Social Control Techniques in College Athletics: An Application of Goffman and Foucault A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Kendall M. Rainey August 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Kendall M. Rainey All rights reserved. DEDICATION David J. Prior, Chancellor of The University of Virginia’s College at Wise passed away suddenly in February 2012. His death marked an end to a wonderful era in the history and growth of UVa-Wise. Characterized by many accomplishments for the College in the areas of academic programming, development, and student life, his tenure was full of well-documented achievements; but his persona was much more than the sum of the buildings, the fundraising, the enrollments, and the literal miles traveled...he was a mentor, a leader, a teacher, a fan, a supporter, and a friend. The first time I met Chancellor Prior he asked me why I would want to leave the Division I arena and I explained that I hoped to have an opportunity to more directly impact the lives of student-athletes and be in a place where student-athletes and coaches were involved members of the campus community. I wanted to rejoin the college family that had shaped much of my worldview. Not knowing what to expect in response I waited slightly on edge. Then he replied with a resonating insight about why he chose to pursue the journey from a Research I university back to a small campus where he could interact more with the students. He epitomized the ideal of undergraduate education and overall college experiences providing a solid foundation for students. He was overjoyed at seeing students succeed and spent valuable time assisting me as an “external reviewer” of my work. My mind wanders often to him coming into my office with a manuscript to read or his notes on my writing, his emails about telling a coherent story, or his ideas about cutting and pasting. He always had the right story with the right moral to help motivate me at the right time and I hope this final product would make him proud. His belief in me and constant encouragement helped me complete this dissertation and continue to grow professionally. This relationship is irreplaceable and I am grateful. He respected the ideas of everyone and was prepared to propel anyone willing into the next phase of thinking, enlightenment, and happiness. Chancellor Prior was a biologist who often joked on my qualitative writing, while simultaneously showing a genuine interest. One email I received from him closed with this line: “You know, cultural, gender, ability, perceptual, continualitally centered pragmatallically rendered centrism, engaged but incenterally postured third obsrevationalistically positioned.” After a few exchanges that email thread ended with the last email I received from him in January 2012: Mmmm. "That's my girl!!!". Remember, I am of another generation...so allow me an occasional...gender biased dated phrase!!! I am enormously proud of you! Cheers, D ------------------------------ David J. Prior (from my handheld) Chancellor, UVa's College at Wise At the end of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Dumbledore reflects, "After all, to the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." I believe that this idea is fitting for the way Chancellor Prior lived. He was instrumental in helping me with this adventure which made a lifelong impression and I truly hope to make him proud. Cheers to a great man... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe great thanks to several individuals for their support throughout this project. I want to thank my family for their support of my entire 13 year career as a college student. The meals, Budget trucks, bills, car services, and constant support and love they have provided me is incredible. I want to thank my friends for knowing when I needed a mental break and exactly how to help. The tunes, drinks, emojis, sour gummy worms, and retail therapy opportunities have been tremendously helpful. Additionally, I want to thank SiriusXM Satellite Radio, iTunes, and Spotify for continuous streams of music as well as the playlist creators. A special thanks to the proofreaders as well. I want to thank the UVa-Wise staff, faculty, students, and colleagues for providing me advice, support, and interest. The continuous support from so many people across campus has been remarkable. I want to thank my committee members for their patience and guidance throughout this project. Without their advice, encouragement, and understanding I would not have completed the challenge. Specifically, I want to thank Rob for helping me gain confidence in my athletic administrative path; Dr. Barb for helping me understand that emotions can be beneficial and shouldn’t be overlooked; Lars for his constant enthusiasm and thoughtfulness; and Dr. DeSensi for never giving up on me. ABSTRACT College athletics originated as a recess from academic demands and were originally organized by students, yet faculty took over supervision to address safety, professionalism, and academic integrity (Hawkins, 2010). This evolution led to the formation of athletic departments and a governing body (Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Hawkins, 2010). Thus, demonstrating a historical element of social control in the motives of sporting establishments; however, official aims such as character building are typically espoused (Shulman & Bowen, 2001), or as Goffman (1961) states, “the reformation of inmates in the direction of some ideal standard” (p. 74). Examination of the use of available resources within NCAA Division I institutions raises questions concerning relationships of power, locus of control, and the mission of universities and athletic departments, (Benford, 2007; Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). This study analyzes how social control techniques have manifested within NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics as a perpetuation of commercialization. The experience of three NCAA Division I softball student-athletes is presented. The work is methodologically grounded in the theoretical paradigm of pragmatism and is informed substantively by Foucault’s (1979/1995) panopticism and Goffman’s (1961) total institution. A narrative inquiry as defined by Clandidin and Connelly (1994; 2001; 2006) was designed using semi-structured interviews for data collection. The participants’ unique stories illustrate how they experience the disciplines of a total institution. A polycoval method of data analysis was used to ensure that the multiple voices present in the data were represented (Hatch, 2002). This study expands understanding of how the issues of power, social control, and personal empowerment are experienced by NCAA Division I softball student-athletes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: Introduction 1 Purpose of the Study and Research Question 4 Significance of the Study 5 The Power of Intercollegiate Athletics 7 The Relationship of Intercollegiate Athletics and an Academic Mission 9 Comparison of NCAA Divisions 12 Commercial Motivation 16 The NCAA Entertainment Business 22 Rationale for the Study 26 Assumptions of the Study 27 Operational Definitions 28 Organization of the Study 29 Chapter II: Review of Literature 31 Introduction 31 Goffman in Sport Studies 32 Goffman’s Total Institution 33 Foucault in Sport Studies 38 Foucault Overview 39 Foucault’s Disciplinary Power 40 The Feminist-Pragmatist Perspective 43 Relevance of Theoretical Traditions 48 Literature Review Conclusion 51 Chapter III: Methodology 52 Introduction 52 Qualitative Methodology 53 Narrative Inquiry 53 Sport Specific Story 55 Inquiry Approach and Rationale 56 Instrumentation 57 Data Collection 58 Participants 59 Data Analysis 60 Reflexivity Statement 62 Trustworthiness 63 Methodology Conclusion 64 Chapter IV: Narratives 65 Introduction 65 Kim’s Narrative 65 Jill’s Narrative 76 Ashley’s Narrative 89 Kendall’s Narrative – The Researcher 101 Chapter V: Discussion 104 Introduction 104 Docile Bodies and Obligatory Participants 104 Institutional Arrangements: Distributions in Space and Control of Activity 114 The Welcome and Combining and Positioning Forces within a Unit 118 Observation, Examination, and Normalization 122 Panopticism and Integration of Life Activities 132 Conclusion 136 Chapter VI: Conclusions, Limitations, and Recommendations 141 Conclusions of the Study 141 Limitations of the Study 144 Recommendations 145 References 147 Appendices 159 Appendix A: Letter of Introduction 160 Appendix B: Informed Consent 161 Appendix C: Interview Protocol 163 Vita 165 165 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION “[Coach] wants to fill up the day so we’re totally into the program and nothing else. He dud’n want Charles or anybody else just rattling around the campus at night…thinking…or anything counterproductive like that.” (Wolfe, 2004, p. 119) Collegiate athletics…to some the phrase may seem paradoxical due to the perception of incongruence between the two entities as illustrated by the introducing excerpt from Tom Wolfe’s popular novel I Am Charlotte Simmons, yet athletics have become institutionalized within higher education and for many it is a way of life (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). When soldiers returned from World War II, sports were used as a tool for transitioning them back into society and in the Industrial Era, sports were used by trade unions to “keep their members under control…and divert the workers’ [attention] from other less harmless activities” (Brohm, 1978, p. 142). In addition, physical education and school sport were “developed initially…to combat the indiscipline, immorality, and rebellion” present in public schools in the Victorian era (Treadwell, 1984, p. 115). Athletics emerged within institutions of higher education as a form of recreation and recess from academic demands and were originally organized by students, yet faculty soon took over supervision to address safety, professionalism, and academic integrity (Hawkins, 2010). Professionalization and safety concerns in football during the early 1900s led to the formation of athletic departments and a governing body (Shulman & Bowen, 2001; Hawkins, 2010). Therefore, as the origin of athletics demonstrate, there is a historical element of social control present in the motives of sporting establishments; however, official aims such as character building and personal development are typically espoused (Shulman & Bowen, 2001), or related to Goffman’s (1961) research, “the reformation of inmates in the direction of some ideal standard” (p. 74). In modern society, the ever evolving nature of intercollegiate athletics has created a multi-billion dollar sector of the entertainment industry that runs on the work of amateurs: college students. Just like any business, colleges must care for their assets and continue to develop their resources through recruiting and training. In the case of many Division I programs sanctioned by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), these student-athletes are provided with every resource that is buyable and legal based on the guidelines of the NCAA. Student-athletes therefore develop a great sense of attachment and commitment to the university, similar to Goffman’s (1961) discussion of how individuals in total institutions become attached. As with many aspects of education, there are strengths and weaknesses regarding the allocation of such resources for student-athletes. Examination of the use of available resources raises questions concerning relationships of power, locus of control, student-athlete dependency, and the mission of universities, athletic departments, coaches, professors, and student-athletes themselves (Benford, 2007; Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). This study analyzes how social control techniques have manifested within NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletics as a perpetuation of commercialization. The issues of power and control related to the social order of intercollegiate athletics is the primary area of emphasis in this study. Priest, Krause, and Beach (1999) reported that college student-athletes’ ethical choices in sport situations decreased from their freshmen year to their senior year. They explained that an underlying cause of this decrease in moral reasoning is that many of these student-athletes are not actually allowed opportunities to make critical decisions on their own during their playing careers (Priest, et al., 1999). Therefore, because they are dependent upon coaches, university medical staff, administrators, and other college staff members for a majority of their decisions some student-athletes have a limited ability to reason morally. At many universities a student-athlete’s entire schedule is planned for them, and as Coakley (2007) states, “much of their lives is controlled by others” (p. 518). This control is publicized as a means of ensuring student-athlete well-being, but underlying is the institutional motive to protect commercial assets. Many services are provided to benefit student-athletes in order to help them fulfill their responsibilities as both students and athletes; however, research indicates they may also be limiting the growth opportunities for the student-athletes (Gerdy, 2002; Priest, et al., 1999, Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Intercollegiate athletics exist as part of the institution of academia, but as Coakley (2007) states, “athletes are not [necessarily] allowed to express critical thoughts about what happens to them” (p. 518). Similarly, Hughes and Coakley (1991) explain that overconformity and positive deviance result from external control (e.g. from coaches, fans, and media) that encourages student-athletes to act in the best interest of others rather than themselves. They assert that the self-sacrifices made by these student-athletes in order to achieve the institutional goal are acted out subconsciously because of the commitment inherent in team sports. These studies conclude that if student-athletes have no practice at moral decision making they may not be prepared for making responsible decisions once their collegiate experience has culminated (Gerdy, 2002; Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Priest, et al., 1999). As Billy Hawkins (2010) explains, “when we do not control the decisions about our productivity and creativity, we are internally colonized. When our career activities are not motivated by a desire for inner freedom, self-expression, and a desire to contribute to human development, we are functioning like internally colonized individuals” (p. xi). Building from such research, this study aims to add to the conversation as it focuses specifically on the experiences of NCAA Division I softball student-athletes. It is methodologically grounded in the theoretical tradition of pragmatism and is informed substantively by Foucault’s (1979/1995) panopticism and Goffman’s (1961) total institution. In accordance with pragmatism’s emphasis on the unique stories of experience, a narrative inquiry has been designed that uses semi-structured interviews as the primary means of data collection. A polycoval data analysis method was used to ensure that all voices present in the data are represented (Hatch, 2002). The remainder of this chapter provides a discussion of the relationship between academia and athletics as positioned within the context of higher education, highlighting variables that underlie power relations and social control. It concludes with a description of the study’s framework, while the following chapters provide the depth of the research. Purpose of the Study and Research Question Hughes and Coakley (1991) and Johns and Johns (2000) suggest that sports as total institutions are exacerbating social control as a contributing factor to overconformity and positive deviance among athletes. Overconformity and positive deviance are defined as extreme identification with norms of the culture to achieve a desired status, success, or respect by others within the culture by meeting an ideal standard (Coakley, 2007). Disordered eating, playing through injuries, and using performance enhancing drugs are examples of how an athlete may overconform (Coakley, 2007). These observations are made in their research on the sport ethic. The sport ethic is defined as “a set of norms accepted as the dominant criteria for defining what is required to be defined and accepted as an athlete in power and performance sports” (Coakley, 2007, p. 161). These studies suggest that Goffman’s theory may be applicable in the context of athletics by arguing that inducements to deviance exist in those who are over-controlled and who are accepting of these situations (Hughes & Coakley, 1991; Johns & Johns, 2000). Similarly, Coakley and Dunning (2007) suggest that the Foucauldian idea of disciplinary power can be assessed in sport due to the attention to fundamentals and detail of movements, statistical measurements, visual examination and documentation, hierarchical observation, and positioning of bodies within the machine of production which may critically influence participants reasoning and decision making. The purpose of this study is to contextualize and illustrate Erving Goffman’s (1961) theory of total institution and Michel Foucault’s (1979/1995) theory of panopticism within the environment of intercollegiate athletics. In particular, this narrative study focuses on the issues of power and discipline as they relate to the experience of student-athletes who compete in softball at NCAA Division I universities. The paradigm of total institution is generally defined as the disciplinary, surveillance, and total care mechanisms that the participants experience as collegiate student-athletes (Goffman, 1961). The paradigm of panopticism is defined as an environment where authority is omnipresent and this “gaze” leads the participants to a self-regulating path of normalization among their peers (Foucault, 1979/1995). This study is designed to expand understanding and answer the primary research question of how do the issues of power, social control, and personal empowerment appear within the narratives of NCAA Division I softball student-athletes? Significance of the Study The present study is designed to examine the experiences of NCAA Division I softball student-athletes in an effort to understand if the techniques of total institution and/or disciplinary power exist within their social system. The findings can help decision makers to better understand the student-athletes’ perceptions of certain activities, measures, and relationships. This information can impact the structure and culture of intercollegiate athletic environments by promoting a positive learning environment. The findings of this dissertation provide information for a variety of stakeholders including college coaches, athletic administrators, and scholars alike who are interested in learning more about the experience of collegiate student-athletes and how to influence them in a constructive manner. The resulting narrative can be beneficial to the fields of sport management, higher education, and sport sociology. More understanding of how these student-athletes perceive their role within the university (broadly) and the athletic department (specifically), how they produce meaning, and how they negotiate the relations of power within the context of NCAA Division I softball can facilitate the creation of adaptive strategies for teaching autonomous skills necessary of success in college careers and throughout their lives. Particularly, for professionals who work in intercollegiate athletic administration the resulting narratives provide deeper insight into the perceptions of certain student-athletes that may benefit programs for academic preparation and life skill development. The data may not directly result in changing the culture of intercollegiate sports at the NCAA Division I level, but it presents a basis for program enhancement in terms of how certain student-athletes internalize the discipline and control mechanisms they experience. Tangible factors addressed include items ranging from the language, tone, and physical actions of coaches to the provision or adaptation of student-athlete support services to the adoption of a set of best practices for facilitating the maturation of student-athletes. The Power of Intercollegiate Athletics The quandary surrounding the role, goals, and overall life of the intercollegiate student-athlete is one that involves many stakeholders and is largely influenced by individuals and groups with no direct relationship with the student-athletes. Such influences, including boosters, television networks, the NCAA, sponsors, and college presidents have histories that are deeply rooted in terms of their power over intercollegiate athletics and the respective individuals who participate. Further, the interests of the various stakeholders often oppose one another; the issues of higher admission standards versus a desire for more tutors, and better class attendance versus higher profile television games represent common conflicts that emerge as the mission of intercollegiate sports and the role of the student-athlete is developed (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). The expression of such differing points of view often reflects the values of these groups. In this culture, academic values and life skill development are often stretched to their limits by the economic pressures associated with high profile athletics, and student-athletes are positioned at the axis of these power struggles (Benford, 2007; Yost, 2010). History illustrates how institutions of higher education can allow their mission to be compromised by the pressures surrounding athletic program success. For instance, in the early 1990s, there were several accusations of sexual assault by members of the University of Nebraska football team. Investigations were conducted by head coach Tom Osborne, but there was basically no police involvement and no punishment for the football players, while the women were continually harassed by Nebraska football fans (Benford, 2007). Although protests by women’s activist groups kept the issue in the press, rather than denounce the football players, the university and its many constituents overwhelmingly continued to exalt them because of their athletic prowess (Benford, 2007). Similarly, in 1988 Indiana University head men’s basketball coach Bob Knight stated in an NBC interview with Connie Chung that the pressure of coaching a high profile college men’s basketball team was similar to rape in that, “if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it” (as quoted in Moran, 1988, para. 2). Thomas Ehrlich, the president of IU at the time, released a statement that this sentiment was not supported by the university. This response sparked outrage from Knight and Ehrlich apologized, thus demonstrating “who possessed actual power at IU” (Sperber, 2000, p. 24). These incidents illustrate the strong presence of athletics within the university setting 20 years ago. Since which time, this influence has continued as media attention and commercialization have increased exponentially. The 2012 scandal surrounding Penn State’s football program is a prime example of the distribution of power within a high profile athletic department and university, as sexual abuse by the defensive coordinator went unreported to police authorities for decades (Moushey & Dvorchak, 2012). At a time of national economic crisis, many colleges and universities turned to their athletic departments to improve the institution’s financial stability. Ironically, fewer than 25 NCAA sanctioned athletic departments can actually support themselves, much less other areas of the university (Fulks, 2012). Herein lies the dilemma, athletic departments act as an advertising agent and student recruitment tool for the institution as well as a tie to alumni and potential donors, while at the same time they are asking for lower academic expectations for student-athletes and additional financial support from the university (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Thus, questions arise concerning the role of intercollegiate athletics within higher education, the commitment of coaches and athletic departments to advocating the holistic development of student-athletes, and the power dynamics that are present within the context. By analyzing the stories and experiences of NCAA Division I softball players, a better understanding of their position within the institution can lead to the development of a culture that provides them a voice. The Relationship of Intercollegiate Athletics and an Academic Mission A long history of support for and criticism of athletics within the educational setting exists in the United States. When the College of William and Mary was founded in 1692 college authorities were adverse to athletics on campus and this was the prevailing thought in American universities until the later nineteenth century (Smith, 1988). Athletics began on campuses as students used extracurricular activities such as “sport in a rejection of their highly restricted lives” (Smith, 1988, p. 14). Yet, by the mid-1800s intercollegiate athletic competition had been born, and from its inception with the Yale-Harvard regatta of 1852 there was commercial influence (Smith, 1988). “The freedom to pursue [what students felt was a liberating] pastime sometimes led to rancor as the strong competitive element in American society dominated the commercially stimulated collegiate contests” (Smith, 1988, p. 4). Thus, the two entities have been wedded for more than a century, yet some years have certainly been tumultuous with reform measures being the consistent norm (Hawkins, 2010). A discussion of the role of athletics in enhancing the educational and social development of participants, in promoting the university, and in supporting the overall mission of the university is critical to an analysis of intercollegiate athletics and student-athletes’ experiences. The missions of colleges and universities are often stated and organized uniquely. Although varied, each represents one of two broad schools of thought: knowledge for the sake of knowledge or developing leaders for tomorrow (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). Intercollegiate athletics “has no direct connection” to the premise of knowledge for its own sake, yet there is a strong voice from the athletic community for the case of developing leaders through sport competition (Shulman & Bowen, 2001, p. 3). The argument is that discipline, teamwork, pursuit of goals, and self-sacrifice among other qualities can be learned through participation in athletics and can lead to the development of future leaders (Shulman & Bowen, 2001). The implication being that the positive leadership qualities which are learned through participation in athletics coupled with the sense of community that sports provide serve as adequate justification for universities to embrace college sports as an avenue for facilitating their overall mission of leader development. It seems, however, that the need to justify athletics as a part of the higher education system in America has been displaced as sports have become institutionalized within the modern culture of higher education. The fielding of intercollegiate athletic teams has essentially become expected and uncritically accepted as part of the educational development of campus communities. As Shulman and Bowen (2001) state, it appears that our societal preference is “for an extensive commitment to sports within higher education [due to an] insatiable appetite for sports that is evident in our daily lives” (p. 5). In many ways athletics serves as the face of the university as scores, stories, and information on sports is more readily available than information on the college community at large. The daily, hourly, and even by the minute publication of athletic news makes this segment of an institution of higher education extremely prominent within broader society. To illustrate, 85% of Americans open the sports page of the newspaper first (Yost, 2010), and it was reported that businesses experienced a loss of nearly $4 billion in productivity during March 2006 during the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, otherwise known as March Madness (Eder, 2008). In other years, this figure has been reported to be in the range of $1 to $3 billion (Eder, 2008). Therefore, university support of their athletics program increases publicity and connections to potential students, sponsors, donors, and alumni. For example, George Mason University’s men’s basketball team made a surprise run to the Final Four in 2006 and experienced an increase in admission inquiries of 350%, out-of-state applicants of 40%, and active alumni of 25% (Wolverton, 2008). Butler University saw a similar increase following their appearance in the 2010 men’s basketball championship game as overall applications increased by 40% and out-of-state by 62% over the previous year (Butler University, 2011). Additionally, Pope and Pope (2012) found that a university that has a successful year in either football or men’s basketball “on average receives up to 10% more SAT scores” from prospective applicants (p. 1). They attribute this increase to the accessibility and attention afforded the university surrounding the athletic success (Pope & Pope, 2012). Pope and Pope (2012) also cite the example of BYU experiencing a four percent increase in applications after Jimmer Fredette’s impressive 2011 basketball season leading the team to the Sweet 16 (p. 4). The opportunity that sports provide to make such an impression on these respective groups serves as a basic pillar supporting the positive relation of college athletics to the university. Athletics is clearly an integral component of collegiate culture; “if [they] were still looked upon as peripheral activities that existed at the fringes of college life, it seems unlikely that either the presidents of these institutions, the [U.S.] Senate, or the Office of Civil Rights would have taken such a [historically] powerful interest in them” (Shulman & Bowen, 2001, p. 14). However, this integration of athletic philosophies with the academic mission, goals, and values of the university is precisely what the 1929 Carnegie Report foreshadowed with the shifting governance of sports from student, to faculty, to athletic departments (Hawkins, 2010; Shulman & Bowen, 2001). The report espoused that “the heart of the problem facing college sports was commercialization…[and] the victim was the student-athlete in particular, the [diminution] of educational and intellectual values in general” (Thelin, 1994, p. 26). During these early stages of intercollegiate competition several prominent university presidents expressed a sense of fear while observing the increasing influence of athletics within the organizational culture. In 1893, Cornell College President W.F. King noted that “the interest [in athletics] is too intense to be compatible with educational advantages” (Yost, 2010, p. 39); and in his justification for dropping football in 1939, Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago remarked that, “college is not a great athletic association and social club, in which provision is made, merely incidentally, for intellectual activity on the part of the physically and socially unfit” (Yost, 2010, p. 41). Despite opinions like these, society’s affinity for intercollegiate sports has subsequently been overwhelmingly supported well into the 21st century (Gerdy, 2002). The 1890 perspective of Princeton President Woodrow Wilson has been perpetuated into the modern era; “Princeton is noted in this wide world for three things: Football, baseball, and collegiate instruction” (Yost, 2010, p. 38). Comparison of NCAA Divisions As indicated, the philosophical as well as sociological ideal of athletics housed within higher education is increasingly becoming challenged. Analyzing the differences between NCAA Division I, Division II, and Division III, economic forces and the evolution of athletics as an entertainment product, and the academic commitment of student-athletes are important in evaluating power relations and the social system of NCAA institutions and of intercollegiate athletics. Traditionally, NCAA Division III athletics has been believed to embody the concept of what college athletics was intended to be, that is, Division III colleges cannot provide scholarships based solely on athletic talent. Theoretically, this restriction shields these schools and student-athletes from the commercialization and financial influences present in Division I and Division II athletics. Based on the philosophy statements in the NCAA bylaws, Division III institutions are the closest to representing the true student-athlete dichotomy. The fundamental differences between NCAA divisions appear in their stated goals and expectations, constituencies served, sport sponsorship, and financial aid and minimum attendance requirements. Division I states a primary emphasis on competitiveness and revenue production while Divisions II and III place importance on the educational experience of the student-athlete. According to Bylaw 20.9 of the NCAA Division I Manual, “a member of Division I strives in its athletic program for regional and national excellence and prominence…and sponsors at the highest feasible level of intercollegiate competition in one or both of the traditional spectator-oriented, income-producing sports of football and basketball” (p. 340). This bylaw continues by explaining that Division I institutions should be cognizant of “maintaining an appropriate competitive level, especially in the emphasized, spectator-oriented sports” (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 340). Thus, producing a high quality athletic product in the spectator-oriented sports that achieves national recognition and can generate revenue encompasses the priorities of Division I. In contrast, Division II focuses on the overall student-athlete experience by providing “growth opportunities through academic achievement, learning in high level athletics competition and development of positive social attitudes in service to the community” (NCAA Division II Manual, 2011, p. 277); and Bylaw 20.11 of the Division III Manual (2011) explicitly states that “athletics activities are conducted as an integral part of the student-athlete’s educational experience, in which the coaches play a significant role as educators” (p. 186). Division II emphasizes the “balance” of athletics in serving the institution and their region, while Division III “places special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and places greater emphasis on the internal constituency than on the general public and its entertainment needs” (NCAA Division III Manual, 2011, p. 186). Even the Division II and III bylaws recognize the entertainment and revenue component of Division I culture as they strive to distinguish themselves. Differences among divisions also appear in the criteria for scheduling contests and attendance requirements. Bylaw 20.9.6 for Division I requires men’s and women’s basketball to play Division I opponents in all but two contests and the men must play a minimum of one-third of their games at their home arena (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 345). Additionally, Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs must play at least five home football contests each season and “average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football games once every two years on a rolling basis” (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 346). These two bylaws reflect the significance of high level, spectator-friendly competition and the revenue it produces for Division I programs. Division II men’s and women’s basketball teams are required to play half of their contests against other Division II programs, however, there are no attendance requirements (NCAA Division II Manual, 2011). Division III has general sport sponsorship requirements, but no similar contest stipulations as described in Divisions I and II. The lack of such restrictions supports the lower divisions’ philosophies of promoting “equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs” (NCAA Division III Manual, 2011, p. 186). Financial aid for student-athletes is another area in which philosophical differences appear between the three NCAA divisions. Division I requires its institutions to provide either (a) 50% of the maximum allowable grant-in-aids in 14 sports with at least seven for women’s sports; (b) financial aid of at least $1,394,580 in 2013-2014 exclusive of football and men’s and women’s basketball with at least $697,290 in women’s sports; or (c) a minimum of 50 full grant-in-aids, not including football and men’s and women’s basketball, with at least 25 in women’s sports (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 341). Division II stipulates financial aid requirements of approximately half the financial commitment of Division I. Division II institutions must offer (a) 50% of the maximum allowable equivalencies in four sports, two being women’s; (b) a minimum of 20 full grant-in-aids with 10 being women’s; or (c) a minimum total scholarship expenditure of $250,000 with half going to women’s sports (NCAA Division II Manual, 2011, p. 278). On the opposite end of the continuum, Division III may not award financial aid based on athletic ability (NCAA Division III Manual, 2011, p. 187). These criteria for financial aid commitments further signify the importance of high caliber athletic performance in Division I, as well as representing a means of institutional power for rationalizing the control of activities for student-athletes. The philosophy statements of all three NCAA Divisions clearly distinguishes them from one another and indicate that Division I programs are more uniformly organized in a business-like manner while the lower two divisions are more unique and focus on being “integrated into the campus culture and educational mission” (NCAA Division III Manual, 2011, p. 186). Examining how these philosophies translate into the day-to-day experience of student-athletes is the sociological basis for this study within the Division I environment with a primary focus on understanding the power dynamics and social control mechanisms that influence their lives within the context. A 2008 NCAA study provides tangible data to illustrate how these principles actually function with regard to time commitments of student-athletes (Paskus). Division I softball players report spending an average of 37.1% of their time on their sport (which is the highest of all Division I women’s sports) and 38.5% on academics, while their Division III counterparts spend 29.1% on athletics and 40.3% on their studies (Paskus, 2008). Thus, the time allocated for student-athlete responsibilities by softball players is 75.6% and 69.4% for Division I and Division III, respectively (Paskus, 2008). This finding that more than three-quarters of a Division I softball player’s day is submitted to the control of institutional staff members provides a basis for examining the setting through the concepts of total institution and panopticism. Commercial Motivation The evolution of athletic influence within the campus community, particularly at major athletic schools has led college athletics reformers to assess it as a threat to the integrity of universities. This modern culture, which places such power in the hands of athletics, “represents a symbolic form of ‘ownership,’ a powerful reassuring sign that one’s university…is not an outpost controlled by an alien ‘higher’ culture of ideas or knowledge” (Dowling, 2000, p. 33). The implication being that college athletics has been overtaken by commercial influences and the educational institutions are being influenced by the values represented by their athletic departments; this two-fold shift in control has reached a point of severe conflict between major college athletics and the academic mission of the university. Billy Hawkins (2010) is less subtle in stating, “intercollegiate athletics (specifically NCAA Division I Institutions) has purely embraced commercialism and capitalist ideals, while the academic arm of the university has wavered between academic elitism and academic capitalism” (p. 161). The academy has demonstrated extreme concern and has resisted many variables of this commercial athletic culture including media attention, high salaries for coaches, and high revenues and expenses (Hawkins, 2010). Finances are dictating many decisions regarding how student-athletes are recruited, treated, and retained or released. Within the NCAA, Division I lies at one end of the funding continuum with Division III at the other end. A legislative attempt to lessen the strain on the relationship between the educational mission and intercollegiate athletics at NCAA Division I institutions in the state of California illustrates recognition of such issues and could be a step toward reform. The passage of the Student-Athlete Bill of Rights (California Senate Bill No. 1525) stipulates that institutions that generate at least $10,000,000 through media rights must only allocate that revenue to provide life skills programs and financial planning workshops for student-athletes as well as sufficient healthcare and insurance for injured and low income student-athletes (2012, Section 2). Across all levels of the NCAA there is almost an innate passion for sports on campus, yet their direct relevance to the overall mission of the school varies. For example, The University of Tennessee Knoxville’s stated purpose is to “move forward the frontiers of human knowledge and enrich and elevate society” (University of Tennessee, 2010), and with “discovery at the heart of [the] university,” The University of Washington “educates a diverse student body to become responsible global citizens and future leaders through a challenging learning environment” (University of Washington, 2010). Duke University aims to “provide a superior liberal education to undergraduate students, attending not only to their intellectual growth but also to their development as adults committed to high ethical standards and full participation as leaders in their communities” (Duke University, 2001). Athletics can certainly provide a challenging environment, situations to demonstrate ethical standards, and enrich society, so in these broad terms they can be justified as a supporting component of universities’ missions. A common position is that sports teach the same educational values that are championed by the university, such as desire, leadership, dedication, character, and commitment to a greater cause; “In this sense, competitive athletics were viewed as an extracurricular activity, justified by the university as part of its ideal objective of educating the whole person” (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 70). Athletics definitely has the potential to foster such qualities; however, these are often the characteristics of student-athletes that are exploited by their athletic departments as well as the university for economic gain. They work hard, are loyal, and play for their love of the sport while their university is profiting from their performance. An alternative scenario is that the athletes are at the university with the objective of becoming professional athletes, thus using the university as a training center, having no concern for the educational mission. The acceptance of such devaluation of the academic role of the university further magnifies the divergence of athletics and education. Additionally, admission of less academically prepared student-athletes to a university is justified by attempting to create a more diverse student body and facilitating the educational experience through the interaction of differing cultures, backgrounds, and interests among the students (Shulman & Bowen, 2001); as The University of Washington advocates, “discovery through diversity” (University of Washington, 2010). This is appealing, but does it actually happen? On smaller campuses, the intended socialization is more apparent. Student-athletes are often members of other student organizations and are involved in activities within their academic departments. This engagement piece is actually central to the NCAA Division II and Division III platforms. On larger campuses, and in larger athletic programs, it seems that student-athletes do not feel they have time for socializing with their peers outside of sports to the same extent, or the effort of the institution to integrate them is minimal (Paskus, 2008). For instance, obligations relative to their sport participation including community service projects, athletic training room visits, interviews, and team meetings minimize study time as well as social time. A 2008 NCAA study across all divisions indicated that 65% of student-athletes wished they had more time for socializing, 59% for academics, and 50% for extracurricular activities (Paskus, 2008). However, 22% of males in the study would use an extra hour for athletics, 19% for socializing, and 18% for academics; whereas 27% of females would use extra time for socializing, 18% for academics, and only 11% for athletics (Paskus, 2008). One way to interpret these results is that males seem to place more significance on the athletic participation and want to spend all of their time involved in sport or socializing, while females appear to feel like they are consumed with their sport and academic responsibilities and wish for a little down time. Regardless, the high level of desire for academic and social time indicates that the greatest emphasis imposed on these student-athletes is their athletic performance. Cantor and Prentice (1996) found that bonding among athletes is not without consequence. “Compared with other students, athletes report having grown less as people at college and having spent limited time at cultural events, pursuing new interests, or meeting new people from different backgrounds” (p. 80). Therefore, the high profile athletic culture overrides the opportunity of student-athletes to benefit from interaction with other students who may come from very different backgrounds on a regular basis. Thus, this isolation begs the question, does the argument of athletics enhancing a diverse student body actually still apply, or are student-athletes at the NCAA Division I level being “internally colonized?” (Hawkins, 2010, p. xi). It has been asserted that student-athletes in many programs are like cogs in a wheel, a means of production, and an economic asset for their high profile athletic departments and their respective universities (Benford, 2007). Some reformers have even referred to today’s intercollegiate athletic culture as “the new plantation” (Hawkins, 2010). Is a student-athlete’s use of a university as a gateway to professional athletics consistent with a school’s purpose, and is the consequent exploitation of talented, young adults congruent with a school’s mission? Answering these questions is critical when exploring the holistic development and maturation of student-athletes. There is criticism of the idea that NCAA Division I college athletics is serving to educate students in a manner that will lead to a greater good for American society. Not only are the time commitments of student-athletes, which are assigned by staff members, limiting their opportunities for “outside” interaction, but this “controlled, authoritative environment also hinders an athlete’s ability to think and act for himself” (Gerdy, 2002, p. 46). Former student-athletes may be successful in careers where high energy and competitiveness are necessary qualities, yet in positions that “emphasize critical thinking, autonomy, and the capacity to know when not to seek a ‘win’ at all costs…athlete-type attributes may offer some disadvantages” (Shulman & Bowen, 2001, p. 190). Nathan Tublitz, neurobiology professor at The University of Oregon and co-chairman of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, explains that “the goals of athletics and academics are divergent” (Yost, 2010, p. 172). He continued, “The values within the academic community are not being carried by the athletic community, [and] the end result is that there are still a lot of students coming to the university who are unprepared academically” (Yost, 2010, p. 172). Shulman and Bowen (2001) support these claims by demonstrating that the modern “athletic culture” is creating a division between student-athletes and other students and that “more recently recruited athletes are [increasingly] less like their classmates” when evaluated on several academic dimensions (p. 83). Hawkins (2010) explains the challenge as student-athletes enter the NCAA Division I setting where staying eligible is paramount. Academic advisors must assist student-athletes in meeting “academic demands instituted by the NCAA, work within the time constraints of athletic demands (which is a full-time occupation with over-time), as well as, be compassionate to the fact that many of the athletes they are working with are academically unprepared” (Hawkins, 2010, p. 179). The commercial interests underlying the internal functions of NCAA Division I athletic programs lead to rationalized social control of student-athletes and a continued call for reform. Concerns have been voiced that college student-athletes may not be negotiating some of the presumed life challenges for themselves, thus limiting their opportunities for the effectiveness of developmental processes. In some cases, such as at Kansas State University, tutors and other staff members are available to the student-athletes 24/7 and accept that “significant handholding” may be required (Yost, 2010, p. 17). The highly structured and detailed levels of control exercised by coaches and other college and athletic department officials may minimize the development of independent thoughts and actions of student-athletes. Further, the time that they are required to spend on their sport decreases the time available to spend on academic as well as social activities, thus limiting growth in these critical life skill areas as well. When responsibility for simple life skills such as deciding when and what to eat and washing your laundry are delegated to someone else there may well be a developmental digression. As Tublitz concludes, many high profile college student-athletes “Don’t have the training or the skills to be independent after they leave the University. They’re lost.” (Yost, 2010, p. 46). Yet, these services and resources are in place to ensure the well-being of student-athletes because decision makers within the institution “assume [to] know the interests and what is best for athletes” (Hawkins, 2010, p. 135). Critics, however, believe that means of social control are motivated by economic factors. Student-athlete are “exploited physically to accumulate capital for institutions that render them powerless and deprive them of their rights of making informed decisions about their lives” (Hawkins, 2010, p. 145). The National Letter of Intent (NLI) exemplifies some of the rights that student-athletes waive upon committing to an institution. Once a student-athlete has signed the NLI they cannot transfer without losing eligibility for the academic year in all sports, and as it is designated that the student-athlete is committing to the institution rather than the coach, therefore, they remain bound to the NLI if the coach leaves the institution (National Letter of Intent, 2011). The NLI also permits the NLI office and the institution to disclose personal information to third parties including the media and waives the student-athlete’s rights under the Family Educational Right and Privacy Act (FERPA) (National Letter of Intent, 2011). Additionally, before becoming certified as eligible to compete a student-athlete must be deemed an amateur by the NCAA Eligibility Center and throughout their career at the institution they must receive permission from the compliance office prior to working (NCAA Eligibility Center, 2011). Other information that must consistently be provided to the compliance office includes automobile information, including ownership information (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). The NCAA Entertainment Business While acknowledging the vast “scope of operations” across college athletics, Li, Hofacre, and Mahony (2001) state that the mission of university athletic programs is to “provide an athletic entertainment product to their students, faculty, staff, and other constituents, such as their alumni and local communities” (p. 8). The higher the level the more pronounced this goal of serving the spectator becomes, with NCAA Division I bylaws explicitly requiring institutions to sponsor high level competition in “spectator-oriented, income-producing sports” (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 340). Given this philosophy, “the entertainment value overshadows and dulls our senses to the political aspects associated with intercollegiate athletics” (Hawkins, 2010, p. 133). In turn, as university athletic departments have become more revenue conscious the more protective of their resources (student-athletes) they have become and thus more social control techniques have become common within these institutions (Hawkins, 2010). The NCAA has enjoyed many terms of endearment throughout its existence, yet with regard to its business practices economists have described the NCAA as a monopsony, a cartel, and a monopoly among other things (Li, et al., 2001). Regarding NCAA operations, Hawkins (2010) explains, “although the original purpose of their existence was legislative, they have evolved to be in the business of marketing goods and services and wealth distribution” (p. 133). From the economist’s perspective, the vast number of participants under the umbrella of the NCAA, the large revenue stream the organization derives primarily from men’s basketball and football, and the relatively minimal compensation allocated to the labor force (student-athletes) justifies the use of such descriptors. The estimated marginal revenue product (MRP) for Division I FBS football players is upwards of $400,000, while the MRP for premier men’s basketball players may exceed $1 million (Brown & Jewell, 2004). With student-athletes generating revenue of this magnitude and their compensation level collusively set at the cost of tuition, room, and board, the NCAA and its major market member institutions are generating an excessive revenue margin. Lane, Nagel, and Netz (2010) found that approximately “60% of men’s basketball players, not just the stars,” have MRP’s that exceed athletic scholarship offers (p. 1). The NCAA’s defense against charges of exploitation is that, “providing the opportunity to earn a college degree, [and maintaining] that athletes are students first” they have fairly paid players for their work (Eckard, 2010, p. 45). Under the NCAA’s veil of amateurism, student-athletes’ “resources (skills and images) are extorted while they are restricted to an antiquated principle, which regulates their behavior and determines their benefits” (Hawkins, 2010, p. 135). Ninety-two percent of the NCAA’s revenue is derived from television and marketing rights and championship revenue, with the NCAA’s television contract for March Madness accounting for the largest portion of this revenue stream (NCAA Revenue Breakdown, 2013). The NCAA’s contract with CBS for television rights to March Madness, the Division I men’s championship basketball tournament, was worth $6.1 billion through 2010 (Yost, 2010). In April 2010, the NCAA signed a new contract with CBS and Turner Broadcasting valuing their 68-team men’s basketball tournament at $10.8 billion over 14 years (Hiestand, 2010). When compared to the NCAA’s contract with ESPN for the women’s basketball tournament, the baseball College World Series, and 20 other championships that is worth $55 million over three years, the significant value placed on March Madness is evident (Hiestand, 2010). However, the NCAA serves as the non-profit middleman as they distribute about 96% of their revenue back to conferences and members institutions (NCAA Revenue Breakdown, 2013). According to the NCAA’s published revenue distribution plan, in 2009-2010 approximately $167.1 million was appropriated to conferences whose members competed in the Division I men’s basketball championship (Revenue Distribution Plan, 2010, p. 7). This basketball distribution fund accounted for 40% of the revenue distributed, while five percent was appropriated for academic assistance (Revenue Distribution Plan, 2010, p. 3). The projected distribution for 2012-2013 is $797 million with $702 million being derived from the CBS contract (NCAA Revenue Breakdown, 2013). “Broadcasters and advertisers [have] repackaged athletic events, coaches, and players as entertainment products, creating a celebrity culture that [is] sharply contrasted with the academic culture of the university,” which causes concern among reformers (Duderstadt, 2000, p. 76). The degree that such emphasis on spectator entertainment and revenue leads to institutions’ “socially controlling the lives of student-athletes” is the sociological focus of this study (Hawkins, 2010, p. 138). Revenue distribution for football is managed differently than basketball. Currently, the NCAA does not sponsor a championship in NCAA FBS Division I football; revenue from the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) and non-BCS bowl games is distributed by each bowl committee and sponsoring agency to participating conference and teams (Smith, 2011). For the 2011 football bowl season the BCS’s total payout was $174.07 million, with 83.4% going to the six automatic qualifier conferences (Smith, 2011, p. 1). The big financial winners were the Big 10, Pac-10, and SEC, with each conference receiving $27.2 million from their membership’s bowl appearances (Smith, 2011). 2011’s payout was 22% greater than 2010 due to a new media contract with ESPN (Smith, 2011). Interestingly, a mere 25 NCAA Division I (FBS) athletic departments are operating with a surplus despite all of these large revenue distribution figures (Fulks, 2012). It may legitimately be asked how this is happening, and the simplest answer is extravagant spending. As a recent Knight Commission report on restoring balance within intercollegiate athletics recognized spending at current levels is “unsustainable” (Solomon, 2010, para. 3). Among the major conferences, “average spending per athlete…ranges from four to nearly 11 times more than the average spending on education-related activities per student” (Solomon, 2010, para. 4). In 2008, the SEC specifically spent $144,592 per student-athlete and $13,410 per student on campus (Solomon, 2010, para. 4). Therefore, for a university that has approximately 500 student-athletes they are spending over $72 million per year. Compensation for coaches and athletic administrators, incentive structures, and corporate sponsorship are also areas of commercial interests within intercollegiate athletics. Intercollegiate athletics “are great entertainment conducted under the name of the universities, financed in part by student fees and gate receipts, but driven primarily by the hundreds of millions of dollars pumped in each year by the TV networks and media enterprises, shoe and apparel companies, and institutional boosters” (Friday, 2011, para. 3). Consequently, the financial gain that coaches and athletic administrators can reap from their student-athletes’ successes represents further motive for increased supervision and social control of student-athletes within the institutional setting. In 2011 for example, “32 NCAA FBS coaches and 11 NCAA Division I men's basketball coaches earned more than $2 million annually,” and of the contracts that included academic performance incentives they “averaged $52,000 per coach, while athletic incentives averaged $600,000 per coach” (Duncan & McMillen, 2013, para. 4). This reward structure is another underlying factor indicating the connection between commercialization in NCAA Division I athletics contributing to the social control of student-athletes. Rationale for the Study The allowance of economic forces to infiltrate higher education with intercollegiate athletics as the gateway has led the edifice of education to be scrutinized. In athletics specifically, commercialization is a significant force that places pressure on the university’s intended mission and results in difficult governance issues throughout the institutions and within the NCAA. Is there an ideal for intercollegiate athletics; a perfectly unified and functioning system that provides financial stability and publicity for the institution, a superior extracurricular experience for the participants, and a solid entertainment product for the fans? A system that adequately meets all of these standards is not likely to be realized, but there are steps that can be taken in order to strive for such goals and satisfactory services. Reviewing the evolution of the relationship between the mission of higher education and athletics, the educational and social value of college athletics, and the existing power relations provides an opportunity to assess the socialization experience of student-athletes from their unique perspectives. Additionally, recognizing the inherence of a social system of checks and balances and control mechanisms which are continually becoming more sophisticated allows for an analysis of the context through the lens of social theory paradigms. As layers of accountability are placed on student-athletes in order to ensure a functionality that ultimately results in financial profitability for the institution, the significance of listening to the student-athlete is magnified. Through this review, concerns emerge related to the well-being of the student-athlete; and in terms of regard for the civic maturity and social interaction of student-athletes, using the paradigms of total institution and panopticim in this study is intended to increase understanding of such relationships of power, social control, and personal empowerment within the environment of NCAA Division I softball. Assumptions of the Study It is impossible to approach any topic with complete objectivity as we are always “in the midst” of living and forming ideas from our experiences (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 63). Therefore, assumptions are ever-present in day-to-day living as well as the conduct of research projects. Given the narrative and specific nature of this study, there is one encompassing assumption to note: individual experiences are not to be generalized (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). It is assumed that the experience of a student-athlete is a phenomenon that varies greatly with the context of their participation, which includes but is not limited to the level of competition, the individual’s dispositions, the school of choice, their coaches, and their teammates. These are the dominant influences on how an individual is socialized into being an intercollegiate student-athlete and how they create meaning from the experience. Other relevant assumptions include (a) semi-structured interviews are a valid means of data collection and (b) a narrative writing style is best for presenting resulting data. Operational Definitions It is necessary to define several terms that are used throughout this study in order to clarify the meaning of each in the given context. Consistency of usage and meaning of these ideas is critical to fully understanding the information. NCAA Division I: The NCAA has three divisions of competition with scholarship structure, sport offering obligations, and sport contest requirements being the major distinguishing philosophical factors. There are 340 NCAA Division I institutions, 120 of which are Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and 122 are Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) (NCAA Membership, 2012). The other 98 do not sponsor a football program. FBS programs are elaborate and must meet minimum attendance requirements that are not required of FCS programs (NCAA Membership, 2012). Softball: For this study, the use of the term softball signifies women’s fastpitch softball played with nine players on the field and the option to have a designated player. There are 5,539 NCAA Division I softball student-athletes and the first NCAA sponsored national championship in the sport was in 1982 (NCAA Membership, 2012). Student-Athlete: In this study, the identifier of student-athlete implies that the individual is enrolled as a full-time degree seeking student at an accredited institution of higher education and simultaneously participates in an intercollegiate sport representing that institution (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011). Intercollegiate: Intercollegiate is understood in this study as referring to athletic competition between other similar academic institutions (Random House, 2013). The Sport Ethic: There are four norms associated with the sport ethic that should be understood as part of its reference. “a) An athlete is dedicated to “the game” above all other things, b) An athlete strives for distinction, c) An athlete accepts risks and plays through pain, and d) An athlete accepts no obstacles in the pursuit of possibilities” (Coakley, 2007, p. 161-163). Total Institution (Goffman, 1961) and Panopticism (Foucault, 1979/1995) are theoretical paradigms that are used in this study and are thoroughly defined in chapter two, the literature review. Narrative Inquiry is the methodological approach used in this study and it is explained in detail in chapter three, methodology (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Polyvocal is a data analysis and presentation tool that is used to present the resulting data in this study (Hatch, 2002). The details associated with this tool are also expanded in chapter three. Organization of the Study This dissertation is arranged as a coherent story articulated over five chapters, with each section of each chapter building upon the information provided in the ones preceding. Through a discussion regarding the position of athletics within institutions of higher education, economic pressures, and differences among NCAA divisions, this chapter has laid a foundation for examining intercollegiate sport as a site of social control based on the paradigms of total institution (Goffman, 1961) and panopticism (Foucault, 1979/1995). In Chapter two, more detailed definitions of these two paradigms and literature from the field of sport studies related to them is reviewed in order to develop a theoretical foundation for the remainder of the study. A discussion of how the information provided by this study can add to the discipline also ensues. Chapter three expounds on narrative methodology and its application to this study. Interview and polyvocal methods are also explicated for data collection and data analysis, respectfully. An illustration regarding the significance of stories to this type of sport research is also depicted. Chapter four presents the resulting narratives in the words of the participants and chapter five provides a summary, discussion, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ”It's a matter of instinct, It’s a matter of conditioning, It’s a matter of fact. You can call me Pavlov's dog, Ring a bell and I'll salivate." (Page, 1990) Introduction Assertions have been made that a connection between decreased moral reasoning and critical thinking skills among college student-athletes and the degree of social control present in their environment may develop as a result of “the closed nature of the athletic world, the total care environment, and the continual surveillance” (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004, pp. 57-58; Priest, et al., 1999). Eitzen (2000) explained that while mechanisms of social control are “believed to serve the common good,” they can also lead to the loss of rights and decision making opportunities for student-athletes (p. 370). Further analysis of this connection through the lens of two social interaction paradigms, total institution and panopticism, provides more valuable information regarding this supposed relationship. A summary of existing information from this perspective in sport studies and an overview of these theoretical paradigms are included in this chapter. This review of theoretical and applied literature benefits this dissertation by providing a functional basis for collecting and analyzing data in the social context of NCAA Division I intercollegiate softball. The over-arching theme that brings the theories of total institution and panopticism together with the social system of college athletics is the idea that the management of recruits is rationalized in terms of the ideal aims and functions of the institution. Thus, specific examples are cited of management techniques that parallel between college athletics, other total institutions, and panoptic structures; therefore, the intent of this study is to determine if they are present in NCAA Division I softball. This literature review provides direction toward answering this question and a better understanding of what social issues can arise from such functionally designed social systems. The ideas of Erving Goffman on total institutions, the work of Michel Foucault regarding panopticism and disciplinary power, and applicable literature from the feminist perspective is specifically reviewed. Goffman in Sport Studies The work of Erving Goffman has been used to analyze various areas relevant to the sociology of sport. Throughout his career, Goffman developed multiple theories regarding the “social order of interactions,” including role theory, game theory, and linguistic theory (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004, p. 51). His conceptualizations regarding the dramaturgical model (Messner, 2002); credentialing and acceptance of personal claims (Donnelly, 1994); character elements (Birrell, 1981); sport subcultures (Wacquant, 1992); and gender advertisements (Duncan, 1990) have been applied to various settings within sport studies literature. However, the extent of the research in the area of total institution in athletics is limited. In an essay that primarily discusses Olympic sport, Brohm (1978) states that, “Sport exemplifies perfectly Goffman’s definition of totalitarian totality” but there is minimal further discussion (p. 138). Also, interscholastic sports have been analyzed as total institutions (Treadwell, 1984; Rinehart, 1998), and it has been suggested that the concept of total institution may be best applied to professional sports (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004). Finally, Hughes and Coakley (1991), Johns and Johns. (2000), and Coakley (2007) suggest that sports as total institutions are exacerbating social control as a contributing factor to overconformity and positive deviance among athletes. The premise that connects all of Goffman’s works is his primary interest in demonstrating that “everyday interaction is the foundation of social order” (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004, p. 51). Jones, Potrac, Cushion, and Ronglan (2011) suggest that using Goffman’s ideas regarding “everyday routine” to analyze athletics, specifically sport coaching, is significant (p. 16). Therefore, one goal of this study is to determine if the theory of total institution, specifically the techniques related to institutional arrangements and processes that influence social construction of identity as defined by Goffman (1961) in Asylums may be applied and analyzed within the context of intercollegiate softball at the NCAA Division I level. Goffman’s Total Institution Goffman brought his idea of total institution to the forefront in his 1961 publication, Asylums. “A total institution may be defined as a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life” (Goffman, 1961, p. xiii). He explains that the primary factor that distinguishes a total institution from civil society is the lack of barriers between the functions of sleep, play, and work (Goffman, 1961, pp. 5-6). Goffman (1961) further states that a total institution as has four basic features: First, all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same authority. Second, each phase of the member’s daily activity is carried on in the immediate company of a large batch of others, all of whom are treated alike and required to do the same thing together. Third, all phases of the day’s activities are tightly scheduled, with one activity leading at a prearranged time into the next, the whole sequence of activities being imposed from above by a system of explicit formal rulings and a body of officials. Finally, the various enforced activities are brought together into a single rational plan purportedly designed to fulfill the official aim of the institution. (p. 6) Goffman (1961) identifies five categories of total institutions based on the organization’s formal objectives and members. Examples specific to these categories include orphanages for the incapable yet harmless; mental hospitals for the incapable and potentially harmful; penitentiaries to protect the community; army barracks for the pursuit of work; and monasteries for retreating from the world (Goffman, 1961). The basis for these divisions within Goffman’s concept has been criticized for being too ambiguous (Perry, 1974) and negative (Mouzelis, 1971). However, in Asylums, Goffman (1961) himself recognizes that, “Individually, these features are found in places other than total institutions; for example, our large commercial, industrial, and educational establishments are increasingly providing cafeterias and free-time recreation for their members” (p. 6). The relationships of power within the total institutions are essentially exercised between the inmate and staff groups, and ideas regarding the shaping of identity, treatment, communication, surveillance, perception of the outside, and personal relationships should be analyzed in terms of the localized social system in contrast to the environing social norms (Goffman, 1961). Based on Goffman’s definition and narratives of this study, I deduce that intercollegiate athletics is most comparable to the context of the army described by Goffman due to the work-like nature of both environments. A student-athlete’s work may be considered service oriented if we think of their work as serving the needs and mission of the academic institution that they represent. Their athletics performance may also be considered work-like when viewed as a means of entertainment for an audience. The latter could encompass any level of athletics from youth to professional because there will always be some spectators, and sport studies scholars have speculated that the concept of total institution may be best applied to professional sports due to its work-like and “total care” tendencies (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004, p. 57). However, given that “the institution of sport is deeply tied” to the institutions of higher education (Brohm, 1978, p. 139), which have been analyzed through the lens of Goffman’s total institution theory (Shipman, 1967), it is apparent that his ideas should be studied from the perspective of intercollegiate sports. Additionally, the economic motives that have led to the increasing elitism and commercialization of college athletics and the increasing independence of professional athletes further supports this application of Goffman to the experience of college student-athletes. Asylums (1961) itself was an “analysis of institutions and how they do their work from the viewpoint of marginal groups” (Jones, et al., 2011, p. 26); therefore, exploring the way NCAA Division I college athletics works from the perspective of the most marginal decision makers, i.e. student-athletes, is valuable. As Birrell and Donnelly (2004) propose, “our understanding of sport may benefit from such an analysis” (p. 58). The institution of intercollegiate athletics meets the residence, work, and time criteria representative of total institutions, the student-athletes are subject to the regimen imposed by the four general structural features of total institutions, and the organizational structure is administered to meet the “official aims” of the establishment. Although they might sleep, play, and work in different buildings, essentially all aspects of the student-athlete’s “round of life” are conducted on campus; and although they might be subject to the authority of professors and other staff members they are ultimately under the directive of their sport coach. Coaches decide who is on the team, when they play, “procedures for determining and enforcing team rules, training schedules, sanction player behavior…and make all decision during games” (Eitzen (2000, pp. 376-377). This “coach as expert” discourse leads coaches to “control virtually every detail” of the student-athletes life (Potrac & Jones, 2011, p. 145). Thus, these student-athletes are living in a theoretically closed environment where the authority of their coach overrides all others, including themselves. For student-athletes who are members of team sports a majority of their daily activities are required to be done with their teammates and they are all treated in a similar manner. Some examples of these group activities include practice, workouts, and eating meals in the athletic dining hall. Additionally, these daily activities are dictated by the coach and are “tightly scheduled” at “prearranged times” (Goffman, 1961, p. 6). Collectively, all of these detailed practices function together in a “single rational plan” in order to fulfill the goals of the institution (Goffman, 1961, p. 6). This chronological division of activities may be translated in NCAA Division I softball on two levels, the student-athlete’s entire day and their time at practice or competition. A typical day, as structured in part by the university schedule, but most specifically by the coaches would be similar to the following: 6:00a.m. strength and conditioning workouts, 7:15a.m. breakfast in the athletic dining hall, 8:00a.m. until 11:00a.m. classes, 11:15a.m. lunch in the dining hall, 12:00p.m. athletic training needs, 1:00p.m. dress and warm-up for practice, 2:00p.m. until 5:00p.m. practice and film, 5:30p.m. dinner in the dining hall, 6:00p.m. tutor and study hall, 8:00p.m. shower and study, 10:00p.m. bedtime. Each student-athlete’s schedule may deviate slightly due to individual needs specific to their major, tutoring, and athletic training needs; however, in general their schedules are regulated to this degree with the goal of maximizing their useful time to reach the highest possible level of athletic and academic performance. At the level of practice, the NCAA allows four hours per day and 20 hours per week, including workouts and film (NCAA Division I Manual, 2011, p. 244), so coaches determine what drills are most important at the given time and segment practices accordingly. An example may be: warm-up and throw, infield and outfield defensive fundamentals, tee work in batting cages, batting practice and team defense simultaneously, pitchers and catchers in bullpen, all followed by watching film. With this type of organized practice, temporal norms are imposed on everyone at the same time while they are working to refine their individual skills to benefit the whole. Practice plans are also made to be implemented on the larger time scale of the off-season, pre-season, and in-season, where off- and pre-season work is typically more individualized and in-season practices are more team oriented, yet everyone is always participating in such coach directed activities (Eitzen, 2000). Within this structure, coaches orchestrate the activities of student-athletes from the smallest movement in their swing to the time that they eat dinner, thus the formal institutional arrangements present in NCAA Division I softball provide a disciplinary mechanism for the social control of student-athletes with the official goal of winning athletic contests as representatives of the university. Therefore, a connection may be developed between this conception of total institutions and college athletics based on the structured environment experienced by the student-athletes (Birrell & Donnelly, 2004). Student-athletes, especially those who compete in team sports may gain a strong sense of camaraderie and friendship through the relationships they have with teammates and special bonds may form as a result of the amount of time spent together. Many student-athletes are likely to feel enough comfort with teammates to reveal very personal details about their lives. Further, by providing resources such as residence halls, cafeterias, study halls, and doctors on site, as well as coaches continually locating and supervising student-athletes through a complex network of disciplinary technologies, university athletic departments and coaches may be creating a sense of total institution. As Westwood (2002) states, such practice mirrors the “record keeping and accounting practices…central to modern states [where] citizens were individuated and objectified simultaneously” (p. 134). The impending social implications of this type of established regimen for the NCAA Division I student-athlete is explored in this study. Foucault in Sport Studies Many philosophies attributed to Michel Foucault are applicable to sport studies. Due to his positioning of the body at the center of his theories of power and the inherent significance of the body in sport studies Foucault has been cited on many issues in sport (Rail & Hargreaves, 1995). Studies and analysis of sport in regard to the Foucauldian ideas of surveillance and power in physical education (Vigarello, 1978; Hargreaves, 1986); the politics of body management and the gaze in gymnastics (Harvey & Sparks, 1991), bodybuilding (Rail & Hargreaves, 1995), rowing (Chapman, 1997), elite gymnastics, wrestling, track, and synchronized swimming (Johns & Johns, 2000); and youth swimming (Rinehart, 1998); the technologies of self (Heikkala, 1993); the idea of episteme in boxing (Loudcher, 1994, as cited in Rail & Hargreaves, 1995); the spatial elements of a soccer stadium (Bale, 1993); the managerial authority in professional soccer (Kelly & Waddington, 2006); and panopticism in modern fitness centers (Markula, 2003) have been conducted over the past several decades. All of these sport studies make use of Foucauldian theories developed in Discipline and Punish (1979/1995), yet none are situated within the context of collegiate athletics or team sports with the exclusion of professional soccer in Europe. This study demonstrates how the theory of disciplinary power, specifically the techniques related to docility, the means of correct training, and panopticism as defined by Foucault (1979/1995) are applied and analyzed within the context of intercollegiate softball at the NCAA Division I level. Foucault Overview One season of my high school basketball career, our coach ordered team sweatshirts with our school name and mascot on the front accompanied by the phrase, “I possess two outstanding characteristics: Attention to detail and a sense of urgency” printed in bold, capitalized, block lettering on the back. He repeated these ideas and drilled us until the proper movements were imprinted not only in our minds, but also into our muscle memory; or as Foucault would say the power of detail was articulated directly onto our bodies. Our coach believed that a team of individuals who were trained using techniques of extreme detail and had the ability to perform these specific movements under pressure would be a successful basketball team. As a volleyball coach, I believe in this principle as well, which is not uncommon in athletics. Also, as is general among team sports, each individual was assigned a position based on their skills that would contribute most to the workings of the team as a whole. Fundamental skills taught and assessed by the coaches, point production, game film analysis, and statistics served as the basic measurement tools for player and team evaluation. Further, we were divided by class: freshman, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, with the seniors typically being named team captains and having a monitoring role. We were also on an extremely structured schedule throughout the day and subject to the control of teachers, principals, and other school staff given that we were students as well. Thus, it can be said that we were subjected to practices that met the guidelines of Foucault’s (1979/1995) “means of correct training” and subsequently were transformed into productive, docile bodies useful for winning basketball games. This attention to fundamentals and detail of movements, statistical measurements that are compared to the norm, visual examination and documentation, hierarchical observation, and positioning of bodies within the machine of production are all common elements of scholastic and collegiate team sport, and they are all techniques of disciplinary power as described by Foucault (1979/1995). Additionally, the goal of these practices in team sports is to develop each individual within the framework of the team so that they function more efficiently and productively in order to win more competitions. This idea mirrors the goal of disciplinary power, which is to “increase forces in terms of utility” as stated by Foucault (1979/1995) in Discipline and Punish (p. 138). Foucault’s Disciplinary Power Although his theories are a formulation of knowledge, power, and discourse, Foucault’s fundamental goal was to understand the role of the individual within dynamic networks of power (Markula & Pringle, 2006, p. xi). The question of how power is actually exercised within particular contexts is critical to the theories of Foucault as opposed to others who posit that power is totally a top-down function of societal structure. Foucault (1979/1995) actually described power as a “network of practices, institutions, and technologies that sustain positions of dominance and subordination within a particular domain” (p. 177); and he explained that power is “relational” and exists in “multiple forms” (Foucault, 1979/1995; Markula & Pringle, 2006, p. 38). More specifically, Foucault (1980) explained his conception of power as being “co-extensive with the social body; interwoven with other kinds of relations (production, kinship, family, sexuality); a multiform production of relations of domination; [which] are capable of being utilized; and [necessarily] has resistances” (Foucault, 1980, p. 142). The important derivative of this definition of power is that the actual arrangement of practices and technologies leads to the subjectivity of the individuals rather than a sovereign, centrally located power (Foucault, 1979/1995). Power is not substantive; “Power is not one thing, but multiple and multiplied, scattered and disseminated” (Caputo & Yount, 1993). Given that power has no substance, then it cannot be a possession of one individual or group used solely to oppress; it must be distributed in various forms from one person to another ad infinitum. Power, then “becomes a machinery that no one owns” (Foucault, 1980, p. 156). Foucault’s paradigm of power as being disciplinary in its modalities derives from his concept of detailed exercises acting as control mechanisms beginning with the individual. Disciplinary power “makes individuals; it is the specific technique of power that regards individuals both as objects and as instruments of its exercise” (Foucault, 1979/1995, p. 170). The primary goal of disciplinary power is to train individuals and combine their forces in order to create synergy (Foucault, 1979/1995). Discipline is a term that is used frequently in athletics to mean that an athlete is following instruction and closely adheres to expectations or that a coach’s regulatory authority leaves little room for deviance, thus implying its innate connotation of control. These processes become progressive as the athletes and team become increasingly skilled at executing the desired task. An in-depth study of the elements of Foucault’s disciplinary power within elite level college softball illustrates parallels between the context of athletics, particularly college softball and the institutions in which he describes these practices including prisons, asylums, hospitals, schools, and factories. A brief discussion of Foucault’s view of institutions is imperative to understanding how the mechanisms of disciplinary power function within the given space. Power does not originate with the institution; rather the a priori network of power essentially uses the institution as a tool for further integration into human life (Caputo & Yount, 1993). Power relations have existed since the beginning of humanity; the disciplines provide a way for individuals to use these relations economically; and the institutions offer an enclosed space for the multiplication of disciplines, and consequently power. In this way, “institutions must be analyzed from the standpoint of power” and not vice versa (Caputo & Yount, 1993, p. 5). Many contemporary institutions may not have stone walls surrounding them, yet the technologies of power that became refined within the physical structures of military barracks, hospitals, prisons, and schools of the 19th century continue to gain efficiency and actively infiltrate social networks of the 21st century, both in physical locations and in cyber space. These minute practices, which are not mutually exclusive, traverse institutional spaces and work through subtle conduction and persuasion to produce knowledge (Caputo & Yount, 1993). Such practices are identifiable in many areas of sport, yet they seem to be magnified within the institution of intercollegiate athletics, possibly due to the fact that collegiate student-athletes are actually part of educational institutions. The word “power” itself has a variety of meanings and connotations and many philosophers, sociologists, and scientists have analyzed the concept of power from their respective positions. Foucault approaches the task from the perspective of relationships of power, and his emphasis on the disciplinary mechanisms of distributions, hierarchical observation, control of activity, social judgment, normalization, examination, and ultimately panopticism is pertinent to the institutional structure that is integrated into NCAA Division I softball. Panopticon is a Greek derivative roughly translated to mean “sight of all” (Random House, 2013). Bentham and Foucault use the idea of the Panopticon to describe an apparatus where “each comrade becomes an overseer” (Foucault, 1980, p. 152). Therefore, power in these terms penetrates the society to function on the most minute level, reaching the point of self-regulation due to the “reign of opinion” (Foucault, 1980, p. 154). In the context of intercollegiate athletics, this type of power manifests itself through student-athletes feeling accountable to their teammates and policing each other. Eitzen (2000) describes how such informal social order develops through “implicit norms;” incoming student-athletes “adopt the attitudes, style of dress, speech patterns, and behaviors of the established members” to be compliant with the expectations of the subculture (p. 377). However, as a result of each individual wielding power, they also embody sites of potential resistance to the dominance present in their social system, meaning that they are situated in a position to facilitate change from within (Foucault, 1979/1995). The Feminist-Pragmatist Perspective A pragmatic theoretical tradition, as defined by John Dewey (1925/1981), underlies this study which describes the experiences of three NCAA Division I softball players. The primary pillar of the paradigm that is significant to this research is the idea that social construction and continuity of experience are synonymous with knowledge and life (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Dewey, 1925/1981). Experiences and social interaction are the foundation of life, learning, and education. Emotions, intuition, and feelings are also significant factors that determine how we view, process, and ultimately learn from our experiences (Thayer-Bacon, 2000). Further, no experience is meaningless, regardless of the nature of the emotions it excites or actions it initiates. The stories that define individual lives are built on experiences with social interactions serving as the threads of continuity. Therefore, knowledge is predicated on experience and “experience happens narratively” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 19); that is, we think of our experiences as stories and re-tell them in a narrative format. As Clandinin and Connelly (2000) explain, it is common and natural for our life experiences to facilitate our gravitation to certain areas of research; and Wolcott (1994) recommends “integrating elements of your life as a researcher and scholar with your ‘lived’ life in other roles” (p. 290). Accordingly, my experience as a graduate assistant in an NCAA Division I softball program led to an interest to better understand the experience of the student-athletes in that environment. Thus, through a combination of personal experience, job-related issues, and a review of the sport sociology literature in the area, I chose to pursue this narrative research project to examine the participants’ experiences in relation to the theories of total institution and panopticism more extensively. The importance of experience is ingrained in most of us from childhood, and it is applicable in a variety of contexts. Experience is needed to obtain a job, it provides an advantage in an athletic contest, it helps in understanding friends, and it has implications in the creation of culture and acquisition of knowledge. Management theorist Peter Drucker wrote that “Life is lived forward but understood backward” (David, 2005, p. 198). This idea helps explain the conception of knowledge as derived from life experiences and interactions based on reading Dewey (1925/1981). Through everyday living, cultural norms are generated without those who are creating them being cognizant of the process; then as ‘things’ change with time people may become more aware (or knowledgeable) of what their culture had been. The emphasis on context indicated here also resonates strongly with Dewey’s pragmatism which advocates the social construction of knowledge and with narrative inquiry’s belief in the social and temporal characteristics of experience and knowledge. Dewey and the pragmatists “establish[ed] the importance of understanding the contextuality of thoughts due to thinking’s direct relation to experience” (Thayer-Bacon, 2000, p. 53). Additionally, experience is obviously not static, life is in continuous motion. Therefore, thoughts, knowledge, ideology, and identity are always evolving through time and space. These scholars also recognize the inherent need for knowledge to be plural. G.H. Mead believed that self-knowledge emerges from the community in which the individual is socialized and Dewey expands this idea to explain that “social groups affect individuals and individuals affect social groups” (Thayer-Bacon, 2000, p. 50). At its most basic, this would constitute the argument of nature versus nurture, which involves a constant interaction between the biology and socialization that leads to the evolution of self and knowledge. The pragmatist argument is that meaning and knowledge are created or learned through interactions between people. Throughout life our opinions, views, maturity, and so on grow continuously and evolve as our experiences compound each other. Seigfried (1996) supports this constant connection between past, present, and future experiences; experience is “overlaid and saturated not only with previous philosophical interpretations but also with past beliefs, values, and classifications” (p. 156). For example, there are obvious commonalities among universities, organizations, teams, states, firms, and families but each individual entity has characteristics that make it unique, and thus serve to define its respective culture. These distinctive attributes, values, norms, ethics, policies, and histories shape the cultures as a result of the interactions and relationships of the people’s lived experiences within the organization or community. Additionally, because they are aiding in the process of creating culture, most people take a lot of pride in being a part of these respective groups. This thought leads to the inclusion of meaning as an important component of the ideology and culture matrix. Specifically, positing that everyday interpersonal communication within any entity produces the respective culture of the group and that the individuals involved are proud of their membership, then obviously the group is a meaningful part of their lives. Also, because these interactions provide meaningful experience to people, it establishes a way of learning and knowing ‘things’ that are common or are the ‘norm’ of their culture. An intercollegiate athletic team provides an excellent example of these relationships and means of culture creation. Critiques of Goffman, Foucault, and Dewey have largely come from feminist scholars due primarily to their omission of gender as a variable in the development of their social paradigms (Seigfried, 1996). Bordo (2003) explains it is critical to understand that even though forces of power are decentralized within the paradigm of disciplinary power (Foucault, 1979/1995), they still “configure to assume particular historical forms [where] certain groups do have dominance” (p. 26). Specifically, dominance is derived from the regulation of “the most intimate elements of the construction of space, time, desire, [and] embodiment” (Bordo, 2003, p. 27). This form of authority is illustrated in this study specifically by coaches historically holding a position of dominance over student-athletes as a result of their ability to control the student-athlete’s activities, and where the coach is male the assumed authority is exacerbated. Therefore, narratives of experience “cannot just be read off from nature but must be reconstructed within a historical process with which we are continuous” (Seigfried, 1996, p. 144). Recognizing the “historically and culturally engrained definitions of femininity” are significant in exploring individual women’s experiences (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, Tarule, 1986/1997, p. 5). To highlight the relevance of history in athletics, in her essay “Throwing Like a Girl,” Young (1989) discusses gender stereotypes and provides a historical explanation for why women are perceived as lesser athletes than men by society, as well as why women tend to view themselves as physically inferior to their male counterparts. Young’s (1989) premise that the implied action represented by the cliché “throwing like a girl” indeed does exist lays the foundation for her theory that social ideals about masculinity and femininity are prevalent in sports (pp. 51-52). As Coakley (2007) reminds us, it has been thought that women are “naturally frail and unsuited for most sport participation” (p. 250); however, both he and Young (1989) agree that ideology an