2008).

Mechanisms of isomorphism. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) also suggested three

mechanisms—mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures—as antecedents to isomorphic

changes by organizations. Institutional isomorphism is a process that occurs when these three

35

mechanisms intermingle and lead to different effects, but result in organizational sameness

nonetheless. Mimetic, coercive, and normative pressures are interconnected and work together as

organizations conform to prescribed formal and informal systems and rules within an

institutionalized environment.

Mimesis. Mimetic pressures occur when organizations have indistinct goals and operate

in uncertain environments. Organizations may also display uncertainty as new entities because of

unclear goals and objectives, and a lack of understanding for the environment in which they

operate. As such, they mindlessly adopt existing models of operations and technologies (March

& Olsen, 1976), or build on those that are perceived to be doing well (Kimberly, Kimberly, &

Miles, 1980). This is exemplified when international sports associations adopt and ratify

constitutions in spite of their inappropriateness and impracticability for their cultural

environment. However, these associations must comply because governing bodies such as IOC

or IAAF give the mandate.

Coercion. Coercive pressures result from political influence (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;

Paramio-Salcines & Kitchin, 2013) and occur when organizations are forced to comply with

formal or informal, explicit or implicit rules imposed upon them by other organizations and/or

parent organizations to which they are dependent for resources or business. Coercive pressure is

often found where governments and other central organizations set specific rules and standards

that associated entities must act in accordance with to receive benefits. The enactment of Title IX

and subsequent adoption by universities and colleges exemplify this pressure. Universities were

forced to comply with the mandate of Title IX or risk receiving sanctions and losing legitimacy.

Paramio-Salcines and Kitchin (2013) use institutional theory to understand the implementation

of disability services and access, for example, in three European professional football leagues.

36

They found that some organizations sought legitimacy by adopting practices to ensure legislative

compliance, whether for disability or economic support.

Normalization. The third mechanism that causes isomorphic change is normative

pressure. Normative pressures arise in response to professionalization processes in organizations.

For instance, individuals in the same vocation receive similar formal and informal training and

occupy positions with identical job titles in different organizations. These professions exhibit

norms and cultural behaviors that are associated with occupation, and at the same time those

behaviors become normalized structures (Kanter, 1977).

Normalized practices have institutionalized definitions of roles such as dress code, speech

and qualification that signify meaning in society (DiMaggio & Powell, 1993; O’Brien & Slack,

2004). In organizations, for example, accountants function similarly and shape the environment

in which they operate. Organizations typically utilize balance sheets, profit and loss statements,

and similar accounting software to manage financial operations. In sports, as well, coaches wear

similar attire, speak athletic jargon, and display common behaviors while coaching.

These three mechanisms of isomorphism (mimetic, coercive, and normative) have been

embraced by sport management scholars as they have used institutional theory to better

understand how and why sports organizations adopt certain governance practices. Sports

organizations comply with policies and regulations in order to achieve legitimacy and receive

concomitant benefits (Paramio-Salcines & Kitchin, 2013); others mimic competing organizations

in ambiguous environments such as the implementation of unclear strategies and introduction of

new technologies to remain viable (O’Brien & Slack, 2004); and while others adhere to the same

standards and behaviors of professional groups in the same field as they chart their

organizational course (Washington & Patterson, 2011). Of significance, sport management

37

scholars have found utility in isomorphism and the three mechanisms for explaining the actions

of sports organizations and the similarities they exhibit.

Organizational Fields

DiMaggio and Powell (1983) emphasized the dynamics of isomorphism within the

concept of organizational fields. According to Scott (2013), fields are the environments in which

institutional isomorphism occurs. A field perspective places organizations in groups that are

identified by relationships such as governance, business conducted, stakeholders, and

professionals engaged in an organizational structure. Importantly, clustering different

organizations into a field allows for investigation of social phenomena within and beyond the

scope of one entity because there is greater opportunity to focus on networks created by

interconnections and relationships (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Scott, 1985; Scott,

2013, p. 224).

The concept of field analysis has its roots in both physical and social sciences (Scott,

2013), as scholars across both disciplines have adopted it to explain various phenomena. For

instance, sociologists such as Bourdieu (1990), DiMaggio (1988), Fligstein (1990), and Oakes,

Townley, and Cooper (1998), used the construct of “field” in their analyses of social experiences

to characterize the role of power in relational interactions of individuals and organizations. Using

field-level analysis, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) placed emphasis on the distribution of power

among actors. Consequently, the ascribed levels of power in relation to other actors influence the

positioning of actors within a field. Dominant players are able to direct the course of action taken

by an entire group, while less powerful actors battle for greater influence (Djelic & Sahlin-

Andersson, 2006). Bourdieu (1990) emphasized the idea that fields are contested arenas in which

there is ongoing conflict and negotiation for distribution and redistribution of power.

38

Another key element related to the concept of organizational fields is governance or, in

other words, the regulating forces that directly relate to enabling and constraining. Within a field,

governance is signified by regulative and/or normative arrangements that constitute meaning and

exercise influence (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006; Scott, 2013). Although DiMaggio and

Powell (1983) noted that field-level analysis highlights regulatory peculiarities of organizations

within a particular field, other studies have shown that field boundaries are reshaped, leading to

change of both normative and regulative controls (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006).

Furthermore, Friedland and Alford (1991) noted that organizations have the tendency to deviate

from established arrangements.

Reay, Trish, and Hinings (2005) investigated healthcare in Canada and highlighted the

significance of governance, as actors within the field conceive of, negotiate, implement, and

police regulative and normative controls. They found that power struggles between physicians

and government agencies precipitated radical changes that were simultaneously constituted and

perpetuated as institutionalized practices. Reay et al’s study supported DiMaggio and Powell’s

proposals that one, professions and state have roles in the structuration of fields; and two, that the

structure of the field is as strong as the institutional forces—governance mechanisms,

stakeholder relationships, normative scripts. The government’s intervention and political

influence combined with the power wielded by professionals in the healthcare system was

impactful on the entire field and even beyond the proverbial institutional boundaries, also

highlighting the notion that social groups transcend field boundaries.

The engagement between government and professionals in the field resulted in a changed

health care system in Canada, ideologically and operationally, and affected individual health,

organizational action and societies status. Significantly, the study also demonstrated that change

takes place at the institutional level as re-composition of the field occurs by external

39

(government) and internal (professionals) pressures (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006; Reay et

al., 2005; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008).

Isomorphism and organizational fields moved institutional theory away from the concept

of profit maximization and self-interest as the main cause of organizational processes and

change. Instead, a field-level perspective looks at the environment in which organizations

operate and the institutional forces that create homogenization. However, this type of analysis

focuses on forces and processes at macro (state) and meso (organization) levels.

Although macro and meso level processes influence institutionalization of organizations,

there is an inattention to micro level processes, such as individual involvement (Thornton, 2004),

the cognitive processes of individuals (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and their interests (Friedland &

Alford, 1991) that are impactful on institutional creation, maintenance and disruption (Lawrence

& Suddaby, 2006). From the bottom up, individual behavior shapes organizational and

institutional processes, and from the top down institutions and organizations enable and constrain

individuals. According to Scott (2001), organizational action is best understood when researchers

using an institutional theory approach, acknowledge the interdependence and interaction of

actors and forces. Institutions, organizations, and individuals are interconnected and operating

one with the other all at the same time. Therefore, to understand organizational action and its

institutional arrangements, it is necessary to also acknowledge and examine the role of

individuals.

Three Pillars of Institutional Theory

In an effort to bring the various schools of thought on institutional theory together and

provide coherence to this complex but significant concept, Scott (2001) proposed a

categorization of three foundational pillars and referenced them as regulative (legal), normative

(social) and cognitive (cultural). These pillars represent the foundational elements upon which

40

institutions are created and maintained. Although Scott presented the three-pillar typology as

illustrative of discrete aspects of the various schools of thought, he acknowledges that these

concepts intersect and operate in conjunction with one another, but often one will dominate.

Regulative pillar. Scott (2001) proposed the regulative pillar encompasses much of

institutional theory because institutions constrain and regularize behavior. Nevertheless,

regulative aspects of the theory are derived from laws, rules, procedures, policing and sanctions.

The overarching notion is that the actions of actors (individuals, organizations, governments) are

controlled by social structures and contexts in which they exist. Indeed, scholars have argued that

actors create and obey laws and regulations to advance their interests.

Furthermore, actors submit to rules and regulations to earn related benefits or to avoid

punition—a view that emphasizes rational choice (Scott, 2013). Rational choice is an economic

view that players make decisions in their best interest by weighing costs and benefits (Scott,

2001). This is exemplified by the aforementioned compliance of universities and colleges to

mandates of Title IX that resulted in increased female participation in sports. There are likely

other competing institutional arrangements, but in this situation non-compliance is loss of

financial support. As a result, the most cost effective action is taken. Again, in this situation,

regulative elements dominate the institutional activities and guidelines for action taken by

universities and colleges.

Normative Pillar. The normative pillar emphasizes the role of norms and values that

specify actions and behavior in social life that are not necessarily rational. Values and norms are

defined by actors and their positions held in society. Positions are determined by social status,

which are influenced by class, race, and gender for instance. Although this perspective is less

formal than the regulative pillar, it is nonetheless prescriptive and constraining at the same time

(Scott, 2013). While norms and values empower some groups in society, they simultaneous

41

restrict other groups. For example, the Olympic movement for centuries was not accessible to

women. Female participation was denied because of gender prescriptions—roles of men and

women. Women’s participation was deemed inappropriate and legitimized with moral codes

defined by men. In recent times, the IOC and other agencies have implemented policies to

override common beliefs about female participation, but gender prescriptions remain.

Cognitive pillar. The third major pillar of institutional theory proffered by Scott is the

cultural cognitive pillar, which draws on the idea that social actors attach meanings to their

actions that are created through interaction. This is rooted in the concept that experiences and

understandings about the world are contextually based on the environment in which actors exist

(Weber, 1949). As such, shared experiences and shared understandings are bounded by the social

context of actors and result in taken-for-granted ways of operating (Scott, 2013). Put another

way, actors’ identities, meanings and expressions are interpreted according to their realities, and

they are the manifestations of their environments (physical, social, psychological). For instance,

in coaching women are more aware of unequal access and opportunities, whereas men identify

with more opportunities and advantages.

Scott’s (2013) typology of institutional pillars demonstrates the complexity and

prolificacy of institutions. As he highlighted the different ways institutions become inculcated in

society (regulative, cognitive, normative), he simultaneously underscored their significance in

helping to “provide stability and meaning to social life” (p. 56). The three pillars along with

concepts such as fields, isomorphism, and the three homogenizing mechanisms, have been

widely used to explain the infusion of technologies, systems, and norms in organizations. In sum,

these institutional concepts help to make sense of the underlying elements of gender

prescriptions that contribute to the marginalizing of female coaches.

42

The Role of Power and Agency—Institutional Entrepreneurship

In contrast to fields and isomorphic pressures, DiMaggio (1988) described the concept of

institutional entrepreneurship as a method for understanding ways that actors influence the

maintenance and origin of institutions. In his conceptualization, he privileged powerful actors

and their role as influencers for change of rules, orders, regulations, and policies within an

institutional context. Power, as previously noted in this review, is the ability to mobilize

resources in order to accomplish desired objectives. Accordingly, an institutional

entrepreneurship perspective provides utility for understanding how individuals use their

interests and power to influence changes in institutional environments (Battilana, 2006;

Greenwood & Hinings, 2006).

However, DiMaggio (1998) emphasized a more macro or field-level perspective as he

referenced “powerful actors” as organizations. Further, the author also referred to actors as

collectives of entrepreneurs exerting power to maintain institutions. For instance, in situations of

instability or crisis within fields, powerful actors (organizations and entrepreneurs) socialize

newcomers with rules and other strategies of management. Although DiMaggio highlighted the

use of ascribed power for strategic action, the focus of analysis was at an organizational and field

level, with minimal focus on individual behavior or their contribution to processes. For instance,

this level exemplifies the actions of corporations such as Nike and Adidas as actors in the sport

field. Based on the macro perspective, these organizations have economic influence and power,

they set trends that create rule and behavioral changes, and accordingly alter institutional

arrangements.

Building on the concept of institutional entrepreneurship, Lawrence and Suddaby (2006)

proposed an institutional work framework. In their essay on the framework, the authors

suggested that institutional work lays a foundation for understanding the micro process involved

43

as powerful actors exercise agency in influencing institutions—that is creating, maintaining and

disrupting them. But they broadened the definition of “powerful actors” to include organizations,

entrepreneurs and supporting individuals, cementing the notion that institutions rely on actors

while also emphasizing the important role of individuals, their agency along with power for

reproduction and perpetuation of institutions over time (Giddens, 1984).

In similar fashion, institutionalized gender practices in sport are upheld and perpetuated

by players in leadership positions. For example, leaders are able to exercise agency and use

acquired power embedded in their positions to enact policy that maintains or disrupts

institutionalized practices. Executives and other leaders on National Olympic Committees

(NOCs), National Track and Field Associations (NTFAs), and other organizations like Nike and

Adidas develop strategies that impact hiring and retention of coaches. The agency of individuals

enacting their leadership roles and the power pursuant to these roles may result in reproducing

and sustaining discriminatory structures and behaviors toward women. However, when

effectively countered, they may also liberate women from such regimes of regulation.

Further, to DiMaggio’s (1998) work on institutional entrepreneurship, Lawrence and

Suddaby (2006) drew from Oliver’s (1991) articles on deinstitutionalization and on

organizational agency and strategic responses to institutional developments. Oliver (1991)

derived a five-part typology of acquiescence, compromise, avoidance, defiance, and

manipulation. Each of these five responses represents degrees of agency exercised by actors in

response to institutionalized arrangements. The author suggested that deinstitutionalization

occurs in one of two ways in organizations: one, when assumed procedures and processes are

challenged and eventually become de-legitimized, and two, when organizations fail to reproduce

standardized processes.

44

Building on those two tenets, Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) suggested that they laid the

groundwork for understanding and highlighting the role of individual actors in disrupting and in

maintaining institutions. Whereas Oliver’s (1991) typology identified organizations as actors,

Lawrence and Suddaby (2002) extended the varying degrees of agency in the typology to

individuals. Certainly, the implications of individual agency along with power in

deinstitutionalization are meaningful. This research suggests that just as the leaders in NOCs,

NTFAs, and other sports organizations have agency and exert power to reproduce and perpetuate

gendered practices, the same attributes can be used to enact policies that challenge existing

normalized practices. Therefore, institutional entrepreneurship can be used as a framework for

examining the actions of actors when institutional changes occur.

Institutional entrepreneurship helps to explain agency and power of individual actors to

effect change within an environment as they disrupt established norms. For instance, the

likelihood of women holding leadership positions in sport is statistically rare, but their presence

alone changes the homogenized status of the field, and opens the door for added disruption.

Furthermore, according to Kanter (1993), power is acquired and increased when individuals

perform relevant activities that are visible and extraordinary. As female coaches demonstrate

their intellect, work ethic, and skillsets, they are empowered to challenge established notions.

In the 2016 Olympic Games in Brazil, a young South African (Wayde van Niekerk)

broke the 17-year-old record of the 400-meter event in track and field. Also at the games, a 74-

year-old female (Anna Botha) coached this young athlete (Siddique, 2016). According to

scholarship on institutional entrepreneurship, Coach Botha has the potential to precipitate

change. It is rare that a female coaches at the Olympic Games, and similarly uncommon to see

her coach a record-breaking event. In her role as Niekerk’s coach, with embedded agency and

the power she accumulates from coaching a record-breaking athlete, there is potential to disrupt

45

gender norms and influence action in her organization. Based on the premise of embedded

agency that comes with positions of power and accumulated success, it is valuable to use

institutional entrepreneurship for understanding how women can navigate coaching at the high-

performance level. Also, it is useful for understanding how they can influence marginalizing

governance mechanisms and networks as they are affected by them.

Institutional Theory in Sport Management Literature

Although some sport management scholars have applied institutional theory to the sports

field, sport management researchers actually failed to take advantage of the rich empirical base

that sports provides to expand the concept of institutions (Kikulus, 2000). In other words, sports

organizations are embedded in organizational fields, mirror each other, and are linked by like

governing agencies, and have similar professions and exchange relationships (Cousens & Slack,

2005). Nonetheless, as Washington and Patterson (2011) noted, institutional theory helps to

rationalize issues in sport that are currently not understood.

Southall, Nagel, Amis, and Southall (2008) used the theory to critically examine the 2006

NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament broadcasts. In their study, the authors focused

on tensions between the logics of commercialism and education in broadcasts. Despite mandated

and stated purposes by universities and colleges in the NCAA to promote education, messages

embedded in broadcasts of March Madness reflected a far greater ideological affinity to

commercialism by these organizations. The researchers argued that logics of commercialism,

with inherent mechanisms of revenues and profit making, dominate the education logic in

broadcasts to the extent that practices and procedures of universities and colleges are primarily

driven by sources of income from moneymaking ventures. Significantly, Southall, Nagel, Amis,

and Southall (2008) showed in their study the institutionalizing effects of a dominant logic as it

normalized ideologies and strategies of sports organizations.

46

In another example, Cousens and Slack (2005) used this approach to look at changes in

North American Major League Professional Sport (NAMLPS). They took a holistic view of the

interplay of four different aspects of field analysis—communities of actors, exchange processes,

governance structures, and beliefs and institutional logics of action—to identify their impact over

time on NAMLPS. This study provided a perspective on change that occurred in management

practices in sport organizations due in part to influential actors who had the power to maintain

and transform rules. In other words, individuals with ascribed power can influence institutional

change to perpetrate their interests (Selznick, 1957).

Similarly, Danisman, Hinings, and Slack (2006) conducted an empirical study on the

sources of integration and differentiation of institutional values amongst National Sport

Associations (NSOs) of Sport Canada. They viewed individual actors within the organizations as

key sources of influence. The authors began with the assumption that actors within an

organization operate according to the prescribed institutional values and norms of that particular

field for the attainment of prosperity and legitimacy for the organization (DiMaggio & Powell,

1991; Scott, 2001). They showed that there is consistency and agreement with institutional

values and norms within the field and within each individual organization. However, they found

variation within organizations among the actors that was specific to job functions. They noted

that there were similarities in their adherence to institutional norms and values based on their

vocation, not only within organizations, but also the same professions committed to the same

assumptions and values across the field—due in part to the organizations drawing upon the same

expertise (Slack & Hinings, 1994). Findings from the study underscored the cultural differences

of professions as individuals develop and operationalize their values and beliefs across sports.

Moreover, Danisman, Hinings, and Slack, (2006) contended that the manifestation of

institutional values is influenced by the work of individual actors.

47

Likewise, O’Brien and Slack (2003) utilized the principles of institutional theory to

explain changes in professional rugby in England, along with the role played by influential actors

in those changes. The authors contend that transformation of the league was influenced by a

conflation of social and cultural norms, individual actors, exchange processes, and regulatory

structures. They demonstrated through their research that individual logics exerted pressure and

resulted in change across the field that was not necessarily uniform.

However, O’Brien and Slack (2003) highlighted power and status of individual actors

and their agency for effecting change within the field of rugby in England. Additionally, they

demonstrated that change occurs in a field despite the existence of well entrenched or

institutionalized practices. Pressures were exerted on the field internally and externally, leading

to the establishment of new precedents in rugby (Friedland & Alford, 1991). The logic of

amateurism was eliminated when the more strongly supported logic of professionalism was

introduced and maintained (Jackall, 1988; Lounsbury & Ventresca, 2003).

Several sport management scholars have demonstrated the usefulness and relevance of

institutional theory to analyze sport organizations (Danisman, Hinings, & Slack, 2006; Cousens

& Slack, 2005; O’Brien & Slack, 2003; Southall, Nagel, Amis, & Southall, 2008). They have

shown that sport organizations operate in institutionalized environments (Washington &

Patterson, 2011); that change occurs at the institutional and organizational levels (Cousens &

Slack, 2005); and that professions and professionals can affect institutional and organizational

changes (Danisman, Hinings, & Slack, 2006). It is from these premises that I use institutional

theory to understand how structures, systems, and actors in track and field organizations oppress

women, and how women can resist in their positions as female coaches.

48

Applying Institutional Theory in Coaching Studies

While institutional theory has been used in the context of sports organizations and

organizational actors, it has not been widely used to understand the social dynamics of coaching.

In fact, there has been limited research using institutional theory. However, it is useful in this

research given the importance of institutional theory for understanding organizational action

(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991); for connecting past and present events to explain societal influence

(Meyer & Rowan, 1977); and for examining the cultural impact of normalized practices of

professions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).

Robertson (2006) examined the marginalization of women in coaching in the context of

NCAA Division I sport teams from an institutional perspective. The author specifically analyzed

the organizational structures and processes in six intercollegiate women’s sports: basketball,

volleyball, soccer, softball, swimming, and track and field in order to explain why there is an

increasing number of male head coaches compared to female head coaches. The author theorized

that normative, mimetic, and coercive pressures were evident as athletic programs conformed to

regulatory mandates and cultural norms, emulated other successful programs in their hiring

practices, and head coaching positions of women’s teams became dominated by men.

Robertson’s (2006) study highlighted three findings. First, the influence of isomorphic

processes resulted in men superseding and even dominating head coaching positions of female

teams. Second, he confirmed that gender is a powerful organizing principle in sports, particularly

as athletic directors were predominantly male and the dominant decision-maker in defining roles

of head coaching positions. Third, the study showed that institutions are durable and enduring

over time and generations (Zucker, 1977), despite other institutional arrangements. For example,

gender prescriptions prevail and women experience discrimination regardless of legislative

interventions to alleviate marginalization. Although Title IX legislation mandates increased

49

female participation, unequal treatment of female coaches persist as male coaches remain

dominant in the profession.

In a recent empirical study of men’s collegiate basketball using institutionalization as a

theoretical basis, Walker and Sartore-Baldwin (2013) highlighted the durability of gender bias

and its resistance to change through exploring the perceptions and attitudes of male coaches

toward female coaches. Walker and Sartore-Baldwin (2013) found that gender norms were

firmly embedded in coaching, suggesting female coaches are incapable of coaching men—

therefore exclusion of women has been established as an institutionalized norm (Acosta &

Carpenter, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992). This study revealed that despite

regulatory mandates, normative behaviors in gender bias maintain priority.

Institutional Change in Sports

In much of the initial work on institutional studies there is an assumption that institutions,

once formed, would remain stable (Haveman & Rao, 1997; Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Reay,

Trish, & Hinings, 2005; Scott et al., 2000). However, this has been the subject of increasing

criticism recently, that is, that there is a general deficiency in providing greater understanding of

reform (Scott, 2013) and little attention to the agency of individuals in initiating changes within

fields (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006). These weaknesses have been addressed partially by

growing scholarly interest in theorizing institutional entrepreneurship, which seeks to address the

role and treatment of individual agents in the process of institutional change (Maguire, Hardy, &

Lawrence, 2004; Battilana, 2006).

With regard to empirical evidence of institutional change in sports, Slack and Hinings

(1994) conducted a holistic study of Canada National Sport Associations (CNSOs) and Sport

Canada using institutional theory to identify isomorphic changes. They suggested that their

findings indicated that Sport Canada was able to control CNSOs because of isomorphic pressures

50

exerted by the parent association. Sport Canada initiated change and established policies that

were widely accepted by the associations. The researchers contended that CNSOs changed from

informal associations directed by volunteers to highly structured organizations managed by

professionals. Accordingly, CNSO’s were coerced into conforming to regulations established by

Sport Canada in order to receive funding, other resources and also maintain their legitimacy.

Based on Slack and Hinings’ study, institutional change was strongly influenced by forces within

an organizational field.

Kikulis (2000) challenged Slack and Hinings’ (1994) assertions that Sport Canada could

hold sway over the CNSOs. Kikulis (2000) suggested other field forces were involved in the

institutionalized isomorphic processes because, while there were structural, personnel and

procedural changes, there was still continuity in the way associations were managed. Kikulis

(2000) attributed change and continuity in CNSOs to the retention of volunteers in key

leadership positions. In spite of changed organizational mechanisms, policies, and some

personnel, the philosophy of volunteerism remained. Moreover, because the associations

comprised both paid and volunteer members, there were differences in management

philosophies, unclear distribution of authority, and ongoing inefficiencies.

Both studies underscored institutional change, although there was disagreement on who

the agents were or what caused the change. Of importance to this study is the acknowledgement

by these scholars that institutional change takes place and that institutional theory is useful as an

analytical tool for exploring organizational reform. Slack and Hinings (1994) attributed

institutional changes to the influence of government and professional staff with their networks,

whereas Kikulis (2000) suggested that governance and decision-making processes within

organizations precipitated change. However, in both studies the authors placed minimal

emphasis on the roles of individuals within the organizations as influencers of change.

51

Past research of institutionalization has rarely attended to issues of individuals’ agency to

account for changing normative actions (Battilana, 2006). However, more recent work has

highlighted the agency of actors in shaping and influencing institutional settings (Lawrence,

Suddaby, & Leca, 2009). Individuals make interpretations of institutions and are active

participants in the establishment and maintenance of taken-for-granted behavior (Greenwood &

Suddaby, 2006). Furthermore, according to Battilana (2006), individuals are regarded as

institutional entrepreneurs when they engage in divergent activities within organizations that do

not result in institutionalizing practices. Although institutions tend to have long histories, as they

often have been established in prior generations, they were conceived by individuals, they are

sustained by individuals demonstrating agency (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002), and the

argument can be made that they are both conceived of and changed by the instrumentation of

power.

Summary

In summary, research has shown that there is gender inequity in the coaching profession

at all levels and categories of sports, including track and field (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012;

Bracken, 2009; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003). Previous research points to

institutionalized practices and processes related to gender prescriptions as contributors to the

ongoing oppression of women in leadership positions (Cunningham & Sagas, 2003; Knoppers,

Meyer, Ewing, & Forest, 1991; Stangl & Kane, 1991). Despite these institutionalized gender

barriers, some women have broken through and are coaching in sports, as well as track and field,

changing the homogenized environment and providing hope for other women. Change in any

environment happens slowly at first and gains momentum with time. However, that is the

purpose of this research, ascertaining whether women at this time can expand nominal inroads

that they have achieved thus far.

52

I will examine the perspectives of women coaches in elite levels of track and field, using

concepts from organizational institutionalism. I propose to bring together concepts of

institutional theory—isomorphism, organizational fields, and institutional entrepreneurship

(DiMaggio 1988; Lawrence, & Suddaby, 2006)—along with methods used to examine gender

inequity in sports (Cunningham, & Sagas, 2003; Knoppers, Meyer, Ewing, & Forest, 1991;

Stangl & Kane, 1991). In sum, using these institutional theory constructs, I hope to understand

how female coaches from their perception are able to disrupt established gender norms in high-

performance track and field. Sport management scholars have underscored the existence of

similar strategies and policies across sports organizations as they conduct business (O’Brien &

Slack, 2003; Paramio-Salcines & Kitchin, 2013; Washington & Patterson, 2011). Other scholars

have also contended that sports organizations perpetuate institutionalized gender practices

(Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992; Stangl & Kane, 1991). I believe that an examination of

structures, processes, and practices within the coaching profession, from the view of women in

leadership positions, will add to our understanding of how female coaches can rise above gender

bias in this athletics context.

53

54

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

As noted previously, the purpose of this study is to understand the perspectives of female

high-performance track and field coaches—with a particular emphasis on how they encounter

and navigate challenges and opportunities presented by institutionalized gender politics. Using a

qualitative approach, the aim is to provide an inductive analysis of the multiple factors and

interrelationships that female coaches encounter and constitute as they seek to manage

institutionalized policies and practices. Therefore in this chapter, I provide insight on qualitative

research, and justifications for its use as related to this study. I also discuss the following topics:

the influence of my personal experiences on the research politics, design, and implementation,

the research method, participant selection, interview strategy, methods of analysis, and ethical

considerations.

Qualitative Research

The decision to use a qualitative approach was guided by the purpose of this research

along with my philosophical moorings. I inductively explored the perspectives of female coaches

to understand how they handle challenges and opportunities they encounter in their

environments. Each coach brought to the process realities that are socially and experientially

constructed and are therefore subjective and variable. This qualitative approach reveals patterns

and themes that emerge from empirical material and research process, and allows the use of

methods that have the capacity to explore social phenomena in context and detail. These notions

juxtapose with quantitative research, which is generally deductive, and seeks to build empirical

evidence that verifies and confirms conclusions (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Furthermore, in

the social sciences these quantitative methods tend to include surveys and statistical measures

55

conducted on large populations and provide a broad picture of phenomena that is generalizable.

Given the purpose of this research, the relatively few number of participants, and the detail

needed to identify emergent themes, a qualitative approach was more appropriate than

quantitative methods.

Philosophically, I view this process of inquiry as a transactional construction of

knowledge between the participants and myself as coach-researcher (more on this in a bit) as we

discuss their ideas and beliefs about the structures and processes of the coaching profession, and

the roles they play in it. Therefore, I applied a constructivist approach, and because discussions

were contextual to the participants, their experience, and their reality within their environments,

my goal was not achieving generalizable ‘data’ from their experiences, but instead unique

interpretations and deep understanding of each participant’s situation. Moreover, as a female

coach, I am also uniquely positioned with experience and expertise in high-performance track

and field that enabled me to engage dialogically with each coach to construct rich empirical

material (Denzin, 1989).

Furthermore, I utilized qualitative research because it emphasizes lived experiences, the

meanings individuals place on processes and structures in their lives, and how they connect these

meanings to their social world. I believe that constructivism, which has the potential for

developing thick descriptions and revealing complexities of life, provides the greatest utility as

multiple meanings and realities of female coaches are explored (Brinkman, 2014; Lincoln &

Guba, 2000; Tanggaard, 2009).

The Person(al) in this Research

According to Denzin and Lincoln (2011), the axiological imperative of qualitative

research is for the researcher to report values and biases, along with making clear their presence

in the process. I interject at this juncture my background so that my position and perspective in

56

this research are clear to the reader. I am a black female, from the small Caribbean Island

Anguilla. Sports are an integral aspect of my lifestyle and have contributed to my personal and

professional development. I actively engaged in several sports throughout my youth, teen years,

and adult life. I played both volleyball and tennis at the national level for a few years, and I

continue to play tennis and other racket sports recreationally.

In 1999, I received certification from the International Amateur Athletic Federation

(IAAF) as a Level I track and field coach and began working with the Anguilla Amateur Athletic

Federation (AAAF) as a volunteer. Subsequently, I earned certification as Level IV coach in

sprints and hurdles and Level V in horizontal jumps. Since obtaining coaching certification, I

have coached athletes and teams at several levels and have been the head coach of Anguilla’s

National Team at many competitions globally, including the IAAF World Championship Games.

Although sports have always been my passion, my involvement was largely recreational.

However, in 2005, after having devoted 20 years of my professional life to the field of

agriculture, I decided to pursue an online sport management program with the United Sports

Academy. Two years into the program, I applied for the post of Deputy Director of Sports with

the Ministry of Sports in Anguilla and transferred to that department. In 2008, I completed my

graduate studies and earned an MS degree in Sport Management. One year later I was promoted

to the post of Director of Sports with responsibility for the strategic development of sports and

sports persons in Anguilla. In the fall of 2013, I took a leave of absence from my position of

Director of Sports—with the option to return—to pursue doctoral studies in Sport Management

at Florida State University.

Although I held the position of Director of Sports in Anguilla, I spent all of my free time

coaching track and field and assisting with administrative responsibilities of AAAF. Often and

unavoidably, my roles overlapped and created perceptions of conflict. The main perceived

57

conflict stemmed from my responsibility for the development of all sports and sports persons in

Anguilla, while all of my discretionary time was spent on one sport (track and field).

The perception of conflict was not unique to me as a sports administrator involved in

sports recreationally. Anguilla is a small island with a small population and limited human

resources, so of necessity individuals were involved in different sports simultaneously. For a

long time, I was the only qualified female track and field coach on the island. My involvement in

track and field began when the association needed a female chaperone to travel to regional youth

competitions with combined male and female teams. I became aware of an issue,8 when my

daughter was selected for a track team travelling to a regional competition. The exposure as a

chaperone prompted me to obtain coaches training and certification. Since that initial

involvement, I established connections in the field and have had opportunities not readily

available to other female coaches. I have coached male and female track and field athletes who

have gone on to compete at different levels of the sport, including NCAA, World Championships

and Olympic Games—including my two daughters, who both competed at NCAA Division I

schools and later represented both Anguilla and the United Kingdom at World Championship

Events.

Later, in the position as sports administrator, I was able to facilitate and implement the

development of programs for training coaches across several sports. In the interim, I coached and

travelled with youth, junior, and senior athletes and teams to regional and international

competitions. Often, I doubled as head coach and team leader from insufficient human and

financial resources.

8 The issue was the practice of youth and junior male and female teams travelling with all male officials. This practice was later addressed with the introduction of a national sports policy that mandated all sports associations sending youth teams of male and female athletes overseas include female chaperones and/or coaches.

58

As team leader, I represented AAAF at congresses and other meetings with

administrative and governance imperatives. As head coach, I also attended technical meetings

and other gatherings related to coaching at the particular competition. Over the years, I

networked with administrators and coaches from all over the world, and was involved in and

witnessed the decision-making processes in the IAAF. On the field as a coach, I have observed

and been an active participant at every level worldwide (including the NCAA, being a volunteer

coach with the FSU track team since 2014)9.

It is inevitable that my past and current experiences impact this research. I have access to

coaches with whom I have interacted on different levels over the years socially, in coaches

meetings and in coaches’ boxes (often the only female present). However, in this research, even

as I acknowledge my presence, I hope the voices of the participants rise above mine as we

construct knowledge together about women navigating challenges and opportunities in high-

performance track and field.

Research Method

As noted, I conducted a qualitative study as developed in and through a constructivist

paradigm. Constructivism is based on the premise that reality is specific to each individual,

though similarities may exist among individuals and groups (Guba & Lincoln, 1994).

Additionally, it allows for the interjection of the researcher’s personal, cultural, and historical

experiences to shape and interpret the meanings participants ascribe to their realities (Creswell,

2013). Therefore, I collaborated with female coaches as we injected our own understanding of

9 I am still unsure about my overall plans after completing PhD studies. While I would like to continue to coach track and field my uncertainty about future plans stems from not yet knowing what career choice offers the best opportunity for me to be able to contribute knowledge, experience, and any capital I have garnered in sports to promoting greater involvement of women in leadership positions.

59

truths in making sense of opportunities and challenges in the coaching environment.

Ontologically, I presumed that each participant views her experiences according to how each

makes sense of the world, and from an epistemological standpoint, each participant and I shared

our subjectivities about women in coaching. In doing so, we created knowledge that was

constituted and reconstituted throughout our interactions (Kvale, 1996).

My goal during the process was to acknowledge that creation of information is subjective

and reciprocal, as both the participants and I injected our realities in the exchanges (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994). Each participant brought with her subjective meanings of her experiences, and I

too carried with my realities and subjectivities as the process unfolded. By utilizing the

constructivist paradigm, I strove to acknowledge the understanding that each individual brings to

the process multiple realities with ascribed subjective meanings (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Each

participant has formed opinions or come to understand her situation from interaction with others

and through operating within historical and cultural norms in their environment—as I do too. In

the end, even as I acknowledge that my multiple subjectivities (as woman, as coach, as

researcher, etc.) may affect every aspect of the process (decision to conduct the research,

composing research questions and selecting participants), I seek to represent the views of the

participants fairly and rigorously.

Participant Selection

To conduct this study, I used purposive homogenous sampling to identify and select

interview participants. Purposive homogenous sampling refers to the selection of participants of

similar or specific characteristics for a particular purpose (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). In this study, I

selected participants—female coaches in high-performance track and field—who are the focus of

the investigation (Merriam, 1998).

60

I utilized snowball sampling and recruited nine coaches from different countries. I

recruited a sample of female coaches working in different environments—geographically and

organizationally. Given the low number of female coaches working in high-performance track

and field, the pool was limited. Further, I interacted with participants of diverse perspectives and

backgrounds to arrive at “information-rich” exchanges (Patton, 1990, p. 169), which I coded for

further analysis. Therefore, it was practical to limit the number of participants in order to

thoroughly and methodically manage the empirical material obtained. I recruited coaches in

person, by telephone conversations, or through email communications. Each participant agreed

to engage in one or two conversations that lasted 45 to 60 minutes each.

Interview Strategy

I used a semi-structured interview guide that provided prompts for the interactions with

participants. This type of interview is popularly used in qualitative research (Guba & Lincoln,

1994). It typically lasts about an hour to two hours and is conducted face to face, over telephone,

on Skype or other forms of media. I prepared topical areas for discussions, allowing flexibility to

explore, develop, and change topics. I focused on four themes based on my research questions.

These allowed for exploration of ideas and experiences as we collaboratively constructed

knowledge.

Although my interactions with participating female coaches were guided by a semi-

structured approach, the aim was to maintain sufficient flexibility to explore nuances of

institutionalization, gender, and role. The four core themes are: 1) why track and field

organizations commonly adopt gender mechanisms in different countries and in various

programs, 2) how the gender concept diffuses across various track and field organizations, 3)

how the process of gender institutionalization influences female coaches’ professional

development, and 4) how female coaches respond to the process of gender.

61

I engaged with participants in one-on-one conversations and utilized face-to-face,

telephone, and digital video modes (Skype and Facetime) of interaction. I chose these

communication methods because participants for this research are located in different

geographical zones. Therefore, it was not practical or economically feasible to conduct all

personal interviews face to face. The different communication modes—Facetime, Skype, and

Smartphone—afforded effective communication with participants. The flexibility and cost

effectiveness provided opportunity to engage with each participant separately and qualitatively.

The rationale for conducting individual in-depth interviews allowed participants to share

thoughts, emotions, ideas and experiences more freely than they would have in a group (Owens,

2006). Additionally, one-on-one interactions are more accommodating to the intuitive and

affective nature of semi-structured interviews, as issues specific to individual participants can be

developed more easily. Face-to-face, Skype, and Facetime interviews also afforded opportunities

to observe and record (see ethical considerations below) nonverbal communication (gestures,

expressions, dress and body language), which when combined with verbal communications add

other layers of meaning (Carr & Worth, 2001). All three forms of communication have benefits,

and as I used them together, I was able to enhance opportunities for constructing knowledge with

the coaches.

More specifically, in the interviews, the participants and I focused on topics related to

their experiences as high-performance track and field coaches. This form of interviewing is

regarded as the primary method in qualitative research, and the most direct interaction between

researcher and participant (Kvale, 2006). Additionally, it is an important methodological form of

engagement that is used when seeking a penetrating understanding of a particular phenomenon.

According to Tanggaard (2009), a qualitative interview is a dynamic interaction in which words

and discourse represent cultural and social contexts both within and beyond the interview setting.

62

Kvale and Brinkman (2008) suggested that it is the expressed perspectives of participants—in

the form of opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings—that are not readily observed.

Each participant, beyond their coaching experiences, is influenced by social, political,

and cultural background and their place in it. Qualitative interviewing has the scope for dialogic

engagement between the researcher and participant to rationalize influences (Brinkman, 2007;

Tanggaard, 2009). Furthermore, such an interview mitigates some of the constraints of time and

space—having the capacity to capture information that would have occurred in the past and in

another geographical location (Patton, 2006). The qualitative interview is, according to Denzin,

2000), an exchange between the researcher and participant in which meanings of the social world

are shared.

However, researchers encounter challenges using this approach as they acquire and/or

reflexively generate knowledge—make known values, politics, and biases (Denzin & Lincoln,

2005). For instance, according to several researchers located in the qualitative genre—(Creswell,

1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Kvale, 2006; Richardson, 2004,)—interviewing involves the

acknowledgement and investment of an emotional, physical, and mental self in the interview and

throughout the entire process of research. This complicates the process because the researcher

then becomes a part of creating the knowledge, giving rise to the notion that much of qualitative

research is messy (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Richardson, 2004)—reflecting the social world in

which we exist. Reflexivity allows me to clarify my values, politics, and biases, hopefully

identifying internal influences on my perceptions and conclusions.

Another problem of semi-structured interviews is the creation of boundaries between

researcher and participant. Boundaries are sometimes created from cultural differences such as

gender, race, and socioeconomic status of persons. For instance, each individual (both individual

participant and individual researcher) is socially located within particular groups, where the

63

location is often attached with assumptions of superiority or inferiority. Furthermore, both

researcher and participant bring the sensibilities of their group statuses to the interview. In both

circumstances, barriers are erected and may lead to a reticence to engage freely in discussions,

thus affecting the information constructed and produced. Nonetheless, semi-structured interviews

provide opportunities for individuals to express personal narratives, hopefully freely, and at the

same time co-create social meanings (Tanggaard, 2009).

Therefore, it was incumbent upon me to acknowledge subjectivities and minimize

barriers in generating knowledge with participants. Although semi-structured interviews can be

messy, they are embedded in historical and cultural contexts (Tanggaard, 2009). Semi-structured

interviews offer constructed information, though subjective, that shows cultural and historical

interactions in pertinent environments.

Analysis

I collected empirical material using semi-structured interviews and approaches discussed

in the previous section. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and secured on a

private, password-protected drive to be used for analysis (Creswell, 2002). After this I employed

an approach of coding, categorizing, and re-organizing, adapted from Saldana (2009), in order to

understand meanings and identify emergent themes.

In this research, I interviewed women who have coached and are now coaching in high-

performance track and field. I purposively selected women from countries in different regions,

for example, Canada, England, New Zealand, United States, and Caribbean Islands. Although

these coaches have identifiable similarities—they are women, they are a minority, and they

coach in high-performance track and field—and they operate in organizations that have different

political, cultural, and economic influences that impact their experiences.

64

Transcribing the interviews facilitated familiarization with the contents. Familiarity with

the material was further enhanced as I read and re-read the material and applied a first cycle

coding method (Saldana 2009). During this process, I used structural coding, which according to

Saldana is the application of a conceptual phrase representing a topic of inquiry or line of

questioning to a segment of empirical material for further analysis. This method is advantageous

as it allowed for simultaneous coding and categorizing while it also allowed for quicker access to

relevant empirical material for particular analyses from the transcribed interviews (Namey,

Guest, Thairu, & Johnson, 2008). As I analyzed the material, I coded and categorized the

segments according to the four questions of this research and then used these broad topics as the

basis for in-depth analysis within and across the four segments (Kathleen & McLellan-Lemal,

2008). This analysis helped to build a descriptive framework of similarities and relationships that

emerged from the empirical material (Saldana, 2009). Further, this process helped to identify

links and relationships to inform understanding that guided other interview questions. This

iterative process was helpful in ascertaining when few or no new themes emerged. These

categories represented clusters of similar patterns of practices, behaviors, and rules that were

based on similarities and relationships I identified. The patterns and themes achieved clarity that

helped me understand the perceptions of the female coaches regarding their experiences in high-

performance track and field.

Quality and Reliability

How to evaluate qualitative research is an ongoing debate within the research

community. Established criteria are fundamentally structured around quantitative methods. In

fact, the federal government introduced the Reading Excellence Act of 1999, from which the

scientifically based research (SBR) emerged (Denzin, 2011). SBR focuses on objectivity,

accuracy, and measurement where quality is evaluated on criteria such as reliability, validity, and

65

generalizability. Validity is regarded as the best approximation of the truth of a given inference,

proposal, or conclusion. Reliability is the ability to obtain the same result repeatedly provided the

phenomenon stays the same. And generalizability is the ability of the obtained results to apply to

other populations or settings (Trochim & Donnelly, 2001).

However, according to Guba and Lincoln (2005), the use of those traditional criteria—

generalizability, objectivity, and reliability—to assess the quality or the goodness of qualitative

research is illegitimate. Therefore, I borrow from Sarah Tracy’s (2010) contention that high

quality research should be (1) a worthy topic, (2) rigorous, (3) sincere, (4) credible, (5) resonant,

(6) significantly contributive, (7) ethical, and (8) meaningfully coherent. From a pedagogical

standpoint, Tracy suggested that these eight criteria provide a meaningful platform on which

qualitative researchers can assess the goodness of their research.

Using these criteria as the basis of evaluation, I begin with the focus of this research,

which is relevant given the issue of inequity towards women in leadership positions persists in

sports. Although scholars have examined this social phenomenon using a variety of theoretical

premises, my proposal to combine institutional theory with gender concepts and use qualitative

methods to explore this phenomenon suggest a richness in vigor. As I conduct this research, I

acknowledge my subjectivities, and I remain transparent about my methods and the possible

challenges that may arise. However, by using institutional theory, gender concepts and

qualitative methods to examine the challenges and opportunities of female coaches, the hope is

that this study resonates with readers, contributes to the body of research on inequity in sports,

and provides practical benefits for women in sports.

Ethical Considerations

Since I will use a constructivist approach, which privileges natural settings, context,

subjective accounts of experiences, and descriptions of private details about participants’ lives, I

66

will adhere to the guidelines of Florida State University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), and

participants’ interests will be regarded with respect and dignity (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) (see

Appendix B). Stated guidelines of the IRB involve issues such as consent, confidentiality,

privacy, anonymity, and ensuring the interests of the participants are given due regard (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2005). Thus, each participant received a consent form by way of email communication,

which they were asked to sign and return (see Appendix C). This form communicated the

purpose of the research and its procedures and its personal participant protections.

Other aspects of the consent form include possible risks or benefits, clauses that speak to

confidentiality and right of refusal to participate and withdraw from the research. Participants

were assured confidentiality would be honored and protected. This privacy and confidentiality

prevailed throughout the research and publication process, unless they requested otherwise.

There were no known risks or benefits to their participation in this project, and they were able to

withdraw consent and discontinue participation at any time without consequence.

Other ethical and moral considerations for this research are primarily grounded in the

principles of transformation and social change (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005; Denzin & Lincoln,

2011; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). In conducting this research, I am guided by a desire to

see greater equity for women so that both male and female coaches receive similar if not equal

opportunities to advance their careers. My goal is therefore to conduct research that conforms to

IRB guidelines and is authentic, credible, and trustworthy. I also hope that this research provides

meanings and understandings valuable to the body of research, the coaching profession, female

coaches in general, and certainly to the participants (Richardson, 2000, Denzin & Lincoln, 2003,

Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

67

Summary

The purpose of this research is to conduct an exploratory examination of the experiences

of women in high-performance track and field. My analysis is guided by institutional theory and

gender concepts to understand the institutionalization of track and field regarding the impact of

women on the gendered nature of organizations (associations and teams), and its impact on

female coaches as they maneuver in the male-dominated environment. Qualitative investigation

is best suited for generating cogent knowledge from participants. Using semi-structured, open-

ended interviews, the goal was to dialogically engage with and challenge participants to invoke

the rationalization of thoughts and ideas about their experiences as coaches (Brinkmann &

Kvale, 2005). To that end I recruited female coaches in track and field from different countries

who have coached at World Championships or Olympic Games. The interviews were recorded,

transcribed, and coded for emergent themes, and therein, I looked for connections to

organizational theories, gender biases, and other relevant constructs to understand the ways

female coaches disrupt institutional gender practices in track and field.

68

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In this chapter, I present the empirical material collected from the interviews. I jointly use

it in Chapter 5, but in this chapter, I weave responses of the coaches together, and align their

perspectives with the research questions articulated in previous sections. As such, I begin with a

biography of each participant. This entails brief descriptions about participants’ backgrounds,

qualifications, and job experiences to facilitate the introduction and characterization of each

coach. Following this, I present the coaches perspectives from our conversations according to the

focal topics of the research questions. The four main topics are: (1) Institutionalized Gender

Politics within National Track and Field Organizations (2) Diffusion of Dominant Gender

Ideologies and Gendered Organizational Practices Across Various High-performance Track and

Field Organizations (3) The Impact of Gender Institutionalization in Track and Field, and (4)

Strategies to Navigate.

The participants had common experiences in both their athletic and coaching careers.

This facilitated the inclusion of combined perspectives of their experiences in each topical area

and subsequently the identification of themes discussed in Chapter 5. They voiced these opinions

in response to direct questioning from a prepared script. However, some of the participants’

views were expressed during lengthy exchanges that were enhanced by shared experiences in

coaching track and field. The semi-structured interview method along with a shared

understanding of the organizational environment of track and field allowed us opportunities to

explore these four focal topics with depth. The biographies and the participants’ perspectives

contextualized the empirical material, providing the basis for theme identification, which I

review and analyze in Chapter 5.

69

Biographies of Participants

The coaches interviewed for this research were nine women from different countries on

four continents. All nine participants were former athletes, qualified coaches, and coached

athletes at World Championship Games and/or the Olympic Games. They were all over 30 years

of age and their age range spanned a total of 43 years. One coach has no child, but each of the

other eight coaches has one or more children. I assigned pseudonyms to each participant to

protect identities. The community of female coaches working in international track and field is

small and easily identifiable; therefore, upon the request of most participants, I protected each

contributor’s identity. Below I present what biographical information of participants I am able to

along with other key characteristics.

Participant # 1: Susan

Susan is a former athlete and former coach. As an athlete her highest level of competition

was the World University Games. However, as a track and field coach, she attained the highest

level of coaching certification in her country, was the head coach of college male and female

teams, and received several opportunities to coach internationally. These opportunities included

an assistant coaching position on an IAAF World Championship team and the head coaching

position on an Olympic team.

After thirty-five years as a coach, Susan now holds a position in her track and field

organization where she is responsible for overseeing and developing all coaching schools. In this

capacity, key responsibilities include the oversight of elite coaching programs, reviewing

behavior and conduct of coaches, and supervising the coaches’ registry.

Participant # 2: Alicia

A former athlete, Alicia is currently coaching and has represented her country at several

international competitions including the Olympic Games. Alicia won multiple medals including

70

an Olympic silver medal as an athlete. She is now a sport administrator and is responsible for

three sports, one of which is track and field. Prior to assuming this position, she coached for

thirty years attaining the highest level of coaching certification in her country and coaching at the

collegiate level for six years. She then transitioned into sport administration and while holding

the position as sport administrator, Alicia worked part time in the national track and field

program as an elite coach. During her tenure with the national program, she was a member of

multiple Olympic Games and World Championship teams’ coaching squads.

Participant # 3: Jackie

Jackie also coaches as a result of having her competitive career cut short. She sustained

an injury in her fourth year of college, ending her athletic career and prompting her involvement

in coaching. She pursued a dual career of coaching and teaching because of the uncertainty of

available coaching jobs. Jackie has been coaching for twenty-five years and continues her

teaching career in the school of kinesiology at a tertiary institution. She has coached at Olympic

Games and World Championships both as a personal coach to athletes and as a member of the

national team coaches.

Participant # 4: Sharon

Sharon is also a former athlete and is now the head coach of a male and female track

program at an NCAA Division I College. She has been coaching for over twenty-five years. Her

athletic career was cut short as a student athlete after a series of knee injuries and surgeries. She

remained in the sport as a volunteer coach at a high school. Later, as she completed her studies,

she was awarded a graduate assistantship with a track and field program and was able to continue

her coaching career. Over the years, she has coached Olympic and World Championship

medalists as a personal coach, and as a member of the coaching staff.

71

Participant # 5: Kelly

Kelly is a coach and a former athlete. After her athletic career ended, Kelly remained in

the sport as a part-time coach of a community club team. In 2001, she transitioned into full time

coaching at a University as an assistant and later became the head coach. In seven years she took

her college team from last place in their conference to one of the best in the nation. She has the

highest-level certification as a coach in her country and the highest IAAF level coaching

certification. Kelly was then hired by her country’s national track and field program and was

selected to coach at Commonwealth Games, World Championships, and Olympic Games.

Currently, Kelly remains on the staff of the national athletic program but in an

administrative position responsible for the development of the sport in her country. A key

component of her current position is mentoring athletes and coaches. In addition to her

responsibilities with the national track and field program, Kelly is also the head coach of a grass

roots program in her community.

Participant # 6: Cheryl

Cheryl is a former athlete and coaches as a volunteer. While Cheryl has a full-time

position that is unrelated to sport, she coaches part-time and confesses that it is her first love. As

an athlete, Cheryl competed in two Olympic Games, before transitioning into volunteer

coaching. Despite not being a full-time coach, Cheryl coaches junior and senior level athletes,

and continues to work with elite athletes that compete at Olympic Games and World

Championships. Cheryl has in the past been a member of her national team at Olympic Games as

team manager. In addition, Cheryl is a member of a national coaching organization that gives her

the opportunity to receive mentoring while offering guidance and nurturance to other coaches

junior to her.

72

Participant # 7: Dian

Dian has been a track and field coach for twenty-nine years at the collegiate level. She

was a former athlete and transitioned directly into coaching. Dian competed in college and

represented her country in international competitions. Late in her athletic career, she began

coaching and received the opportunity to train and simultaneously receive mentorship in the

coaching profession. Dian subsequently became an assistant coach, and later became the head

coach of a male and female college program. During her 29-year tenure as a coach, Dian has

been on national teams at IAAF World Championships and Olympic Games.

Participant # 8: Catherine

Catherine is a former elite athlete and is currently employed as the technical director of

track and field in her country. In that capacity, Catherine functions as an administrator in her

country’s sport program and a coach of national teams at junior and senior levels. She is an

accomplished world-class athlete, having competed at several World Championship and

Olympic Games. As a coach, Catherine has combined the experience from her athletic endeavors

with IAAF level III certification to coach junior and world-class athletes.

Participant # 9: Althea

Althea is a national team coach and also a former elite athlete, world-class, but did not

compete in track and field even though she has coached and continues to coach the sport after

retiring. She is a certified IAAF Level III coach and has been coaching for twenty-four years.

During that twenty-four tenure, she has coached athletes on national teams at the junior and

senior level. She currently holds the position of high-performance training center coordinator. In

this position she focuses more on the development of junior athletes and plays a more supportive

role to senior national athletes.

73

Institutionalized Gender Politics Within National Track and Field Organizations

All the female coaches interviewed gave their impressions about gender issues in their

organization. They expressed their views about the way gender politics are manifested in their

organizations, and the interrelations of the various entities in track and field they believe impact

their opportunities to coach in high-performance competition. They discussed the influence of

athletes and their performance on their careers, the financial and training influence of

organizations like Nike, Adidas, and Puma; the influence of their local organization and boards

in selecting national coaches; and how they perceived the way gender politics are manifested in

the entire IAAF organization. Essentially, they described the ways they are impacted and how

they in turn respond.

All nine of the women acknowledged that coaching in track and field—in particular at the

high-performance level—is male dominated. In fact, there was an overall consensus that the

entire hierarchy responsible for decision-making related to controlling resources within track and

field is male dominated. Coach Kelly mentioned the executive board of the IAAF, which is

comprised of a majority of men; all the coaches discussed the composition of their national

associations, which they said have a significant male presence. Additionally, the majority of the

participants speculated about the shoe companies that demonstrate a preference for men to coach

their sponsored athletes, and the top ranked athletes who hire their own personal coaches and

who are typically male. Track and field like other sports is male dominated and the coaching

profession reflects that dynamic. Coach Sharon believes that like other sports men control the

profession in track and field, she asserted:

We know that coaching is a male dominated environment. Some of them don’t have any

certifications, but they believe they can do a better job. They don’t have to prove that

74

they can coach, like we do; most times it is presumed that they can. I think it is a male

and female thing” (Sharon, personal communication, May 3, 2017).

Coach Jackie in agreement said:

It is tough for women to gain access to coaching positions in high-performance track and

field, primarily because it is a closed community that is controlled by men who have

known and worked with each other for years. Coaching in track and field is like the rest

of sport; it has been man’s domain for so long. (Jackie, personal communication, March

7, 2017)

The participants expressed their belief that the culture in track and field from the athletes,

right on up to the governing organization of the sport, supports societal attitudes about gender.

The role of coach is seen as a male position of power, so it is not surprising that the normal optic

for everyone, men and women, is for men to occupy the role. Coach Kelly observed, that even,

as female coaches gain access, to the profession, athletes—both male and female—gravitate to

male coaches. She stated:

From my own experience I feel that, if there’s a male coach and a female coach standing

side by side offering advice, both girls and guys lean more toward the male coach for

advice. It doesn’t matter that the female coach is more qualified; from early on we’ve all

been indoctrinated into assuming, the man is the coach and likely most capable. (Kelly,

personal communication, March 10, 2017).

Coach Catherine also claimed:

In track and field right now, the majority of the top athletes are coached by men; of

course there one or two exceptions that you can probably count on one hand. The

troubling issue with that too is that the shoe companies sponsoring the top athletes

75

typically hire male coaches. And, who are the directors of these companies? Men.

(Catherine, personal communication, August 13, 2017).

Some coaches suggested that even with their selection to World Championship teams and

Olympic teams, they found themselves in assigned roles that differentiated them from their male

counterparts. Their belief is that female coaches on the team receive assignments that have less

to do with actual coaching and more to do with administration. Usually these assignments are

considered unglamorous and behind the scenes, while the assignments male coaches receive are

more in the spotlight. Coach Sharon recalled, “ Many times I see female coaches accompanying

athletes—male and female—to drug testing, which often involves sitting and waiting for hours,

while the male coaches on their teams are in the forefront meeting the press” (personal

communication, May 3, 2017).

In agreement, Coach Alicia declared:

I run into female coaches on teams from other countries at World Championships and

Olympic Games. I would typically see them at various administrative meetings and some

social events. I see them also at the warm-up track with athletes, but it is not often I see

those same women in the coaches’ boxes during competitions. (Althea, personal

communication, August 14, 2017).

However, Coach Althea felt that although men dominate the sport in general in her

country, the sport organization responsible for track and field is making advances and more

women are occupying leadership roles including head coaching positions that are typically below

the high-performance level.

Within my country in our track and field organizations, we’ve come a long way in terms

of family, gender roles and other things like that. Those other countries are still working

through that. Women are just expected to stay at home and have babies so its only the

76

really strong female who would say no, I’m not going to just sit at home and look at

babies. (Althea, personal communication, August 14, 2017).

The women with their recollections and views about track and field and male dominance

of coaching support the theoretical premise put forth by several scholars that gender politics are

institutionalized in sports (Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2003; Robertson 2006; Cunningham,

2008; Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Walker & Sartore-Baldwin 2013). The mechanisms used by

organizations to hire high-performance coaches in track and field are notably different—given

the influence of non-sport organizations such as the shoe companies and the athletes

themselves—but the coaches expressed misgivings about the underrepresentation of women,

nonetheless. In unison all the coaches observed that men dominate the various facets of track and

field and most significantly, they control the decision-making processes about key issues like the

distribution of resources and certainly hiring and compensation matters. As with other sports, the

participants observed gender differentiation taking place that is also resulting in the

marginalization of women in track and field.

The coaches contend that in society and by extension track and field, women have

defined roles that do not align with the definition of a coach. For example, many reported that

responsibilities included various administrative support activities, such as coordinating a

schedule change, often when there are support personnel who could and maybe should handle

the coordination, all a good distance away from being perceived as a coach; often they felt like

support personnel themselves. They speculated that there is progress, as the number of women

on national teams and coaching elite athletes continues to increase marginally in track and field.

However, they feel the rate of progress is slow and often the positions women hold on national

teams are typically not the head coach or other leadership positions. They claim that men with

77

fewer credentials—experience and certifications—receive lucrative contracts from stakeholders

and are elevated to head coaching positions on national teams. On the other hand female coaches

are overlooked for leadership positions and subjected to other discriminatory practices.

These views expressed by the participants are similar to Walker and Sartore-Baldwin’s

(2013) findings of durable gender bias expressed by male coaches in sports, and Robertson’s

(2006) research that highlighted the influence wielded by male athletic directors in maintaining

the dominance of men coaching collegiate basketball. In both instances, as the participants in this

research observe in track and field, the scholars contended that sport is infused with gender bias,

organizations have normalized processes and practices, and individuals behave according to

societal prescriptions of their gender roles, all of which contribute to the exclusion of women

from leadership positions.

Diffusion of Dominant Gender Ideologies and Gendered Organizational Practices Across

Various High-performance Track and Field Organizations

The coaches all acknowledged that their organizations are inculcated with gender politics.

Furthermore, they shared their beliefs about gender politics in track and field and how they

believe these politics are perpetuated. They discussed the hierarchy of track and field,

governance, legislation and other administrative mechanisms that influence operations and

attitude in the sport, practices of influential organizations that impact the career paths of coaches,

and the behaviors of influential individuals that can impact their performances as coaches.

The participants expressed different opinions about the impact of legislation and

administrative mechanisms on the way gender issues are handled and related dominant

ideologies are perpetuated. Participants from North America, for example, credited anti-

discrimination laws for more opportunities for women in the profession. Though they believe

their organizations are coerced into complying with legislation, and also with the changing

78

dynamics taking place in North American society they see increasing opportunities for women in

sport.

Accordingly, Coach Dian discussed her selection to the 2016 Olympic Team and the

composition of the coaching staff that had an equal number of male and female coaches. She

attributed Title IX for a woman being named the head coach of the women’s Olympic Team. She

noted:

Men still dominate coaching in track and field in this country by far, but because of

legislation, women are getting more opportunities. The entire 2016 USA Olympic

women’s team has a squad of female coaches, but we are not yet at the place where

women are coaching the male athletes, nor are they leading the male teams. (Dian,

personal communication, May 13, 2017).

In support of the view that gender differentiation is perpetuated in track and field in spite

of legislation and some incremental changes, Coach Sharon speculated,

In my country big shoe companies like Nike and Adidas hire track and field coaches.

Additionally, elite athletes sign contracts with these companies. Often, there is a

stipulation that the athlete must train with a coach that is hired by these shoe companies.

As far as I know, all these coaches are men. Furthermore, typically, the top athletes in

track and field sign contracts with these companies. So, basically the perception

perpetuated is that men are the best coaches. (Sharon, personal communication, May 3,

2017).

On the other hand, participants from other countries cited an absence of overarching

legislative policies and other administrative mechanisms like Title IX or the Sex Discrimination

Act to support women in their organizations. Nevertheless, there was consensus that the ever-

present ‘good ole boys’ club is a well-established network serving to perpetuate gender ideology

79

through policy and practice. Regrettably, the absence of a similar network for female coaches

contributes to the overall lack of support. They believe that gender discrimination is perpetuated

and maintained because of the strength and influence of networks that are dominated by men.

With few or limited legislative mandates in their countries to mitigate gender discrimination in

their sport, the participants believe that men controlling their organizations network with men in

other track and field organizations, establish relationships, exchange technical expertise, and

mimic one another’s practices.

Each coach suggested that existing policies related to hiring, compensation, and

hierarchical structures are sometimes not transparent; instead, they differentiate male from

female coaches, and perpetuate the existing hegemony. To the participants, the differentiation

represents barriers as they pursue their careers. In support of this view, Coach Kelly spoke about

the composition of the technical personnel at a training camp her National Association organized

for elite athletes who were preparing for world championship games.

There were several coaches, all male and not all of them were from my country—I was

the lone female coach. They bounced ideas off each other, socialized together, and made

coaching decisions that I was not privy to, even as a member of the coaching staff.

(Kelly, personal communication, March 10, 2017).

In relation to the hiring processes in organizations, the participants feel that job

descriptions are tailored for specific individuals who are usually men, and female coaches are

regularly overlooked in favor of male applicants; in terms of compensation, theirs is far less

substantial than male counterparts. Furthermore, none of the participants ever held the position

as the head coach of their national World Championship or Olympic Games combined teams.

Dian spoke about her experience when she was hired as head coach of her organization:

When I got hired, they decided they were going to have a women’s program. I had

80

administration fighting for me to get the position. A football old school guy brought in a

guy, brought in as the men’s head coach who was supposed to mentor me in my position

as the women’s coach. That didn’t work out well because I started coaching and things

started to fall in place for me. They made 40,000 and I got 18,000. I had two choices, I

can take it, work my butt off and do what I needed to do or…he got double my salary and

a car… and that was not all based on experience. (Sharon, personal communication, May

3, 2017).

Similarly, the coaches described situations where they felt they were not given leadership

positions on national teams because of organizational prescriptions for gender roles. Coach Kelly

said she was not selected to the head coaching position of her national team although:

I wrote the job description for the head coaching position of my national team…that was

a directive from the Board. I also performed the duties while the position remained

vacant, yet they refused to consider me for the position. I honestly believe that just

because the feeling is that men are leaders and the most capable coaches. I was not given

the opportunity because I am woman. How else can you rationalize that? (Kelly, personal

communication, March 10, 2017)

Several of the coaches discussed inequities such as unequal pay when compared with

male counterparts and hiring practices that did not appear open and transparent in organizations.

Coach Catherine recalled her experience when she petitioned administrators for a more fair

compensation.

I sat down with the government. I didn’t go crying and screaming. I composed myself

and listed simple facts of why I should be paid this amount and I should be equal and it’s

for them to consider. If they said no, I will take it a step further. There’s nothing you

could tell me why it shouldn’t be equal. So we have to make that change. Not with

81

emotions, but with raw data and facts. (Catherine, personal communication, August 13,

2017)

Subsequent to that meeting, Coach Catherine recalled receiving a salary increase. However, she

also contended that as a former elite-athlete with IAAF coaching certification, she was well

equipped to command a higher income sooner, especially given that there are male coaches in

her federation who are not as qualified as she is, serve in more senior roles in the federation, and

are likely receiving larger salaries. For these reasons, she contended that she should not have had

to negotiate for more equitable compensation.

Coach Sharon also recalled the difficulties she experienced as she tried to advance to

senior coaching positions,

I’ve been given several interviews for head coaching jobs. Sometimes I felt like I was just

being used as a statistic. Just for them to say they interviewed a female coach. That

happens a lot. They use us to meet requirements but they never intend to give us the job. I

waited longer. I waited 15 to 16 years as an assistant. That’s a long time, especially for a

person who wanted to be a head coach. (Sharon, personal communication, May 3, 2017).

Coach Alicia and Coach Susan speculated, “not all female coaches are supportive because

there are so few of us, we end up competing instead of being supportive” (Alicia, personal

communication, March 22, 2017).

The sad truth is, it has become a crab in the barrel syndrome” and intimated that there are

so few women being able to break through the glass ceiling that when we do break

through, there is a very subtle resentment towards women. (Susan personal

communication, July 17 2017).

The coaches claimed that behavior and language directed towards them as individuals and in

team settings highlight expressed differences between genders. Each coach recounted

82

experiences that occurred in various work settings, where other coaches and athletes and support

personnel addressed them differently than they would address male coaches in a similar

situation. In support of their observations regarding attitudes and behavior directed at them, the

participants contended that society has an established view of what a coach looks like and how a

coach behaves. According to Alicia:

society has the view that a coach is typically a man and should have characteristics that

reflect manly traits. Even the athletes have that view, male and female alike. It is a

constant struggle, first having to overcome that perception and then having to prove

yourself all the time. (Alicia, personal communication, March 22, 2017).

Most of the other participants also recounted details of situations where they were

ignored. Even in team gatherings, where to their minds, their position as coach would be

obvious, they were still regularly ignored. In these team settings, males and even other females

would ignore their presence and direct comments or queries to the males. Often the male

members of the team were their assistant coaches or even their athletes. In one specific case,

Dian described this,

It’s funny, because everyone walks up to the distance coach who’s a male and is about 20

years older than I am and my male assistant coaches before they walk up to me. They

never think that I am a coach. Its funny, I let them figure it out. It doesn’t occur to them

that a woman is the head coach. We constantly fight the battle of being overlooked or

talked over as women. (Dian, personal communication, May 13, 2017).

Furthermore, according to the participants, there are times when male colleagues speak to them

in a language that is demeaning and disrespectful. For instance, Susan recalled, “I remember one

of my male counterparts asked me, who did I have to sleep with to get this job and my response

was my husband if that counts” (Susan personal communication, July 17 2017).

83

Each coach cited encounters with colleagues that they believed the language expressed

was disrespectful of their abilities as coaches and differentiated them because they are women.

Sometimes there were overt expressions of disrespect, as Coach Alicia noted, and in other cases

expressions were less explicit but perceived as disrespectful, nonetheless. The participants

believed that there is a general perception perpetrated in society and in track and field that

women are not equipped to coach, and that men and the qualities they have are more suited to the

profession. A female occupying the position is at odds with the normalized view that men have

the qualities of a coach as defined and established, and women do not.

All the coaches speculated that there is a persistent mentality that prescribes coaching as

a man’s domain and is perpetuated because men continue to hold the positions of leadership.

They claimed that because men dominate the positions of power in track and field and affiliated

organizations, they are able to influence and implement policy, make decisions based on their

organizing principles, and essentially perpetuate established gender norms. Men are able to

preserve their dominance by “systematically reproducing themselves in their own image”

(Stangle & Kane 1991, p. 50).

In spite of different experiences related to governance policies and other administrative

mechanisms, they also outlined several similar formal and informal systems and rules among the

organizations that influence and discriminate against their careers and the ways they are able to

perform their jobs. In track and field, some countries have legislative mechanisms to promote

greater gender equality and others do not, but according to the coaches, track and field

organizations have nonetheless adopted similar practices that perpetuate gender ideologies. The

similarities and sameness the coaches identified are consistent with theoretical underpinnings of

the three mechanisms of institutional isomorphism—mimetic, coercive, and normative

pressures—outlined by DiMaggio and Powell (1983).

84

The coaches observed practices and behaviors in the profession that reflected the

intermingling of these three mechanisms and the sameness of the organizations in track and field.

For instance, the coaches’ belief that organizations like Nike and Adidas are able to perpetuate

male dominance with their policies reflects the effects of coercive pressures. According to

DiMaggio and Powell (1983), coercion occurs when organizations are forced to comply with

formal or informal rules imposed upon them by other organizations and to which they are

dependent for resources or business. In support of that concept the coaches claimed Nike and

Adidas imposed rules on athletes, which impacted administrative mechanisms in track and field

and essentially affected their advancement as coaches, explicitly and implicitly.

Mimetic pressures are also evident in the coaches’ views expressed regarding the hiring

practices of national coaches for Olympic and World Championship national teams. The female

coaches made assertions that national federations hire male coaches from other countries instead

of qualified female coaches from within their staffs. Despite language and other cultural barriers,

national federations recruit foreign male coaches who have worked in other federations, without

clear rationale other than they are men who have worked in other federations. Based on the

theoretical premise of mimetic pressures, organizations embrace existing models of operations

and technologies (March & Olsen, 1976), or build on those that are perceived to be working well

(Kimberly, Kimberly, & Miles, 1980), because they may have fewer resources and unclear

strategies.

In terms of the third isomorphic pressure, the participants identified practices and

behavior within their association, track and field, and society that snubbed and excluded them as

coaches because they did not fit the defined mold of a coach. They believe that the normalized

view of a coach is that of a man, and despite their experience and proven record in the

profession, they lacked the qualities that signify the meaning of a coach in society (DiMaggio &

85

Powell, 1993; O’Brien & Slack, 2004). According to the views of the participants, they believe

that IAAF is similar to other sport governing bodies—IOC and FIFA for example—in the ways

in which they uphold institutionalized male hegemony. The IAAF, affiliate organizations (Nike

and Adidas), and organizations that operate under the umbrella of IAAF have taken for granted

beliefs and rules that serve as models for organizing (Scott 1987). These organizations seem to

operate under similar guiding principles that highlight the differentiation of gender and

marginalize women. The coaches recognize similar practices and behavior in their organizations

that reflect the interplay of isomorphic pressures.

The Impact of Gender Institutionalization in Track and Field

The participants discussed the roles of men and women as perpetrated in society and

aligned their speculations with the premise that, like in other sports, gender is institutionalized in

track and field. They contended that organizations in the sport, along with other affiliated

stakeholder organizations, are inculcated with stereotypes and meanings that impact how they

are treated as coaches, and how they in turn respond. They described processes in their

organizations, the behaviors of men compared to the way they as female coaches behave in the

workplace and attributed differences to established binaries of men and women in society. They

expressed the belief that just as society has different expectations of men and women, those

expectations have become the norm, resulting in the way male coaches behave and they

themselves as female coaches think and behave, also.

For instance, the coaches believe that the gender norms society has imposed on them

contribute to inner conflict they experience and account for barriers they impose on themselves.

They also suggested that the less daunting path men experience as they advance their careers in

sport is an outcome dictated by institutionalized gender meanings and the organizational

mechanisms that facilitate inequity. Coaches described periods when they experienced mixed

86

emotions about neglecting duties at home, the desire to work harder than male colleagues, and

the pressure to demonstrate the capability for managing responsibilities outside of sport with

their duties as a coach. Coach Alicia argued:

It shouldn’t be this way, I know it. I know I am a good coach. I can outcoach most of the

men on my team. I can’t be a good coach; I have to be extraordinary to even get a nod,

and that means working twice as hard as the men on the team. (Alicia, personal

communication, March 22, 2017).

In general, the participants that had family commitments such as partners and/or children

claimed they experience emotional conflict related to their responsibilities as coaches and their

roles as wife/mother. They speculated that this conflict emerges because they have been

indoctrinated with behavior associated with women, which deviates from their desire to perform

well as coaches. In their desire to pay their dues, they work harder than men and work to excel at

all they do. Doing this causes conflict for them to meet other norms that guide motherhood and

taking care of a family. For example, Kelly stated, “I think my major barriers go back to society

itself and the expectations that we as women or society put on us for the roles and

responsibilities of raising a family” (personal communication, March 10, 2017). Coach Jackie

discussed her obligations at home and the conflict she felt when having to leave and travel with

athletes:

The feeling of being so responsible at home, the guilt associated from being away from

your family. I know my family can look after themselves but it is a lot easier when I am

home. In coaching, you have to be away a lot and guilt sets in when you are away and not

wanting to be away a lot. (Jackie, personal communication, March 7, 2017)

Previous research has identified and documented similar conflict experienced by women

in leadership positions in sport (Dixon & Bruening, 2007; Hart, Hasbrook, and Mathes 1986).

87

These scholars concluded that women left the profession prematurely and were deterred from

careers in coaching because parental roles conflicted with work-life demands.

Coach Dian too reiterated that coaching has a high demand for commitment and time,

necessitating the sacrifice of other responsibilities and relationships: She pointed out:

There are little sacrifices you have to make in order to be a female coach in track and

field. Coaching is not a 9 to 5 job and it certainly is not Monday to Friday. Travelling is

mandatory, especially in high-performance competition. So, if you want to have children,

you will miss out on some moments with family. (Dian, personal communication, May

13, 2017).

Coach Cheryl compared the obligations men and women have outside of coaching and suggested

that while men can freely spend time at the track, women on the other hand must be adept at

multitasking and managing their responsibilities, she admitted:

As a woman, we always have other obligations and sometimes they do become barriers;

men sort of have less and can hang out at the track or place of coaching for hours.

Because most women are so busy, they have to organize time and responsibilities more

methodically and strategically. (Cheryl, personal communication, August 12, 2017).

Likewise, Coach Sharon noted that the roles of women and men are different from notions of

equitable division of labor. Further, she contended:

You have to give up time because you can’t compete with them and say you have to go

out with your boyfriend. There has to be some sacrifice if you want to make it in the

field. Men do not have the same commitments at home as women do. No matter how

much they say all things are equal, they are not. (Sharon, personal communication, May

3, 2017).

Female coaches experience conflict that they believe male coaches are not similarly

88

encumbered by, and are not distracted from giving as many hours as they choose. They

suggested that men are not typically homemakers and furthermore a coach is defined in terms

that society has assigned to men. As such, many women believed that men have the luxury of

entitlement that affords them easier paths to coaching positions in track and field. Coach Alicia

contended that:

male coaches may have partners and children, but I feel it is easier for them to put in long

hours at the track, travel anytime, and stay on the road for long periods. I’m not saying

they don’t make sacrifices to do that, but I feel that they don’t experience the same guilt

we as female coaches experience. (Alicia, personal communication, March 22, 2017)

In support of the view that men are more privileged than women in sport, Coach Jackie

said, “the truth is, in my Federation, if a male coach and a female coach interview for a head

coaching position of the national team, in the current climate, the likelihood of the female coach

receiving that job is slim to none” (Jackie, personal communication, March 7, 2017). Coach

Kelly agreed, and speculated:

…men have a right of passage in the profession, as a consequence of the gender ideology

perpetuated, female coaches have to work harder than male counterparts to prove they

can coach and belong in the profession. We ourselves sometimes succumb to the belief

that coaching is not for women, because we live in a society that influences us with

images of coaches that usually look like men. So some of us are hesitant to pursue careers

and some of us work our butts off, but we have to change that. Young female athletes or

other young women should not feel that way; they should have the same opportunities as

young boys and men to coach. (Kelly, personal communication, March 10, 2017).

Several of the coaches expressed dismay at the way the existing gendered organizational

culture in track places men at the forefront in the IAAF and in their associations. Alicia asserted:

89

men make the decisions, they make the policies, and they set rules, but the problem is

they do that from their frame of reference without acknowledging or trying to understand

what we as women go through. (Alicia, personal communication, March 22, 2017).

Coach Catherine described an incident at this year’s IAAF Congress in London, highlighting the

prominent role men have in the organization and their portrayed acceptance of normalcy

regarding the obvious gender imbalance: “Would you believe that during a breakout session for

discussion on gender issues at the Congress, there was a panel of speakers or experts leading the

activity, five individuals, and they were all men?” (personal communication, August 13, 2017).

Similarly, Catherine recalled the coaching conference she attended during the same World

Championship Games in London. She said every day the facilitators for each session were male

coaches.

A lack of exposure for their exploits and the ongoing optics featuring men at the forefront

of the profession empower men while at the same time contribute to discouraging aspiring

female coaches and also stymieing career advancement. Allison suggested that:

female coaches young or otherwise want to see more women in positions of leadership;

we want our accomplishments recognized too, but when we see only men at the forefront

and only men receiving the accolades, that can be discouraging.

The participants believe that the absence of women in high-performance coaching is problematic

because it reinforces the ideology that coaching is a man’s job. Furthermore, the absence of

women signifies fewer opportunities for mentoring, networking, and role models for female

coaches and young women who aspire to coach at all levels of the sport. Jackie emphasized this

notion when she admitted:

Women don’t see where the opportunities lead because they only see men conducting the

seminars and in head coaching positions, so they themselves think they can’t do what

90

they see men doing. When job openings arise, they themselves think they can’t do the

job. I myself have fallen into that trap, not because I think I can’t do the job, but because

I feel I would be wasting my time to even apply for the position. (Jackie, personal

communication, March 7, 2017).

In addition to the self-inflicted barriers and the greater sense of entitlement men have, the

participants discussed the impact of administrative policies on their ability to function in their

jobs. There was a general feeling that policies in their organizations are longstanding and

administrators blindly operate and make decisions with a fait accompli because that is the way it

has been. There is little consideration given to alternatives that can facilitate a greater

heterogeneous coaching staff. Coach Kelly recollected the treatment she received in an

organization when she was hired to coach at a high-performance competition:

I had just been named to my first national team… I just had my daughter. I was planning

to breast-feed her while on the team. I booked my trip and everything was ready. Then

they told me I wasn’t allowed to be on the team with a baby and if I wanted to be on the

team with a baby, I would have to stay outside the village. And if I wanted to stay outside

the village with my baby, I would have to pay for my own accommodations. Nor could I

have my husband have accreditation to bring my child to me. (Kelly, personal

communication, March 10, 2017).

The participants’ views on the defined roles of men and women in their organizations and

how they are treated run consistent to the theoretical premise that gender norms are firmly

embedded in the coaching profession (Walker & Sartore-Baldwin 2013). In essence, we see

institutionalized normalcy of gender bias: men seeing men in leadership positions as normal, and

often women seeing that as normal, too, which runs through the coaching profession despite Title

IX and other efforts to achieve equality and diversity in coaching leadership positions. Of course,

91

when male coaches deliver all segments of a seminar, the normalcy is given greater weight and

legitimacy. Furthermore, their contentions regarding the taken-for-granted behavior of men at the

IAAF Congress is a reflection of legitimization and instrumentation of the power men wield in

track and field (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006).

As the coaches reflected on the defined roles of men and women in sports, they

highlighted that men hold the most prominent positions and appear comfortable with their

dominance. These observations by the participants underscore the concept delineated in Scott’s

(2013) normative pillar of institutional theory that says actors define norms and their positions

held in society. According to the female coaches in this research, men have for a long time been

the architects of the norms and values of coaching in track and field, and in doing so they

empower themselves while simultaneously restricting access and advancement for female

coaches.

The belief expressed by the coaches that long-standing policies excluding women persist

in the IAAF and NFs also align with the ideas that principles of institutionalized gender

meanings and processes are commonplace in sports. The foundational concept of institutional

theory by scholars like Berger and Luckmann (1966), Zucker (1983), Greenwood and Hinings

(1993), which purports that structures, practices and meanings in organizations become habitual,

thus perpetuating the existing order. To the coaches, gender differentiation is the existing order

in track and field, serving to maintain administrative policies and practices in the IAAF and NF

and also upholding the privileges awarded in most cases to men.

Strategies to Navigate

According to the observations of the participants, men dominate coaching in high-

performance track and field. They acknowledged that it is not only manifested in the number of

male coaches compared to female coaches, but also in the way the profession is viewed in

92

masculine terms, and the organizational policies and mechanisms that marginalize women also

remain acceptable and the norm. They believe this gendered order still persists in society, in the

corporate world and likewise in sport—but change is taking place. These maybe incremental

changes, indeed, but they are advancing opportunities forward for women in coaching leadership

positions. The participants voiced the belief that their advancement as coaches is reflective of

change and furthermore their actions are directly impactful to changing dynamics related to male

dominance in the field. Coach Alicia spoke about the presence of women in the field and their

responsibility for precipitating change.

Coaching is not yet seen as a profession for women by society; yes the profession is very

male dominated in every way, but we are trying to change that. We work really hard, we

are passionate, and we are getting there. It’s a slow process, but if we want things to

change, we have to be involved. I feel those of us who have reached this level have an

added responsibility to do something about it. (Alicia, personal communication, March

22, 2017).

As the coaches described their career pathways, they spoke about their motivation for

becoming coaches, the assistance they received, and the persons they feel contributed to their

advancement. However, there was a collective agreement that their personal attributes and the

strategies they themselves employ throughout the process also provide substantial momentum to

their professional progression. For example, they credit their athletic accomplishments and

personal traits like determination, persistence, and directness for their ability to overcome

established norms of gender discrimination. They were all former athletes and most of them

competed at the high-performance level of their sport. They believe competing at high levels of

their sport contributed to the development of their character and the advancement of their

careers. They attributed much of what they achieved in their coaching careers to their personal

93

characteristics and work ethic, which they possessed before the competitive period of their lives,

but became more pronounced through participation in sport. In other words leadership is a

developed skill unrelated to gender.

Nonetheless, the coaches also acknowledged that relationships they established with their

coaches during their athletic careers helped to usher them into the profession and contributed in

some cases to their advancement in the profession. When asked about the strategies they

employed to navigate the coaching environment, and how they view their roles in the

transformation of the existing gender politics, the coaches discussed several key issues; of note

are their athletic experience, behavioral traits, the benefits of mentorship programs and

networking, the empowering value of knowledge acquisition and the importance of hard work.

Athletic experience and reputation. In assessing their coaching success, all of the

women place a high premium on the contribution of skills and characteristics they developed

during the competitive period of their lives. All the coaches spoke about a confidence they

believed their upbringing instilled in them, but was enhanced while they were athletes and

competing in high-pressure situations.

Coach Cheryl contended:

I’m drawing on my own experience and I’m confident in knowing that the majority of the

times I do the right thing. At the end of the day, there’s nothing better than coming into

this [coaching] and having the experience of an athlete. That experience gives you the

confidence in what you know and in your instincts. (Cheryl, personal communication,

August 12, 2017).

Coach Dian agreed saying she had neither coaching experience nor certification; she just had her

athletic experience. Coach Alicia also added, “I don’t think all athletes make good coaches

94

obviously, but I think for me being an athlete helped me learn my trade; so therefore I carry that

over into coaching” (Alicia, personal communication, March 22, 2017).

The coaches that competed in high-performance track and field emphasized the positive

role in opening doors that the reputation they established during that time made possible. They

claimed that those same doors would ordinarily be closed to female coaches without an athletic

reputation. According to Coach Alicia, “I think female coaches that don’t have the accolades that

I have as an athlete have to work about twice as hard to be recognized. I was recognized as an

athlete and was able to carry that through as a coach” (Alicia, personal communication, March

22, 2017).

Coach Susan spoke about her experience when she received her first opportunity to

coach, the effect of the reputation she earned as an elite athlete on her career, and the assistance

she received from her former coach. She said:

Yes, I didn’t have a lot of coaching experience but he used my experience as an athlete. It

was a big gamble on his part and it worked out for both of us. You are more successful if

you can use your transferable sporting skills in the real world, so you know how to be

competitive, how to land a job, how to keep a job… and then use some of these successes

to negotiate salaries. (Susan personal communication, July 17 2017).

Each participant believes that their athletic careers gave them greater access to

opportunities in the field. Their reputation and the networks they established with other athletes

and coaches during their athletic career propelled them in the profession, and continue to provide

benefits to their advancement. Essentially, they were afforded greater agency and opportunities

to build on established relationships and create new ones in a field where networking is an

indispensible component for access and advancement.

95

Mentorship and networking. All but one of the participants received her first

opportunity in the profession with assistance from her former coach. One coach competed at the

high-performance level of another sport but received her opportunity to coach from her husband,

who is also a high-performance track and field coach. Almost all the women credited the

relationship they had with their former coaches for providing an impetus to pursue coaching

careers in track and field. They spoke about both the encouragement they received at the genesis

of their careers and also the ongoing support as they advanced to the high-performance level.

Jackie said, “I got my foot in the door as a coach because of the relationship that I have

maintained with one of my former coaches.” Likewise Kelly spoke about the influence of her

coach in facilitating her selection to coach on her first Olympic team.

My coach opened my eyes to a whole new world in track and field. He was then head

coach on the Olympic team and he insisted that I be on the team. Management didn’t

know who I was and questioned why I was on the team. My coach supported me and

thought that it was the right decision. I always felt like I wanted to do that for someone

else one day. (Kelly, personal communication, March 10, 2017).

It was evident to the participants that networking was essential to accessing job

opportunities and further to progressing in the profession. According to Coach Kelly, ‘as in much

of sport, in track and field it is all about who you know and who they know. Heads of

organizations hire who they already know, so to get ahead you have to network and become

known.” Cheryl reiterated the view that networking is essential:

I’m very good at networking and I think that has helped me to get to where I am. But if I

wasn’t any good, I don’t think I would have been picked because I am a woman. I think

my networking skills and my coaching abilities go hand in hand and worked out very

well. (Cheryl, personal communication, August 12, 2017).

96

From their experience the coaches recognized the importance of maintaining the relationships

they established as athletes. They acknowledged the benefits of capitalizing on those affiliations.

They believe that those relationships were essential in making other connections to utilize their

personal traits and build their own capital in track and field.

Hard work, knowledge, and confidence. Overall, the women in this study all said that it

was necessary that they work hard and even to work harder than other coaches. They feel that

gender norms inculcated in society and by extension their organizations disadvantage women.

The field is not a level playing field, as it appears to them that criteria used to evaluate the ability

of women to coach are different from the criteria used to assess men. They expressed the

perception that male coaches can do less and not be penalized, whereas female coaches have

little room for error and must work harder just to remain relevant. Consider Coach Kelly, who is

a single parent of two pre-teens, and said, “I know I have to work harder than male coaches

because I am a woman, but I am not going to sit around and complain about it. It is what it is, I

love what I do and sooner rather than later, the field will level out” (personal communication,

March 10, 2017).

Coach Susan also said “Women coaches always have to work harder, or be smarter and

be better than their male counterparts. Continuing, she added that her willingness to take risks

and to jump in and work hard added to her success. However, in her words, “I put a lot of

pressure on myself and I hid a lot of my problems and stresses because I didn’t want to show any

weakness, (personal communication, July 17 2017). Likewise, Coach Jackie noted, “You have to

work really hard to become successful, there is so much time you have to give, not just on the

track but off the track” (Jackie, personal communication, March 7, 2017).

The participants also placed a high premium on the ongoing acquisition of knowledge for

remaining relevant in their professional growth. The coaches submitted that knowledge gives

97

them the ammunition to compete for jobs and empowers them to demonstrate their competence

and perform duties with confidence. Coach Sharon advised, “Female coaches should be like a

sponge and soak up everything. Learn as much as you can learn, take advantage of

opportunities” (Sharon, personal communication, May 3, 2017). Similarly, Susan suggested in

agreement:

You have to have a real thirst for knowledge. You have to continue to want to learn

throughout your career. You have to be passionate about your career so you’re not

looking at it as just a job. Women just have to be smarter, wiser, and more educated. You

may feel discouraged, you may question why should I still stick to this, but in the end you

can’t forget that knowledge is power. (Susan, personal communication, July 17 2017).

As Coach Alicia confirmed:

I’m very conscientious, and committed, and because of that and my confidence, they

accept me. As a female coach you have to think like a man but you don’t have to act like

one. Don’t let it be a barrier. Act like you own the place. Don’t take a back seat, speak

up. You don’t have to be aggressive, be assertive and confident. I don’t beat around the

bush, I just tell it like it is and I stand up for myself if I have to. (Alicia, personal

communication, March 22, 2017).

It is clear that the participants view hard work as an essential ingredient to establishing

themselves in the field. Furthermore, they believe that it is imperative that they work harder than

men in order to receive equal respect and rewards that male coaches routinely receive. In

addition to working harder than men, they believe that they must continue to acquire knowledge

to establish and empower themselves and also to build their confidence that they see as

absolutely necessary to navigate as a female coach.

98

To navigate the sport of track and field as female coaches, the participants in this study

identified several key practices and personal traits. They all stressed that in order to advance their

careers and achieve their goals and objectives, the willingness to work hard is vital, networking

is key, ongoing acquisition of knowledge is imperative, and confidence in their abilities is

fundamental. They also emphasized the importance of conferences, workshops, speaking,

engagements, if possible, and other forms of engagement with other coaches, female and male.

Significantly, they also stressed the benefits derived from an athletic career. They shared

the firm belief that their athletic careers facilitated access to the profession, and imbued them

with greater capital to advance in their jobs. Although it was not a planned pathway nor

deliberate strategy, they recognized the tremendous benefit it provided them. Furthermore, they

spend this capital not only in their own development, but also in advocating strategies for other

female coaches who seek coaching careers.

They believe that on a level playing field they are capable of coaching and leading any

athletes anywhere with success…and especially at the high-performance level. However, they

have acknowledged that gender differentiation still remains a deep-seated issue in track and field,

exemplifying what several scholars who have examined gender issues in sports have said. That

sport is permeated with gender bias. Therefore, they must actively and continually equip

themselves with knowledge beyond a standard they believe is acceptable for men. Hard work

and pursuit of excellence are critical to demonstrate proficiency beyond the bar set by and

accomplished by men. Additionally, they must continue to advocate for change with their

presence, networking with existing relationships, and building new ones with male and female

coaches. They must also advocate for and actively organize forums, workshops, and other

developmental programs for girls and women, together with efforts to engage in mentorship

programs that provide support for young women and female coaches in the sport.

99

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research is to analyze the experiences of women coaching in high-

performance track and field. Specifically, in this research I examined the challenges and

opportunities facing female coaches in track and field organizations by discussing their

perspectives of institutionalized gender practices, and their attitudes and actions as they navigate

prevailing structures within their organizations. It is important to understand women’s

experiences, and especially from their perspective, because there are so few female coaches at

the high-performance level compared to male coaches, and yet there is almost an equal number

of male and female athletes participating in track and field at all levels (Burnsed, 2016; British

Athletics 2016; International Olympic Committee, 2016).

Hopefully, the opportunity to tell their own story provides them with an ability to

counteract existing narratives that are likely and largely framed within a masculine hegemony. It

enables them to raise awareness about unquestioned and unseen barriers, and at the same time

they can challenge existing norms about men and women in sport. Furthermore, as these voices

continue to grow, as more women attain high-performance coaching positions, the pressure to

address marginalized coaches increases, and the number of women in decision-making roles will

likely increase. Collectively, they can exert greater influence on changing the norms, that is,

hiring more female coaches and giving them roles of greater responsibility. In other words, the

body of evidence that illustrates the institutional and individual bias against women grows

stronger and more compelling.

The female coaches had the opportunity to provide perspectives on their journeys in high-

performance track and field, and the opportunity also to give voice to a documented

100

marginalized group, thus bringing awareness to the issues they encounter. Moreover, an

understanding of their perspectives of processes and conduct within organizations, along with

their views on how they navigate the environment, may help to inform, influence, and motivate

other women to pursue coaching careers and advance in the profession.

The following chapter therefore includes a discussion of the research findings that

emerged from the empirical material and how these results relate to previous research on women

in leadership positions in sports. A focus on the uniqueness of this research flows from these

discussions and interpretations. First, I discuss perspectives that emerged from the empirical

material inconsistent with the four main themes highlighted, but were important and relevant to

the coaches. Second, this section is divided into the four categorical themes identified 1)

hegemonic masculinity in track and field, 2) institutionalized gender ideology, 3) normalized and

normalizing protocols, and 4) change through institutional entrepreneurship. Third, I offer an

interpretation of the findings in the context of theoretical applications. Fourth, I close with a

discussion of limitations, implications, and conclusions.

Powerlessness or Deliberate Inaction

In discussions related to the hierarchy of national federations, the participants pondered

the number of women in leadership roles in their organizations and often extended their

reflection to the number of women and their roles in the IAAF council and committees.

Repeatedly, the much-cited criticism that women did not have enough of a presence as leaders

was maintained. However, given that participants also contended that women have held positions

on the IAAF council, national federations, and committees for many years, there is little

evidence of efforts made to advocate for the advancement of women.

101

There was a popular notion that women progress to positions where they can make a

difference for other women but have not shown the propensity to proffer assistance. Participants

rationalized inaction by women in leadership with three salient ideas. One suggestion was that

often women are not qualified for the positions they occupy, but they are elected and put forward

by their national federations for reasons not necessarily connected to their abilities to perform.

The second rationale was that women work their way into positions of leadership, but the

challenges they encounter as they advance, such as exclusion, limited roles, and other prejudices

likely have disarming effects. In fact, participants even as they were critical were also

empathetic. Nonetheless, there were suggestions that observed inaction gives the appearance of

submission to established norms, as there is minimal evidence of advocacy or action aimed at

equity and equality.

A third rationale for the inaction of women in leadership positions was their distancing of

themselves from other women. Participants suggested that they have encountered female coaches

and other women in leadership positions in sports who vigorously guard their ‘territory’. That

behavior ranged from total apathy to outright animosity to other women in the sport. While

participants shared empathy for the challenges women face in sport, the women expressed

concern for the neglected advocacy inaction and failure to use capital for the advancement of

women.

Hegemonic Masculinity in Track and Field

Scholars have said that hegemonic masculinity pervades throughout sport, resulting in

male-exclusive and male-dominated organizations (Connell, 2009; Knoppers, 1992; Walker and

Satore-Baldwin 2013). Moreover, sport is seen as a site for the reproduction of patriarchal

ideologies, identities, and practices. In agreement with existing literature, the participants in this

102

research believe that women are underrepresented and often excluded in track and field

coaching. They expressed the notion that like in society and in the business world, men have

been dominant traditionally, and women have had to contend for recognition and opportunity,

this while having to challenge existing norms about gender roles and the differentiation of men

and women. The coaches believe that organizations continue to use traditional norms to

disqualify women and perpetuate the dominance of men.

Scholars have argued that male dominance in coaching is directly related to the personal

choices of female coaches—their interests, identities, and abilities as women (Dixon &

Bruening, 2007; Kanter, 1977; Pastore, 1993). Other researchers have attributed the

underrepresentation of women in coaching to structural determinants such as power, opportunity,

and proportion (Danylchuk, Pastore, & Inglis, 1996; Knoppers, 1987; Stangl & Kane, 1991).

Some scholars have recognized the complexity of social existence and attributed male

dominance in coaching and leadership positions to the interplay of individual actions,

circumstances with structural determinants, and the intersection of social elements and processes

such as class and gender (Acker, 2006; Cunningham, Sagas, & Ashley, 2001; Knoppers, 1987;

Stangl & Kane, 1991).

The participants attributed the exclusion of women from coaching to the way the

profession is viewed in society—in masculine terms and as ‘a man’s job’—and the acceptance of

assigned roles of men and women. Their belief is that sport is a microcosm of society, in that

men are viewed as leaders and therefore hold positions of power and control, whereas women are

excluded or located in non-consequential roles. In track and field and affiliated organizations

(Nike, Adidas - see Figure 1), power lies with men and is reinforced by existing policies and

practices.

103

Shaw and Frisby (2006) argued that along with the overrepresentation of men in sport,

leadership roles are defined in masculine terms, marginalizing women who are imbued with

feminine traits. The coaches recounted several instances where they were ignored and

overlooked while executing their responsibilities as coach. Often, although they were the senior

person or the coach in charge, they were by-passed as communication was directed to a male

nearby. Any male present at those times was regarded as the coach even if the male was an

athlete, which is indicative of how a coach is defined—someone who is not a woman. These

perceptions were borne out by Shaw and Hoeber (2003), in their study of dominant forms of

discourse in sport organizations. Discourses of masculinity—men are the head coaches—are

institutionalized in sport, and therefore women are not equipped with leadership qualities and

primarily viewed as incapable of holding senior coaching positions.

The coaches unanimously noted that men in their capacities as CEOs of companies,

presidents of IAAF organizations, head coaches of national teams, and other leadership positions

of organizations define roles and articulate policies in language that excludes women. This

perspective supports the contention that there is a predominance of hegemonic masculinity in

sports organizations (Acker, 1991; Knoppers, 1992; Walker & Satore-Baldwin, 2013).

Institutionalized Gender Ideology

The organizational structure of track and field at the high-performance level is unique,

particularly as it relates to the focus of this research. Multiple entities can simultaneously recruit

and retain track and field coaches (see Figure 1). However, the coaches in this research pointed

out that in spite of idiosyncratic differences with other sport organizations, track and field has

similar policies and practices that empower male coaches and marginalize women. They

suggested that male dominance is normalized in the coaching environment in track and field

similarly as much of the rest of sport. Supporting this concept of normalized practices, Cousens

104

and Slack (2005) contended that sport organizations are embedded in institutional fields and are

linked by purported tenets of institutional theory—similar governance structures, similar

relationships, and similar practices.

The coaches all agreed that discriminating policies, practices, and behaviors toward

women persisted in coaching, particularly at the high-performance level. Although some coaches

believe that their organizations are more progressive because of existing legislation related to

gender equality, and although there are increased opportunities for women to obtain coaching

leadership positions, still prejudice towards women persists. They found that even as legislation

mandates change for equity, their organizations continue to frame decision-making processes in

institutionalized traditions based on the ideals of masculine hegemony.

Hoeber (2004) found administrators, coaches, and athletes similarly using traditional

customs and comments that echo the sentiment that “that is just the way it is” in sport

organizations in Canada, and it explains observed gender inequity and the institutionalization of

masculine hegemony (p. 185). Echoing Hoeber’s (2004) findings, the participants in this

research commonly uttered the phrases, “it is not right,” followed by “but that is just the way it

is” and other similar sentiments. Certainly, it appears they understand the injustices they

experience, but they themselves are socialized into maintaining and accepting the commonplace

practices as they find ways to work around them.

Scott (2013) proposed a three-pillar foundational typology of intersecting concepts to

explain the processes of creating and maintaining institutions. In this research, the participants’

perceptions of their coaching environments demonstrated the interplay of these three concepts—

regulative, normative, and cognitive—as institutionalized hegemonic masculinity is maintained.

In some instances, there is strong legislative instrumentation, such as Title IX, to mandate greater

equity in organizations. In the United States, for example, the female coaches claimed they have

105

greater access and more opportunities to advance in track and field because of compliance with

Title IX. However, there are likely other competing institutional arrangements as men still

dominate leadership positions and overall numbers, maintaining masculine hegemony.

In general, the participants expressed the notion that coaching is the domain of men and

perpetuated in society as the acceptable norm. This was demonstrated by common practices,

including rhetoric directed at the female coaches from peers and other individuals. The norms

perpetuated in society about the profession favor men because originally only men competed and

administered competitions. Accordingly, the assumption is most often made that the man is the

coach and the blueprint for a coach consists of masculine markers. These assumptions are

considered the natural way of doing things and hence become the norm (Zucker, 1983).

The argument can be made that there is no rational basis for the normative assumption

that the qualities of coaching are, for example, aggression and assertiveness and decisiveness—

all characteristics ascribed to men. However, in line with Scott’s (2013) perspective of the

normative pillar of institutional theory, processes and behaviors are not necessarily rational; they

are prescriptive and constraining as they serve to maintain institutions.

Coaches described how they understand and react to their interpretations of inequity,

often showing facets of the third conceptual pillar of institutional theory by Scott (2013), the

cultural cognitive pillar. While the women acknowledged the predominance of inequity, they

also accepted actions as taken-for-granted ways of operating and vowed to work harder. In sports

and in coaching, women are more cognizant of unequal treatment, so they operate within that

cognitive context. On the other hand, men have historically dominated leadership positions and

even now are favored with more opportunities to lead, receive higher compensation packages,

and continue to control the decision-making processes in track and field. This hegemony has

106

been institutionalized and is maintained as men continue to identify with more opportunities and

advantages.

The persistence of hegemonic masculinity is reflected in the ongoing dominance of men

in leadership positions in track and field and the predominance of male coaches occupying the

head coaching positions of Olympic and World Championship teams. From the accounts of the

female coaches about organizational practices and their experiences, gender differentiation is

well entrenched such that their marginalization is assumed. Leaders of their organizations are

typically male and continue to perpetuate the existing rules, norms, values, and or systems, from

their interpretive arrangement of cognitive context (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993, Scott, 2013).

Normalized and Normalizing Protocols

Consistent with previous research on discrimination in sport (Knoppers, 1992; Knoppers,

Ewing, Forrest, & Meyer, 1989; Theberge, 1987), the coaches described experiences where they

perceived a lack of administrative support. They detailed administrative roadblocks that

prohibited them from carrying out their responsibilities that were not impacting male coaches

similarly. They also spoke about constantly feeling the need to work twice as hard as male

colleagues in order to demonstrate their proficiency to coach. In one specific case, a coach

believes she was put in a position that forced her to make the decision to leave her newborn baby

at home or lose her job because there was no administrative mechanism that allowed her to be a

mother and coach. Furthermore, because of related discourses in sport—inability of women to

coach because they are mothers—coaches expressed a belief that as women and mothers they

feel that they need to also work longer hours than male counterparts to demonstrate their

proficiencies.

The findings from this research support previous research that highlighted the

discrimination of women in sport organizations and the absence of supportive administrative

107

mechanisms. For example, Kamphoff (2010), in a study of former female coaches, cited sexist

and controlling policies along with an overall absence of supportive policies for women leaving

the profession early. Like the coaches in Kamphoff’s work, the participants in this research also

experienced discrimination because organizations lacked appropriate administrative policies and

processes to support and accommodate women. Worse, this was compounded by a general

attitude of lackadaisical acceptance. Discriminatory practices and behaviors appear natural and

legitimate (Messner, 1988).

The coaches felt that they were wronged on several occasions, but the enacted policies

and processes that were discriminatory toward them and the general indifference in their

organizations were common operating procedures. Men established the normative scripts, they

implemented them, and any deviation away from the existing hegemony was ignored or

ostracized. Socialized and socializing norms of masculinity and men take precedence as rules

and policies are established and maintained. The participants noted that policies excluding

women are normalized in sport—that is the way it has been and the way it continues.

The women described the difficulties gaining access to jobs and rejections they received

when they were interviewed for senior coaching positions. Furthermore, the coaches explained

that although they were often more decorated as athletes, were more qualified in coaching

certification and number of years coaching junior athletes, nevertheless, male coaches with far

fewer credentials were hired to lead national teams at Olympic Games and World

Championships. Sport scholars have contended that in the perpetuation of hegemonic

masculinity, sport is inculcated with gendered discourse that creates binaries empowering men

and elevating masculinity, while at the same time constraining women and diminishing

femininity (Acker, 1992; Chappell & Waylen, 2013). There is the notion that temperament and

personality of men and women differ and therefore make a difference in their coaching abilities.

108

Similar to the findings of Whisenant and Pedersen (2004), who said that women have few

opportunities to network, the participants described feelings of isolation and associated

difficulties in their efforts to network with other coaches including women, even after they have

advanced into leadership positions. Knoppers (1992) submitted that men interact and network

more frequently with other men. Through their interactions men build relationships and

connections from which women are excluded (Greenhill, Auld, Cuskelly, & Hooper, 2009;

Knoppers, 1987). Moreover, men become privy to formal and informal networks, and through

these connections they are able to obtain more information, greater access, and more

opportunities than women to lobby for leadership positions and career advancement.

The isolation of female coaches in track and field and the resultant feelings of

powerlessness were borne out in this research as the women spoke about their loneliness and

their inability to connect with other coaches, including women. They saw the benefits of

networking that men derive and stressed the importance of this strategy in reinforcing their

domination in coaching at the high-performance level. They believe the inability of women to

gain access to these networks and also establish similar connections among other females, stymie

efforts to change the dynamic. In other words, female coaches believe they are powerless to use

networking to advocate for more equity in the current environment.

The female coaches described relationships with mentors and universally expressed their

gratitude to them because of the role they played in advancing their careers. Several of the

women credited their mentors for their positions on World Championship and Olympic Games

teams. In all but one case, the mentors of the female coaches were men. This is consistent with

research demonstrating the power that men have in sports and the influence they wield (Connell

& Messerschmidt, 2005). Furthermore, research conducted in other organizations affiliated with

sport (media outlets, Nike and Adidas) also highlighted the existence of masculine hegemony

109

that supports gender discourse, favoring men (McKay, J., Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. 2000).

Men hold influential positions and through formal and informal networks they influence

hierarchical maneuverings—recruitment, role assignment, and mentoring (Greenhill, Auld,

Cuskelly, & Hooper, 2009; Knoppers, 1987). This research reinforces the view that power lies

with men; even as they mentor female coaches and aid their advancement, the ‘good ole boys’

exert the influence.

The participants operate in different geographic locations and consequently their

experiences are reflective of diverse economic, cultural, and economic influences. However, in

spite of the differences, there was similarity and consensus with their experiences in

organizations. From their perspective it appears that track and field, the organizations, and actors

exhibit practices and behaviors that are institutionalized into accepting male dominance just as

other scholars have theorized and agreed exist in much of sport (Cunningham, & Sagas, 2003;

Knoppers et al, 1991; Stangl & Kane, 1991; Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Scholarship of

sport management also illustrates a pervasive institutionalized gender bias in organizations that

marginalizes women, which bias itself is normalized, persistent, and long lasting (Burton, 2015;

Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, Cunningham, 2008).

Moreover, according to DiMaggio and Powell (1983) institutional homogenization or

isomorphism takes place, when the interconnection of mimesis, coercive, and normative

mechanisms work together. These processes take place as organizations conform to prescribed

formal and informal systems and rules within an institutionalized environment, resulting in

similar practices and behaviors. Notable scholars of the theory have also said that institutions

span time, geographical boundaries, generations, and space (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Hughes,

1971; Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1983), and they operate in global contexts while

simultaneously in localized systems of interpersonal relationships (Scott, 2001).

110

Robertson’s (2006) research of the sex composition of coaches of intercollegiate teams

showed the influence of isomorphic processes resulting in men dominating head coaching

positions of female teams. Furthermore, athletic directors are predominantly male with

responsibilities for managing financial, physical and human resources, as it is in the IAAF and

National Federations and other organizations affiliated with track and field. Past research has

shown sport organizations to be institutionalized in practices and behaviors dominated by men.

The participants described several instances where men were in charge and delivered their duties

in a discriminatory fashion toward women. These marginalizing protocols in organizations may

explain why men retain the power to confirm internal principles of gender bias and continue to

perpetuate gender dominance in the sport.

It has been established that sport at every level remains a male-dominated environment

and the women in this research agree. However, they also believe that there is evidence of

incremental changes as there are more female coaches in positions at the high-performance level.

They feel that they represent some of that change and they bear some responsibility for effecting

change with their actions and their resolve to persevere in spite of the challenges they encounter.

To combat the dominant discourses of hegemonic masculinity in high-performance coaching, the

participants believe the cultural and social capital they acquire as athletes, and that increase as

they successfully operate in the field are further developed by seeking to acquire knowledge and

working hard.

All the participants in this research were former athletes. Additionally, the majority

competed at the high-performance level of their sport. In line with theorists such as Bourdieu

(1986) and Shilling (2004) on the issue of capital that is embodied in athletes, each coach

expressed the notion that apart from the relationships they established, the experience they

gained during their competitive period was instrumental in gaining access to the positions they

111

attained. It appears that coaches of the participants were also their mentors. Hence, coaches as

mentors guided the female participants’ advancement through the profession. So despite endemic

discrimination, a few men become mentors and help women overcome marginalizing bias.

Nonetheless, It also appears that the experience of being a former athlete was a requisite

condition for the women to earn respect and establish credibility to coach at a high level.

Similarly, Kamphoff, Armentrout, and Driska (2010) found that women coaching men’s teams

were highly decorated athletes, although this tendency is not the same for male coaches. The

consistency of the association between past athletic experience and the positions the women

currently hold highlights the importance of female athletes participating in the sport. It would

follow that as the current trend of increasing numbers of girls and women participating in sport

continues, the possibilities for women entering the profession and women assuming leadership

positions in the coaching profession would also increase. Therefore, the increased and increasing

number of female athletes participating in track and field has significance for more women

advancing to leadership roles in the high-performance level of coaching. The coaches in this

research believe that their athletic background empowered them to pursue their careers and

further provided them with access not necessarily obtained by non-athletes.

This research confirmed the concept that the capital the coaches acquired as athletes was

essential to their access and in some cases advancement in the field. Previous research, though,

has also shown women leaving the profession earlier than men, and reasons cited include

unequal pay, few opportunities for promotion in spite of their skill and qualifications, disrespect

and so on (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992). The participants in

this research identified and acknowledged encountering similar marginalizing practices because

they are women, but they, the women, remain in the profession. They expressed the interest in

112

changing the status quo and being change agents. Their overarching belief was that their

presence and perseverance make a difference.

The findings in this research align with past literature that underscores gender

differentiation, hegemonic masculinity, and the marginalization of women in sports. However, in

addition, this research highlighted the resilience of hegemonic masculinity as an institutionalized

norm. There is evidence of the interconnectedness of institutions, organizations, and individuals

(see Figure 2) on issues such as culture, values, and rules in track and field (DiMaggio & Powell,

1991; Scott, 2001), but processes and behaviors maintain the dominance of men in the sport.

Themes emerged from the empirical material that showed transactional relationships, power

exertion by influential stakeholders, and compliance with established norms delineating the

processes and effects of the institutionalized environment of high-performance track and field

(Battilana, 2006; Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006; Greenwood & Hinings, 2006; Reay et al.,

2005; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008).

For example NFs, Sponsors, and athletes hire and retain the services of coaches,

individually and simultaneously. The criteria used by these different entities are not transparent

and they do not appear to be the same. Sponsors employ coaches and are able to use the leverage

of lucrative contracts with elite athletes to influence their decisions about hiring coaches. These

organizations forge relationships in track and field, exert power and are able to influence

elements of the culture, values, and rules. Just as Scott (2012) contended in the three-pillar

typology, these concepts intersect and operate in conjunction with one another as institutions are

created and maintained. There is increasing interest in track and field by these organizations and

greater injections of cash for stakeholders. The sport continues to move further away from

amateurism to a commercialized culture, and with that evolution, there are observable rule

changes and value changes.

113

In spite of laws and policies mandating organizations to implement appropriate

mechanisms to achieve gender equity and equality in sports, women are still marginalized in the

IAAF and NFs. Furthermore, these sport organizations are constitutionally connected with

mechanisms and instruments in place to mandate compliance. For instance, national federations

are obligated to comply with constitutional mandates of the IAAF to maintain membership. In

addition to the direct constitutional influence from the IAAF and indirect influence from the

IOC, the NFs are guided by laws and other norms within their countries. The IAAF too is

constitutionally connected to the IOC.

Legislation like Title IX has existed for over three decades but sports organizations have

not yet achieved gender equality and equity. The IOC and IAAF have also enacted policies to

increase participation of women and their representation in leadership positions. Although

female participation in the sport has increased significantly, the number of women in leadership

positions remains comparably low. Case in point, according to Swardt (1998), then chairperson

of the IAAF Women's Committee in 1996, said at a seminar in 1998—the year IAAF designated

as the year of women in athletics—that women should be more than only a token gesture. Fast

forward to a gender seminar at the 2016 World Championship Games in London and there is

little change. The chairperson in 1996 of the Women’s Committee making the declaration for

greater female presence was a male figure. In 2016, the panel discussing gender equity was

comprised of all men. Gender equity and equality remain elusive even as organizations enact

legislation and implement other policies.

While this research underscores the resilience of some institutions, it also demonstrates

the effect of power and how that can influence change. Hegemonic masculinity appears to span

time, generations, and geographical boundaries (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Hughes, 1971;

114

Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Zucker, 1983). In spite of constitutional mandates, changing culture, and

the commercial value of track and field, masculine hegemony remains constant. On the other

hand, though, there is evidence that there are dominant actors with sufficient power to determine

the course of action taken by organizations and actors with greater effect than policy or other

coercive means in track and field (Djelic & Sahlin- Andersson, 2006). Therefore, although

women continue to experience marginalization, there is hope that change is possible.

Change Through Institutional Entrepreneurship

In analyzing the expressed views of the participants regarding their desire to see change

and to be change agents, I believe the theoretical tenets of institutional entrepreneurship explain

possibilities for impacting established norms. Based on Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006)

interpretation of institutional entrepreneurship, this theory helps to shed light on the role of an

individual’s action in the disruption of institutional norms and practices. Lawrence and Suddaby,

(2002) in their work on institutional entrepreneurship, contended that individual actors have

agency to effect change. They have the potential to exert power to reproduce, perpetuate, and

interrupt institutionalized norms, by their interest, intention and/or action.

The women have all spoken about their desire for a change in track and field that affords

girls and boys the same access and opportunities. They understand that the current landscape in

the sport has normalized the male figure as the coach. However, they remain in the profession

because they love what they do and believe it is their prerogative to fulfill their career

aspirations. Furthermore, there was an overall consensus that they want to see change…they

want equal opportunity for everyone. The majority of the coaches believe they are change agents

and they demonstrate this through their passion for what they do, their persistence and

willingness to work through the barriers, and their work ethic and preparedness to work harder

than men to demonstrate their competencies. These dispositions certainly signify intent and

115

desire, which are key elements of institutional entrepreneurship as a means of interrupting

institutional norms and initiating change (Lawrence & Suddaby 2002).

The other key aspect of institutional entrepreneurship is action. As previously noted,

Lawrence and Suddaby (2002) suggested that individuals have agency to cause disruption to

institutions through their actions, which constitute a degree of entrepreneurship. This notion

lends to the understanding that the participants in this research have some agency to impact

institutionalized systems and ideologies in their organizations through their actions taken to

advance their careers. All the participants stated that their access to the profession was directly or

indirectly facilitated by their former coaches or coaches with whom they had established

connections. They actively developed and sustained those relationships and have acknowledged

the benefits derived—job opportunities, networking prospects, and invaluable mentorship.

It is conceivable that their actions are deliberate and strategic given that coaching is their

career choice and they now hold leadership positions in the field, positions that many view as

belonging to men, as purported by numerous scholars (e.g., Acker, 1991; Knoppers, 1992;

Walker & Satore-Baldwin 2013; Shaw & Frisby 2006; Shaw & Hoeber 2003). These findings

are borne out in this research. Sports generally are, and specific to this research, sport coaching

generally is infused with institutionalized gender ideologies that have normalized the position as

a man’s role (Burton, 2015; Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012, Cunningham, 2008). Furthermore,

the women in this research recounted several occasions where they were ignored, excluded, and

in some cases insulted as coaches because they are women. However, the participants through

their actions and achievements have progressed in the field, interrupting established norms.

In addition to establishing and maintaining relationships with mentors, the coaches

engage in other entrepreneurial actions that disrupt the existing connection between men and

coaching. Participants claimed that they constantly feel pressured to prove their prowess as

116

coaches. They admit they work hard and in some cases they believe they work harder than male

colleagues. Furthermore, some of the women stated that they have more responsibilities –family

and work—than their male colleagues. They contended that because of their added

responsibilities—family and work commitments—they must be skillful at planning, coordinating

and directing. Their ability to organize their family life and excel at their jobs demonstrates the

capacity to manage complex skills, defying the institutionalized notion that those skills are

deemed to be more congruent with masculine traits and more attributable to men.

Literature has shown that female coaches encounter discrimination because of

perceptions regarding the inability to manage or balance the competing demands of the

profession and family (Dixon & Bruening 2007; Kanter 1977; Pastore 1993). However, most of

the women in this research have families. Some of them affirmed having experienced conflict

about balancing work and family lives, but each confirmed the willingness to work hard to

overcome perceived weakness or inability to negotiate the demands of work and family. Each

participant worked hard because she loves the sport, but doubly so to demonstrate her

capabilities, and admittedly also to change perceptions.

In addition to deliberate and explicit actions to change perceptions, some of the

participants spoke about their desire to change organizational culture of track and field from the

grassroots level right on up to the managerial level of their NFs to reflect greater inclusivity. At

the grassroots level, with increased participation of female athletes, there is optimism for greater

numbers of athletes transitioning into coaching careers, especially given their backgrounds. They

believe that as mentors they have the agency to influence and help female athletes pursue careers

and young coaches seek leadership positions. In support of this notion, Everhart and Chelladuri

(1998) in their research found that female athletes coached by women were more interested in

coaching than female athletes who were coached by men. Based on research findings that

117

highlight the positive effects of female coaches and athletes, the participants in their current

positions and as mentors have the potential to influence cultural change. It is highly plausible

that a female coach is encouraged and inspired by Coach Anna Botha’s achievement or even a

female athlete by Coach/Athlete Sally Pearson’s achievements10.

Other specific actions the coaches discussed as viable strategies to change the existing

landscape of track and field were organizing and advocating for women’s forums, including

mentorship programs, training and development workshops, and other educational sessions. The

goal is to facilitate opportunities for instilling and reinforcing values in young women to develop

women leaders. This research shows that participants through their affiliations procured some

capital over time, and improved their agency to navigate the profession. Additionally, the

coaches expressed their interest in effecting change, their commitment to working hard, and their

desire to remain in the profession. They also emphasized a willingness to implement strategies to

bring about change. These attributes in combination adhere to the theoretical underpinnings of

institutional entrepreneurship that speak to disruption and changing established norms.

Limitations and Implications

The participants in this research live and work on four different continents—North

America, South America, Europe and Oceania. They shared several commonalities other than

coaching at the high-performance level of track and field. These coaches advanced and gained

experience and exposure as they progressed through the various levels. Furthermore, all were

former athletes; only one did not compete in track and field. In spite of the commonalities the

participants fundamentally share, they have different views. Additionally, these differences are

compounded by their diverse social, cultural and economic influences inherent in their

10 Sally Pearson is the reigning World Championship gold medalist in the 100-meter hurdles and she coached herself during the games and has continued in that capacity—coach/athlete.

118

nationalities. For instance, some countries have legislation that mandates equity and influences

the hiring of diverse work forces in organizations, while in other nations these social issues are

often not legislated nor scrutinized. In fact, participants from America compared their

circumstances to coaches from other nations and cited Title IX as the reason their national teams

often have higher representation of female coaches than teams from other nations.

While the findings of this research are not generalizable to all coaches in high-

performance track and field, this researcher does not view it as a limitation. In fact, given that

these coaches have different nationalities and varying perspectives of multiple levels of the sport

but share similar marginalizing experiences, though not generalizable, all this adds depth to the

issue of male dominance in sport. However, a limiting factor of this research is unpacking the

commonalities of their experiences without addressing their different social circumstances. This

limitation signals the need for more research to unpack institutionalized gender issues in this

globally popular sport for men and women.

Implications for Research

This research presented a qualitative analysis of the experiences of nine track and field

high-performance coaches, purposively selected from different geographical locations.

Specifically, the primary focus was to give voice to a minority population of female coaches who

gave perspectives on strategies—physical, mental, and emotional—related to the challenges and

opportunities they face as female coaches. There is little research specifically on the experience

of female coaches in track and field, and although I found consistencies in this analysis with

previous work on female coaches in other disciplines, several questions for future research

became apparent.

119

First, one of the common threads among the participants in this research is that they are

all former athletes. Although they did not all compete at the high-performance level, they all

competed for a long time in their youth and young adult life. Just as previous research has

shown, participants used their capital to gain access and advance their careers (Greenhill, Auld,

Cuskelly, & Hooper, 2009). Research that examines the perceptions of female athletes to

determine their interest in coaching at the end of their athletic career, and their attitudes

regarding gender and coaching, may provide greater understanding on motivation and

persistence to pursue careers in the profession. This is particularly important given the increasing

number of girls and women participating in track and field at all levels.

Second, this research highlighted the dominance of men in coaching and the normalcy of

masculine hegemony in the policies of leaders in the sport. Female coaches are still experiencing

discrimination because of outdated or non-existent policies. Specifically, female coaches with

families are excluded or forced to improvise which to prevailing bias appears natural and

legitimate. This research is consistent with previous work that identified discrimination because

of family-work conflict (Atchison, Brackenridge, & Jordan, 1999; Fox, 1999; Roffey, 2001).

Research on men’s’ views in leadership positions in track and field would provide additional

insight into their actions, and help raise awareness on the need for more inclusive policies for

supporting women irrespective of their roles outside of the profession.

Third, there is the issue of organizational crossover in terms of hiring and retention of

coaches at the high-performance level (see Figure 1). This dynamic creates different

organizational conventions and practices and further blurs the lines of transparency, especially

on issues such as job descriptions, job postings, and selection criteria. Furthermore, other issues

related to accountability prohibit accurate depiction on matters such as progress of policies,

compensation of coaches, and other trends of discrimination and so on. Future studies examining

120

the peculiarities of this dynamic may help to provide more information and greater transparency

in the sport.

Fourth, this sport is popular globally, at all levels for girls and boys, women and men. Yet

there is low female representation in coaching. This low representation results in limited

opportunities for women to network, as well as few female role models for athletes and coaches

to emulate (Knoppers, 1992; Kanter, 1993; Whisenant & Pedersen, 2004). Another area of

research that could shed light on the challenges and opportunities female coaches face in track

and field is an examination of administrative mechanisms in the IAAF, national federations, and

other organizations that impact hiring, promotion, and retention of coaches of high-performance

competition. This research would be particularly important to help understand the seemingly

overlapping and exclusionary practices involved in hiring track and field coaches.

Implications for Organizations

The IAAF should lead by example. The council of the IAAF currently has less than 25%

female representation. Although members are elected through a democratic process of the

national federations’ members, the IAAF has the power and constitutional instruments to

promote greater equality and equity from top-down and from bottom-up within track and field.

Constitutional reform can bring about change given that all 212 NFs membership is dependent

upon their compliance with constitutional mandates. Furthermore, the NFs compliance qualifies

them for financial contributions, development programs, invitations and grants for competitions.

Without these incentives, many countries are unable to develop athletes, coaches, and

administrators. The countries that are not financially dependent on the aforementioned

inducements must still maintain their membership eligibility to ensure their athletes are able to

compete in IAAF sanctioned meets. Therein lies the empowerment of the IAAF to implement

121

constitutional reform for greater female representation in the IAAF, NFs, and other decision-

making bodies.

With increased representation, it follows that opportunities for women should develop.

The principle that says, ‘there is power in numbers’ might be relevant given that women are

underrepresented and fail to achieve a critical mass that can influence change. The voices, the

concerns, and the actions of women as their numbers increase may provide stronger advocacy

and change of normalized policies and practices that discriminate against women. For example,

the participants in this research unanimously spoke about the absence of administrative support

for women. More specifically, they believe policies have been normalized that fail to provide

flexibility to accommodate coaches with families.

Studies have shown that women encounter work-family conflict that strongly impacts

decisions to pursue and remain in sport careers (Dixon, & Bruening, 2007; Dixon, Tiell, Lough,

Sweeney, Osborne, & Bruening, 2008)). Organizations in track and field need mechanisms and

policies that afford equal opportunity for men and women. It is incumbent on the IAAF to set the

tone and demonstrate a commitment to equity and equality by establishing appropriate policies,

while complying, and mandating national federations and other track and field organizations to

also conform. The IAAF has the resources and constitutional power to effect change.

Implications for Coaches

Although the participants identified the dominance of men and normalized practices of

gender discrimination as cause for the challenges they encounter, they also credited men for their

opportunities. Their advancement and achievements demonstrate the importance of those

relationships with men and the effectiveness of mentorship and networking. The onus lies with

them to maintain those relationships, establish new ones, and use their influence. They are in a

position to lend their voices to influence and advocate for women.

122

Women on the IAAF council, women in other leadership positions in track and field

organizations, and women coaching in high-performance track and field need to be proactive in

promoting change. They have encountered and withstood the prejudices, and prevailed, which

already qualify them role models. Of significance, all the participants were former athletes. This

is important because there is an equal number of men and women participating in the sport, as

such providing fertile ground for recruitment of future coaches and sport leaders. Women in

positions of leadership need to establish associations, recruit committed actors, and implement

strategies to create change. Strategies might include support and mentorship programs for

women, training and development, establishing and maintaining communication systems,

networks, and recruitment initiatives.

Conclusion

In spite of the organizational idiosyncrasies of track and field, the results of this research

are consistent with previous studies that contend that sport organizations and affiliated entities

are inculcated with gendered discourse. The experiences of the participants in this research

agreed with previous research that gender differentiation is strongly entrenched in sport

organizations (Burton, 2015; Claringbould & Knoppers, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Cunningham,

Sagas, & Ashley, 2001; Knoppers, 1987, 1992). As such, practices and behaviors maintain

institutionalized gender ideologies that remain prevalent in track and field.

Organizations such as the IAAF, committees, national federations, and coaching

associations demonstrate the tenets of institutional theory as they govern track and field.

According to the lived experiences of the nine coaches interviewed, the organizations they

operate within and are affiliated with are regularized by institutionalized gender practices (Scott

2001). With regard to the coaching profession, organizations operate similarly and have like

policies and practices in spite of socioeconomic and cultural differences. There is a dominance of

123

men, and male characteristics are lauded and normalized in coaching across the different national

federations and associated organizations.

Furthermore men define roles in organizations, control hierarchical configurations, and

hold the authority to develop and implement administrative mechanisms. Men in the sport,

control the discourse, the mechanisms, the networking and the decision-making in organizations

as well as peripheral entities. Although a coach’s hiring and career advancement can be impacted

by different entities separately and concurrently, men dominate and control the discourse within

the different organizations.

The results of this research are consistent with previous studies that have shown the

marginalization of women in sports, particularly in leadership positions (Acker, 1990, 1992;

Connell, 1995; Hargreaves, 1994; Kane, 1995; McKay, Messner, & Sabo, 2000). As in other

sports, women are marginalized and female coaches in high-performance track and field remain

the minority as they struggle against the effects of defined binaries associated with men and

women (Acosta & Carpenter, 2012; Cunningham, 2008; Knoppers, 1992; Walker & Sartore-

Baldwin, 2013). The participants expressed the belief that women have few opportunities to

network, and therefore experience exclusion and isolation. They also believe that female coaches

in particular encounter organizational practices and procedures that disrupt their abilities to

perform duties, and also stymie their advancement in the profession (Acker, 2006; Britton, 2000;

Connell, 2009; Fasting, 2000; Hovden, 2000; Shaw & Slack, 2002).

The dominance of men in track and field is maintained through systems, processes, and

practices reflective of isomorphic pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and Scott’s (2001) three

pillars concept of regulative, normative, and cognitive pillars. The participants described the

prevalence of discriminatory practices in the coaching profession that appeared normal and

legitimate. Organizations’ strategies and policies were similar despite cultural, economic, and

124

other fundamental differences. Furthermore, organizations leveraged resources to coerce hiring

of coaches, who are largely men.

This research also revealed processes indicative of Scott’s regulative, normative and

cognitive pillars as the prevailing institutionalized gender ideology is maintained. Although there

are regulative elements that influence the practices of some national federations—for example,

Title IX in USATF—the normative values elevating men and masculine characteristics remain

dominant in high-performance track and field. Additionally, the participants believe the culture

in track and field organizations aligns more with unequal access and opportunities for women.

This cultural inequity essentially contextualizes the reality for women in the sport and is

maintained even as other cultures within track and field evolve, for example amateurism,

professionalism, and commercialism.

The participants’ experiences highlighted several social processes within the IAAF,

national federations, and other affiliated organizations that were indicative of institutionalization.

While processes work in concert with others, as do social phenomena, some mechanisms were

clearly dominant as the normalization of masculine hegemony is maintained. Despite, the

challenges, the coaches are optimistic about the direction of track and field in terms of female

involvement. They believe that the IAAF is implementing administrative mechanisms to

encourage increased participation of women as athletes, administrators, and coaches in the sport.

For example, the IOC has instituted a policy mandating each federation to have a staff with

minimum of 20% female representation (International Olympic Committee, 2016). As an

affiliated member of the IOC, IAAF complies with this mandate and has directed that all

affiliated NFs comply with this standard.

The participants also expressed the general feeling that they too bear responsibility to

advocate for change. Therefore, it is incumbent upon them to take advantage of their positions to

125

engage in behavior that contributes to leveling the playing field for girls and boys, women and

men in sports. They continue to demonstrate their competencies as they defy norms perpetrated

to reinforce a supposed inability of women to coach in a demanding position such as high-

performance track and field. They continue to challenge the notion that women do not have the

qualities to coach at this level and as such exercise their agency to disrupt institutionalized norms

(Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Battilana, 2006).

They believe that sport has been the domain of men for a long time, but incremental

changes are taking place, although not as quickly as they would prefer. Nonetheless, they noted

that women are making in-roads and gaining a greater presence in sports. Specifically in track

and field, the number of female athletes participating across all levels is almost the same as male

athletes, the number of women breaking the proverbial ‘glass ceiling’ and holding leadership

roles in national associations and other sport organizations is growing, and the number of female

coaches on national teams and coaching at the high-performance level is increasing. Therefore,

in spite of acknowledged inequalities and inequities in track and field, the coaches expressed

feeling a responsibility to develop and enhance their careers, not only because they love the

profession, but also to be a part of the change process that affords women equal opportunity in

track and field positions.

126

APPENDIX A

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. What is your job title?

2. What are your qualifications and coaching certifications?

3. Describe your movement through coaching from recruitment to your current position.

4. How do your coaching qualifications and experience compare with other male and female

coaches?

5. How would you describe the way you are treated compared to male coaches with similar

qualifications and experience?

6. How would you describe the organizational structures (administrative, operational, and

financial) of your National Federation?

7. What organizations is your NF affiliated with (constitutionally and financially)?

8. How does affiliation to these organizations impact governance of your organization?

9. What are the processes and practices for hiring coaches?

10. Do you believe hiring practices and processes are open and transparent? If so, or even if

not, explain how transparency is or is not accomplished?

11. How is information about jobs and training disseminated in your organization? Is it

effective? Do you recognize any difference in coaching communication from men to

women?

12. Do male and female coaches have equal access to interviews and networks (formal and

informal)?

127

13. Describe organizational mechanisms in place to evaluate coaches? Do you believe they

are equitable, consistent, and transparent? Is the overriding criterion related to

competition results? What would you do differently?

14. What is the gender makeup of your organization in administration and coaching?

15. Has the gender proportion changed over time, and if it has what do you believe has

contributed to the change?

16. Do you see the need for the implementation of organizational policies to mandate and

promote greater gender equity?

17. Whom and what processes do you believe have the capacity to advocate for change

towards greater gender equity in your organization?

18. What role do you see yourself playing in initiating and creating change?

19. What are the opportunities for training and development programs in your organization,

programs that offer career development support?

20. Have other coaches mentored you periodically or continuously in your coaching career?

21. How have mentor(s) aided your personal and professional development?

22. Have you mentored other female coaches? If so, how has the mentoring you received in

your career development influence your mentoring of other coaches? Have you seen

differences in mentoring methods by males compared to females?

23. How do you network with other coaches in your organization as well as other

organizations, including coaches in other countries? Do you have opportunities to

network and interact with other coaches sufficient to your developmental needs?

24. In your interactions with female coaches in other organizations and other countries what

similarities and differences in organizational practices and individual behavior have you

identified?

128

25. Have you come close to meeting your career objectives? Are they fixed or do they

constantly change?

26. Do you believe your career advancement is/was stymied? How? By what and by whom?

27. What do you think help(ed) you to navigate those barriers?

28. Do you think you consciously and actively manage your behavior in the coaching

environment? How does this make a difference to opportunities and career advancement?

29. If you could rewind your career, would you do anything differently? What and how?

30. What advice and guidance do you offer to young aspiring female coaches?

129

APPENDIX B

IRB APPROVAL LETTERS

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President for Research Human Subjects CommitteeTallahassee,

Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392 APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date:07/10/2015

To: Wilma Proctor

Dept.:SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in

the proposal referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary, the Chair, and two

members of the Human Subjects Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited

per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit,

except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related

to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other

approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped

consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent

form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

130

If the project has not been completed by 09/08/2015 you must request a renewal of

approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to

you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal

Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and

approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the

protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by

the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator

promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks

to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major

professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research

projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as

often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our

institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection.

The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc:HSC No.

07/10/2015

Wilma Proctor

SPORT MANAGEMENT

The Successful Female Coach: An examination of the pathway for female coaches in Track and

131

Field

Joshua Newman <jinewman@fsu.edu>, Advisor

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673, FAX (850) 644-4392

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 6/28/2016

To: Wilma Proctor

Dept.: SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research

The Successful Female Coach: An examination of the pathway for female coaches in Track and

Field

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been

approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by

6/26/2017, you must request renewed approval by the Committee.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped

consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form

may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in protocol for

this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the

proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted

132

for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal

Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving

risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are

reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving

human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as

necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and

with DHHS regulations.

Cc: Joshua Newman, Advisor

HSC No. 2016.18676

The Florida State University

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects CommitteeP. O. Box

3062742Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date:03/30/2018

To:Wilma Proctor

Dept.:SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, ChairRe: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in

Research:

Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has

been approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been

133

completed by 05/29/2018 , you are must request renewed approval by the Committee.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved

stamped consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of

the consent form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that

any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee

prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol

change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In

addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report in

writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects

or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chairman of your department and/or your major

professor are reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research

projects involving human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the

protocols as often as necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance

with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

Cc:HSC No.

03/30/2018

Wilma Proctor

SPORT MANAGEMENT

The Successful Female Coach: An examination of the pathway for female coaches in Track and Field

134

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Purpose of This Research:

The purpose of this research is to understand the perspective of female coaches in high-

performance track and field regarding discriminatory and marginalizing practices and behaviors

of male coaches and administrators. More specifically, the research also seeks to understand the

systemic structures, processes, and behaviors encountered in organizations and how female

coaches navigate though and around these impediments to advancement.

Procedures:

I will be conducting one-on-one interviews in this research for periods lasting 30 to 60

minutes, taking notes and using a recording device

Possible risks or benefits:

There are no known risks or benefits to you related to participating in this project.

Right of refusal to participate and withdrawal:

You may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without

consequence. You may also refuse to answer some or all the questions if you become

uncomfortable with those questions.

Confidentiality:

The information provided by you will remain confidential. Nobody except the principal

investigator will have access to it. Your name and identity will also not be disclosed at any time.

However the results of the research may be published in journals and elsewhere without giving

your name or disclosing your identity.

135

Information gathered from organizations will have some general identifiers but the

individual personnel and organizations will be anonymized.

Available Sources of Information:

If you have any questions concerning the research, you may contact me. You may also

contact the Human Subjects Committee at The Florida State University at (850) 644 8673 if you

have additional concerns about this research.

Authorization

I have read and understand this consent form, and I volunteer to participate in this

research. I understand that I will receive a copy of this form. I voluntarily choose

to participate, but I understand that I can withdraw from the research, without

consequence at any time, whether before it starts or while I am participating. I am

giving permission to be tape-recorded and understand that anonymity will be

ensured in the reporting of this research but there might be disguised extracts

quoted in subsequent publications.

………………………………………………... ……………………………

Signature Date

136

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender &

Society, 4(2), 139-158.

Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology. 21(5), 565-569.

Acker, J. (1992). Gendering organizational theory. Classics of Organizational Theory, 6, 450-459.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender &

Society, 20(4), 441-464.

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (1988). Women in intercollegiate sport. A longitudinal study—Eleven-year update 1977-1988.

Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2012). Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal,

national study: thirty-five year update, 1977-2012. Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn College.

Adriaanse, J. A., & Schofield, T. (2013). Analyzing gender dynamics in sport governance: A new

regimes-based approach. Sport Management Review, 16(4), 498-513.

Aitchison, C. C., Brackenridge, C., & Jordan, F. (1999). Gender equity in leisure management. Reading, UK: Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management.

Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R.T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work–family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787-810.

Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653-676.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. American Sociological Review, 32(1), 137

Bittner, E. (1965). The concept of organization. Social Research, 32(3), 239-255.

Borland, J. F., & Bruening, J. E. (2010). Navigating barriers: A qualitative examination of the under-representation of Black females as head coaches in collegiate basketball. Sport

Management Review, 13(4), 407-420.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R.Nice, trans.). Cambridge, England: Polity.

Burnsed B., (2016). Participation rates continue to rise. Retrieved November 2nd, 2016 from http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/participation-rates-continue-rise

137

Burton, L. J. (2015). Underrepresentation of Women in Sport Leadership. A Review of Research. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 155-165

Bracken, N. (2009). Gender equity in college coaching and administration: Perceived barriers Report, 2008-2009. National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Brinkmann, S. (2007). Could interviews be epistemic? An alternative to qualitative opinion polling. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1116-1138.

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2005). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research. Journal of

Constructivist Psychology, 18(2), 157-181.

BritishAthletics (2016). 25% increase in track & field participation since London 2012. Retrieved November 2nd, 2016 from http://www.britishathletics.org.uk/media/news/2013-news-page/june-2013/13-06-13-increased-participation/

Carr, E. C., & Worth, A. (2001). The use of the telephone interview for research. Nursing Times

Research, 6(1), 511-524.

Chappell, L., & Waylen, G. (2013). Gender and the hidden life of institutions. Public

Administration, 91(3), 599-615.

Coaching Association of Canada, (2009). Women in coaching program December 2008. Retrieved from http://www.coach.ca/files/Women-in-Coaching_2008.pdf.

Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women: Men's resistance to sex equality in

organizations (Vol. 18). Cornell University Press.

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Connell, R. (2009). Gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & society, 19(6), 829-859.

Cousens, L., & Slack, T. (2005). Field-level change: The case of North American major league professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 13-42.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, G. B. (2008). Creating and sustaining gender diversity in sport organizations. Sex

Roles, 58(1-2), 136-145.

138

Cunningham, G. B., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. B. (2001). Occupational commitment and intent to leave the coaching profession differences according to race. International Review for the

Sociology of Sport, 36(2), 131-148.

Cunningham, G., Sagas, M., & Ashley, F. (2003). Coaching self-efficacy, desire to become a head coach, and occupational turnover intent: Gender differences between NCAA assistant coaches of women’s teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34(2), 125–137.

Dacin, M. T. (1997). Isomorphism in context: The power and prescription of institutional norms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 46-81.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-56.

Danisman, A., Hinings, C. R., & Slack, T. (2006). Integration and differentiation in institutional values: An empirical investigation in the field of Canadian national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 23(4), 301.

Danylchuk, K. E., Pastore, D., & Inglis, S. E. (1996). Critical factors in the attainment of intercollegiate coaching and management positions. Physical Educator, 53, 137-146.

Demers, G. (2009). We are coaches: Program tackles the under-representation of female coaches. Canadian Journal for Women in Coaching, 9(2), 1-9.

Denzin, N. K. (2000). The practices and politics of interpretation. Handbook of Qualitative

Research, 2, 897-922.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigms and perspectives in contention. The Sage

handbook of qualitative research, 183-190.

Donaldson, Mike. "What is hegemonic masculinity?." Theory and society 22, no. 5 (1993): 643-657.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 97-128.

DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. Institutional patterns and

organizations: Culture and environment, 1, 3-22.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In Economics meets sociology in strategic

management (pp. 143-166). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

139

DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1991). 'Introduction', in W.W. Powell and P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1-38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Division for the Advancement of Women of the United Nations Secretariat (2008). Women, gender equality, and sport. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ daw/public/Women%20and%20Sport.pdf.

Dixon, M. A., & Bruening, J. E. (2007). Work–family conflict in coaching I: A top-down perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 21(3), 377-406.

Djelic, M. L., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2006). Transnational governance in the making–regulatory fields and their dynamics. Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics

of Regulation, 1-47.

Duval, L. (2001). The development of women's track and field in England. The role of the athletic club, 1920s-1950s. Sports Historian, 21(1), 1-34.

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become

leaders. Harvard Business Press.

Everhart, C. B., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Gender differences in preferences for coaching as an occupation: The role of self-efficacy, valence, and perceived barriers. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 69(2), 188-200.

Ezzy, D. (2010). Qualitative interviewing as an embodied emotional performance. Qualitative

Inquiry, 16(3), 163-170.

Feschuk, D. (2016). Coach says COC botched athletes’ Olympic travel plans. Retrieved 27 January 2017 from https://www.thestar.com/sports/olympics/2016/08/11/coach-says-coc-botched-athletes-olympic-travel-plans-feschuk.html.

Fink, J. S. (2008). Gender and sex diversity in sport organizations: Concluding comments. Sex

Roles, 58, 146–147.

Fligstein, N.(1990). The transformation of corporate control. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fox, C. (1999). Women’s perceived access to elite coaching positions in Australian sport. The Sport Educator, 11(2), 25–27.

Friedland, R. & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W.W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new

Institutionalism in organizational analysis, (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geesman, S. (1952). The history and background of track and field athletics. Physical Educator, 9(2), 33.

140

Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of a theory of structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Greenhill, J., Auld, C., Cuskelly, G., & Hooper, S. (2009). The impact of organizational factors on career pathways for female coaches. Sport Management Review, 12(4), 229-240.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081.

Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of

Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27-48.

Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., & Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2008a). Handbook of

Organization Institutionalism. London, England: Sage Publications.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of

Qualitative Research, 2(163-194), 105.

Hargreaves, J. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology and

women’s sports. New York: Routledge.

Hart, B. A., Hasbrook, C. A., & Mathes, S. A. (1986). An examination of the reduction in the number of female interscholastic coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 57(1), 68-77.

Hasbrook, C.A., Hart, B.A., Mathes, S.A., & True, S. (1990). Sex bias and the validity of believed differences between male and female interscholastic athletic coaches. Research

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63(3), 259-267.

Haveman A., & Rao H. (1997). Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. American Journal of Sociology 102

(6) 1606–1651.

Hinings, C. R., Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Kikulis, L. M. (1996). Values and organizational structure. Human Relations, 49(7), 885-916.

Hoffman, E. (2007). Open-ended interviews, power, and emotion. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36(3), 318-346.

Hovden, J. (2000). Gender and leadership selection processes in Norwegian sporting organizations. International Review for the sociology of sport, 35(1), 75-82.

Hughes, E. C. (1971). Going concerns: The study of American institutions. The Sociological

Eye, 52-64.

141

Hums, M. A., & Grappendorf, H. (2007). Women as leaders in sport: Impact and influence. National Association for Girls and Women in Sport.

Inglis, S., Danylchuk, K. E., & Pastore, D. L. (2000). Multiple realities of women's work experiences in coaching and athletic management. Women in Sport & Physical Activity

Journal, 9(2), 1.

International Olympic Committee (2016). Women participation at the Games of the XXVIIIE Olympiad. Retrieved November 2nd 2016, from https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/2015/08/12/18/29/36/Women-participation-at-the-Athens-2004-Olympic-Games Statistics.pdf#_ga=1.70571856.1732464221.1459276173.

Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. International Journal of

Politics, Culture, and Society, 1(4), 598-614.

Kamphoff, C. S. (2010). Bargaining with patriarchy: Former female coaches' experiences and their decision to leave collegiate coaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 81(3), 360-372.

Kamphoff, C. S., Armentrout, S.M., &Driska, A. (2010). The token female: Women's experiences as Division I collegiate head coaches of men's teams. Journal of

Intercollegiate Sport, 3, 297-315.

Kane, M. J. (1995). Resistance/transformation of the oppositional binary: Exposing sport as a continuum. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(2), 191–218.

Kane, M. J., & Stangl, J. M. (1991). Employment patterns of female coaches in men's athletics: Tokenism and marginalization as reflections of occupational sex-segregation. Journal of

Sport & Social Issues, 15(1), 21-41.

Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American journal of Sociology, 82(5), 965-990.

Kathleen, M., & McLellan-Lemal, M. E. (2008). Team-based codebook development: structure, process, and agreement. Handbook for Team-based Qualitative Research, 119.

Kikulis, L. M. (2000). Continuity and change in governance and decision making in national sport organizations: Institutional explanations. Journal of Sport Management, 14(4), 293-

320.

Kikulis, L. M., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (1995). Sector-specific patterns of organizational design change. Journal of Management Studies, 32(1), 67-100.

Kimberly, J. R., Kimberly, J., & Miles, R. H. (1980). The organizational life cycle: issues in the

creation, transformation, and decline of organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

142

Knoppers, A. (1987). Gender and the coaching profession. Quest, 39(1), 9-22.

Knoppers, A. (1992). Explaining male dominance and sex segregation in coaching: Three approaches. Quest, 44(2), 210-227.

Knoppers, A., Ewing, M., Forrest, L., & Meyer, B.B. (1989). Dimensions of coaching: A

question of gender. Report submitted to the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Mission, KS.

Knoppers, A., Meyer, B. B., Ewing, M., & Forrest, L. (1991). Opportunity and work behavior in college coaching. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 1, 1-20.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). 1.6 institutions and institutional work. The SAGE

Handbook of Organization Studies, 215.

LaVoi, N. M. (2009). Occupational sex segregation in a youth soccer organization: Females in positions of power. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 18(2), 25.

LaVoi, N. M. (Ed.). (2016). Women in Sports Coaching. New York: Routledge.

LaVoi, N. M., & Dutove, J. K. (2012). Barriers and supports for female coaches: An ecological model. Sports Coaching Review, 1(1), 17-37.

LaVoi, N. M., & Dutove, J. (2012). Book review: Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study—A 35 Year Update. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 47(6), 761-764 league professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 19,

13–42.

Leberman, S., & Palmer, F. (2009). Motherhood, sport leadership, and domain theory: Experiences from New Zealand. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 305-334.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research

(2 ed., pp. 162-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leavy, P. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. Oxford Library of Psychology.

Lovett, D. J., & Lowry, C. D. (1994). "Good old boys" and "good old girls" clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport Management, S, 27-35

143

Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization, 10(3), 457-480.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C. and Lawrence, T. B., (2004) Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging 35 fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management Journal

47(5): 657- 679.

Martin, P. Y. (2004). Gender as social institution. Social Forces, 82(4), 1249-1273.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 37.

Markula, P., & Silk, M. L. (2011). Qualitative research for physical culture (p. 252). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Marshall, D. (2001). Developing the next generation of women coaches. Canadian Journal for

Women in Coaching Online, 1(4), 1-8.

McKay, J., Messner, M. A., & Sabo, D. (2000). Masculinities, gender relations, and sport (Vol. 11). London: Sage publications.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (1998). Masculinities and crime. Critique and reconceptualization of theory. (Meuser). Kriminologisches Journal, 30(4), 316-318.

Messner, M. (1988). Sport and male domination: The female athlete as contested ideological terrain. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 197-211.

Messner, M.A. (2009). It’s all for the kids: Gender, families, and youth sports. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Messner, M. A., & Bozada-Deas, S. (2009). Separating the men from the moms. The making of adult gender segregation in youth sports. Gender & Society, 23(1), 49-71.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan B. (1977). ‘Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,’ American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

Morrell, R., & Swart, S. (2005). Men in the third world. Postcolonial perspectives on

masculinities. In Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities, ed. Michael S. Kimmel,

Jeff Hearn, and Raewyn Connell, 90-113.

Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. Handbook for team-based qualitative research, 2, 137-161.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Survey research. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative

approaches (272-319). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

144

Norman, L. (2008). The UK coaching system is failing women coaches. International Journal of

Sports Science & Coaching, 3(4), 447-476.

North, D. C. (1989). Institutional change and economic history. Journal of Institutional and

Theoretical Economics, 145(1), 238-245.

O Brien, D., & Slack, T. (2003). An analysis of change in an organizational field: The professionalization of English rugby union. Journal of Sport Management, 17(4), 417-

448.

Oakes, L. S., Townley, B., & Cooper, D. J. (1998) Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 257–292.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes, Academy of Management

Review, 16, 145-79.

Owens, E. (2006). Conversational space and participant shame in interviewing. Qualitative

Inquiry, 12(6), 1160-1179.

Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63-85.

Pastore, D. L. (1993). Job satisfaction and female college coaches. Physical Educator, 50(4), 216.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Reay, Trish, & Hinings, C. R. (2005). The recomposition of an organizational field: Health Care in Alberta. Organization Studies 26 (3): 351–384.

Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. Rutgers University Press.

Robertson, M. L. (2006). Explaining variation in the sex composition of coaches for women’s

intercollegiate athletic teams (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University).

Robertson, S., & Marshall, D. (2010). Taking the lead: Strategies and solutions from female

coaches. University of Alberta.

Roffey, K. (2001). Reasons for shortages of female coaches. The Sport Educator, 13(2), 39–40.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage.

Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, W. R. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional

dominance to managed care. University of Chicago Press.

145

Scott, W. R. (2013). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Sage Publications.

Selznick, P. (1949). TVA and the grass roots: A study of politics and organization (Vol. 3). University of California Press.

Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in Administration. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Handbook of organization institutionalism (pp. 1–46). London, England: Sage Publications.

Shaw, S., & Hoeber, L. (2003). A Strong man is direct and a direct woman is a bitch. Gendered discourses and their influence on employment roles in sports organizations. Journal of

Sport Management, 17(4).

Shaw, S., & Frisby, W. (2006). Can Gender Equity Be More Equitable?: Promoting an Alternative Frame for Sport Management Research, Education, and Practice. Journal of Sport Management, 20(4), 483-509.

Shaw, S., & Slack, T. (2002). 'It's been like that for donkey's years': The construction of gender relations and the cultures of sports organizations. Sport in Society, 5(1), 86-106.

Shilling, C. (2004). Physical capital and situated action: a new direction for corporeal sociology. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 473-487.

Siddique, H. (2016). Ans: Botha: 74-year-old who coached Wayde van Niekerk to 400m gold. Retrieved 27 January 2017 from https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/16/ans-botha-74-coach-wayde-van-niekerk-400m-world-record-rio-olympics

Skelton, A. 1993. On becoming a male physical education teacher: The informal culture of students and the construction of hegemonic masculinity. Gender and Education 5 (3): 289-303.

Skirstad, B., & Chelladurai, P. (2011). For ‘love’and money: A sports club’s innovative response to multiple logics. Journal of Sport Management, 25(4), 339-353.

Skocpol, T. (1992). State formation and social policy in the United States. The American

Behavioral Scientist, 35(4), 559.

Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1994). Institutional pressures and isomorphic change: An empirical test. Organization Studies, 15, 803–827.

Southall, M, R., Nagel, S. N., Amis, M, J., & Southall, C. (2008). A method to march madness? Institutional logics and the 2006 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I men’s basketball tournament. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 677–700.

Stangl, J. M., & Kane, M. J. (1991). Structural variables that offer explanatory power for the underrepresentation of women coaches since Title IX: The case of homologous reproduction. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 47-60.

146

Stinchcombe, A. L., & March, J. G. (1965). Social structure and organizations. Advances in

Strategic Management, 17, 229-259.

Tanggaard, L. (2009). The research interview as a dialogical context for the production of social life and personal narratives. Qualitative Inquiry, 15(9), 1498-1515.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling. Journal of Mixed Methods

Research, 1(1), 77-100.

Theberge, N. (1987). A preliminary analysis of the careers of women coaches in Canada. The

Organization and Administration of Sport, 173-192. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.

American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.

Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of

Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 99-128.

Thornton, P. (2004). Markets from culture: institutional logics and organizational decisions in

higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 22-39.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851

Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2001). Research methods knowledge base.

Vernacchia, R. A., & Henschen, K. P. (2008). The challenge of consulting with track and field athletes at the Olympic Games. International Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 6(3), 254-266.

Walker, N., Bopp, T., & Sagas, M. (2011). Gender bias in the perception of women as collegiate men's basketball coaches. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 5(2), 157-176.

Walker, N. A., & Sartore-Baldwin, M. L. (2013). Hegemonic masculinity and the institutionalized bias toward women in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 303-315.

Washington, M. (2004). Field approaches to institutional change: The evolution of the National Collegiate Athletic Association 1906–1995.Organization Studies, 25(3), 393-414.

Washington, M., & Patterson, K. D. (2011). Hostile takeover or joint venture: Connections between institutional theory and sport management research. Sport Management

Review, 14(1),1-12.

147

Weber, M. (1949). Objectivity in social science and social policy. The Methodology of the Social

Sciences, 78, 50-112.

Wilson, R. (2003). How babies alter careers for academics. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, 50(15), A1. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual review of sociology, 13(1),

443-464. Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,

2(1), 1-47.

148

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Wilma Proctor was born on the island of Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean, but lived most

of her life in Anguilla. She earned a B.Sc. in Horticulture at Iowa State University. Later, while

working with the Government of Anguilla, she earned a MSc. in Sport Management with the

United States Sports Academy. Wilma completed her Doctor of Philosophy in Sport

Management at Florida State University in May 2018. My research interests include coaching

and gender issues. Prior to obtaining her PhD, Wilma was the Director of Sports in Anguilla and

was a volunteer track and field coach for over two decades. Her hobbies are golf, fishing, and

spending time with family.