  
                      

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..-.. V , . ... . .-.. V. .. VV. ., V ... V... 7. ..VV...; .a. ,MV... ,....,,,...,,.,.,,.m.mmmm...” . M
A‘ ‘ h ‘ V _ _ . ,
' ~ , ‘ .‘ V , 1 ~ 4 ‘
. H ; ‘ > .~ , '3 > ,.
l ‘ * ~ . ‘ ‘ .. , _ V --, ‘ . r
V . ' , .. _' ’ . V. ... .'_v
V A ~ . . x V . . a V J . A a

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND INTERCOLLEGIATE
ATHLETICS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS, ROLES,
VALUES AND BEHAVIORS OF COLLEGIATE COACHES,
ATHLETIC DIRECTORS, AND PRESIDENTS AS RELATED TO
STUDENT-ATHLETE DEVELOPMENT

presented by

Earnest Marcellus Fingers

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Educational Administration

 

 

 
   

 

 

Major Professor's Signature
0514 OC/m/ 2a} 200/ »
Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

"T” ﬁBHARY __,__ "T" T
M iCh5 5‘ “date
University

 

 

 

— —--.-o-u-n--n-n--.- - - - 4

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

A A
'7 1 ~-

1~ 5 ”a
SEP 0 62009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:IClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS, ROLES, VALUES AND BEHAVIORS OF
COLLEGIATE COACHES, ATHLETIC DIRECTORS, AND PRESIDENTS AS
RELATED TO STUDENT-ATHLETE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

By

Earnest Marcellus Fingers

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

2005

ABSTRACT
CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AND INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS:
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEPTIONS, ROLES, VALUES AND BEHAVIORS OF

COLLEGIATE COACHES, ATHLETIC DIRECTORS, AND PRESIDENTS AS
RELATED TO STUDENT-ATHLETE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

By
Earnest Marcellus Fingers

One of the primary reasons for maintaining collegiate athletics hundreds of
campuses is because “athletics builds character.” The primary purpose for conducting this
study was to explore and assess the perceptions held by head coaches, athletic directors
and presidents regarding their roles and responsibilities as related to student-athlete
character development. In particular, the research examines perceptions concerning
individual impact upon the development of character by student-athletes. Two Division I
and two Division III NCAA schools were selected in order to compare and contrast “big
time” Division I athletics to the Division III “love of the game” perception. Traditional
revenue sports of football and men’s basketball were targeted with the addition of four
non-revenue sports. Interviews were conducted for this qualitative research and the
information each institution was. Topic areas for this study were character development,
leadership, environment, socialization, and mission. Institutional case studies were
developed with results of the interviews and a within institution and between divisional
level analysis was conducted. Assessment of character development found that most
respondents stated that athletic participation does build character and others believed that
there was potential for athletics to build character. However, most participants could
identify only one of the three key elements necessary for building character. Each

institution lacked agreement in deﬁnitions of “character.” Examination of external factors

displayed that most institutions lacked consensus in articulation of the institutional and
athletic mission. Other points of interest were found as well. Overall, each institution
lacked internal consensus on a variety of topics. This research provides greater insight
about the role and relationship between those most intimately involved with
intercollegiate athletics and student-athletes, and how they directly or indirectly impact
student-athlete character development. This study also takes into consideration the
external environmental factors presented by both the institution and the athletic

department, and the potential inﬂuence of such factors on perceptions and behaviors.

Copyright by
EARNEST MARCELLUS FINGERS
2005

DEDICATION
Education is more than learning about what others have had to say. It is an opportunity to
learn more so about one’s own ability, desire, and perseverance. This journey is dedicated
to the spirits of all of those who have preceded me, and most especially to all of those
who had the desire to obtain a formal education, but not the means nor the opportunity.
May the spirit of scholarship burn forever brightly for each of you. I encourage everyone
to “Think BIG and live even LARGER.” TO GOD BE ALL THE GLORY!

Amen. . .Amen. . .Amen!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I give thanks and praises to God for providing and sustaining
me from Day 1 until leave this earth. This has been an incredible journey. I could not
have made it without the prayers and needed support of some special people — my family,
friends, colleagues, professors, my committee and committee chair.

My FAMILY has never wavered. The lessons and joys of our lives together came
to visit me often during life as a graduate student and surely pulled me through. I love
each of you very much. May we party on and celebrate life together. Aunt Delilah
(Yvonne) in 1988 you saw in me the “scholar” that I did not see in myself. I thank you
for your vision. Your poem saved me in my most difﬁcult moments.

CRF I love you. Thank you for getting me over the ﬁnal hump. You surely have a
piece of this dissertation. LAC thank you for opening so many doors in my mind that
would still be closed had God not sent you to help me out at MSU. You encouraged me
to truly be “all” that I dreamed and ever thought of being. I am forever indebted to you
for your inﬂuence. JF T I have appreciated your intellect and pioneering spirit as a scholar
since the summer of 1990. Just knowing you has pushed me since then.

I must give a shout out to HIU - Hampton University — My Home By the Sea! It
is the foundation of my college education. (thanks Pappy!) For my brothers of Omega
Psi Phi Fraternity, Incorporated (Sigma Upsilon & Sigma Chapters) —- thank you for
sharing my joys and pains. FIETTS.

Again, I give thanks and praises to God for providing and sustaining me from Day

1 until leave this earth.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... l
Context of the Issue ............................................................... 2
Statement of the Purpose ....................................................... 11
Statement of Research Question ............................................... 12
Deﬁnition of Terms .............................................................. 13
Signiﬁcance of the Study ....................................................... 14

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................. 16
Introduction ....................................................................... 16
The Role of Intercollegiate Athletics Program ..................... 18
Role of Administration (President) ......................... 22
Role of Athletic Directors .................................... 24
Role of Coaches ................................................ 25
Organizational and Administrative Structure .............. 27
Divisions 1/ II/ III
Summary ........................................................ 3O
Organizational Culture ................................................. 32
Cultural Assessment .......................................... 33
Organizational Subcultures ................................... 35
Strengths of the Cultural Metaphor ......................... 36
Moral Development & Higher Education ........................... 37
Moral Cognitive Development ............................... 37
In the Context of Athletics .................................... 44
Moral Education ................................................ 48
Student Athlete Support Services ..................................... 50
Development Issues and Concerns .......................... 52
Life Skills .............................................. 53
Chapter Summary ...................................................... 55

vii

III. METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 57

Introduction .................................................................... 57
Conceptual Framework ...................................................... 58
Design of the Study ........................................................... 60
Research Questions ............................................................ 61
Participants ...................................................................... 62
Instrument ....................................................................... 65
Pilot Test ......................................................................... 68
Demographics .................................................................. 69
Data Collection ................................................................ 77
Data Analysis .................................................................. 79
Generalizability ................................................................. 8 1
Summary ......................................................................... 81
IV. RESULTS and DISCUSSION ....................................................... 82
Introduction ..................................................................... 82
Institutional Analysis ......................................................... 83
Center College .................................................................. 83
Mountain College ............................................................. 98
Gala University ............................................................... l 1 1
Rainbow University ......................................................... 125
Summary Discussion of Results ........................................... 139
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... 145
Introduction .................................................................... 145
Character Development ....................................................... 146
Organizational Culture ......................................................... 152
Leadership ............................................................. 153
Environment ............................................................ 1 54
Socialization ............................................................ 156
Mission ................................................................... 157
Limitations of the Research ................................................... 158
Implications for Research .................................................... 159
Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions ..................... 160

APPENDICESI65

BIBLIOGRAPHYI74

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE LISTING PAGE
Table 1 Kohlberg’s Levels and Stages of Moral Development ............ 42
Table 2 Michigan Colleges and University ................................... 63
Table 3 Participants and Participation Rate .................................. 65
Table 4 Head Coach Characteristics ........................................... 70
Table 5 Athletic Director Characteristics ..................................... 74
Table 6 President and Senior Administrator Characteristics ............... 75
Table 7 Key Elements .......................................................... 140
Table 8 External Factors by Position ........................................ 142
Table 9 External Factors by Division Level ................................ 143
Table 10 Perception of the Institution’s View of Athletics ................ 143
Table 11 Parents/Family Inﬂuence on Current Philosophy ................ 151

Table 12 Parents/Family Perceived As Being Responsible
or Character By Position and Division Level ..................... 151

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Historically, athletic participation has been viewed as a very useful tool in the
development of character (Gerdy, 1997). The notion that sports build character dates back
to ancient times. Nevertheless, the debate over the relationship between sport
participation and its impact upon values and character development has continued
(Boxhill, 2003; Dowell, 1971; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985). When looking at the
potential beneﬁts of sport involvement, few will contest that the opportunity for sport to
impact character and moral development is readily available (Ewing, 1997; Lumpkin,
Stoll, & Beller, 1999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Even so, the information used to
support the character building effects of sport often consists of subjective accounts and
personal testimonials. Although there is potential to build character through athletic
participation at our nation’s colleges and universities, the mechanism at these institutions
by which character is inﬂuenced has not been systematically studied and is not known.

A prevalent belief held today is that there is a conﬂict of interest between higher
education and “big time” intercollegiate athletics (Covell & Barr, 2001; Knight
Commission, 2001), leading some to argue for the reduction or even the elimination of
intercollegiate athletic programs. Intercollegiate athletics is even considered to be higher
education’s “peculiar institution” (Thelin, 1994). However, the belief that athletics
inﬂuence character has been tied directly to the central purpose of maintaining athletics at
this nation’s college and university campuses (Gerdy, 1997). Athletics are thought to
serve a three-pronged purpose in higher education: 1) athletics generates revenue,

visibility, and prestige for the university; 2) athletics is entertainment and serves a

unifying function for an increasingly fragmented university community; and 3) athletics
is educational [character building] for the student participants (Gerdy, 1997, pp. 33-34). It
is this third purpose that was the focus of this study.

Context of the Issue

Moral Development and Higher Education

In an effort to explore the ability of athletics to inﬂuence character more fully, it
is important to reﬂect upon the theories of moral development and the process of moral
education. It has been debated whether character (or morality) can even be taught (Stoll
& Beller, 1998). Researchers of cognitive and moral development have established that
for morality to be learned the following set of conditions must be consistently
maintained: moral education, moral role models, and a moral environment (Bredemeier
& Shields, 1985; Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1999; Piaget,
1932; Stoll & Beller, 1998). A resulting conclusion is that moral reasoning (the
foundation of character development) can be taught, examined, and evaluated
(Bredemeier & Shields, 1985; Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin et al., 1999;
Piaget, 1932; Stoll & Beller; 1998).

According to Stoll and Beller (1998) moral education is a lifelong process and is
central to the development of personal character. Traditionally a commitment to moral
education has shaped the mission of American colleges and universities (Morrill, 1980;
Kuh, 1998; Pascarella, 1997; Schwartz, 2000). However, over time many institutions
have not maintained the tradition of moral education - at least not to the degree where it
has remained a priority in the classroom (Kuh, 1998). The ability to shape the attitudes,

values, and beliefs of students has been, and must remain, a top priority of American

colleges and universities (Chickering, 1969, 1976; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). It is
widely believed that colleges and universities have established themselves as places
where the total grth and development of young men and women is enhanced
(Chickering, 1981; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 1998; Pascarella, 1997; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005; Schwartz, 2000). Questions have been raised about who holds the
greatest responsibility for inﬂuencing the attainment of values and the development of
character among collegiate student-athletes: parents, coaches, or athletic and university
administrators. Institutional administrators must seize the opportunity to tie athletics to
the broader vision, mission, and core values of the institution of higher education.
Collegiate Athletics

Collegiate athletics has what could be considered truly dueling images. On one
hand there is Division I athletics whose image is held strong and steadfast by “big time”
sports of football and men’s basketball that serve as the moniker with which Americans
have become most familiar. The perceived primary focus of Division I athletics is
generally considered to be the winning of games, the generating of revenues, and a
growing “win-at-alI-costs” philosophy. Yet, on the other hand there is Division III
athletics a place where images of “big time” athletic programs will not be found. The
pressures to win, along with high salaries and national attention, are nearly non-existent
at the Division III level. It would be assumed that there are moral differences to be found
between Divisions I and III (Stoll, Beller, Cole & Burwell, 1995).

From an administrative perspective, it is important to recognize that the soundness
of any athletic program is based heavily upon the three-tiered leadersln'p of

college/university presidents, athletic directors, and coaches, and upon the effectiveness

of the role played by each (Chu, 1989). Presidents are held accountable for the control
and direction of the athletic program, as well as the general welfare of all participants
(Bailey & Littleton, 1991; NCAA, 2003). Yet, it must be duly noted that presidents
cannot move or react in earnest to arising situations without the full support of their
boards (Knight Foundation, 2001). Presidents should remain aware of the degree to
which institutional integrity has now been tied to the behavior exhibited by its athletic
department. As a result, presidents must take decisive actions to direct and guide their
athletic programs to resolve problems resulting from those programs (Bailey & Littleton,
1991; Gerdy, 1997). For example, the President of the University of Georgia dismissed
the men’s basketball head coach for unethical conduct related to academic integrity
regarding student-athlete grade reports (Moran & Jenkins, 2003). .

A solid athletics program also rests upon the leadership of the director of athletics.
The athletic director stands at the helm of the athletic enterprise (Bailey & Littleton,
1991). Athletic directors are in ideal positions to monitor the internal and external acts
being conducted by the athletic department (Duderstadt, 2000). Both the president and
athletic director share the responsibility of showing the campus community how the
athletics program contributes to the institution (Andre & James, 1991).

Beyond the administrative leadership, each coach is directly responsible for and
maintains the greatest impact upon student welfare (McEwin & Dickinson, 1996; Yeager,
Buxton, Baltzell & Bzdell, 2001). In addition, the public views coaches as the true
custodians of athletic competition (Yeager et al., 2001). As such, sport participation is
usually a positive experience when coaches are knowledgeable of the developmental

aspects affecting the participants (McEwin & Dickinson, 1996; Yeager et al., 2001).

 

The pressures faced by athletic directors and coaches grow as the ﬁnancial arms
race (mounting salaries, increased spending, growing facilities) rages forward (Knight
Foundation, 2001). The result is a “win at all cost” philosophy viewed by some as
counter to the display of values needed at this stage of development for student-athletes
(Bareﬁeld, McCallister, Bungum, & Pate, 1997).

It would be reasonable to assume that the same holistic development of the goals
and expectations held for the general student population also hold true for the population
of student-athletes and would include some measure of character development. For the
general public, intercollegiate athletic programs serve a unique role as the most widely
visible resource within the context of higher education, and athletics help to shape public
perceptions regarding the quality, effectiveness, and purpose of the institution (Bok,
1983; Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997). Although athletics has been touted as a “builder of
character” the demands of athletic participation have been cited as having a negative
impact upon the development of various character traits (Adler & Adler, 1991; Bareﬁeld,
McCallister, Bungum, & Pate, 1997; Beller & Stoll, 1994; Decker & Lasley, 1995;
Gerdy, 1997). In addition, incidents concerning inappropriate behavior by members of
collegiate athletic teams continue to reach our national headlines. A most recent example
of poor moral judgment can be observed at the University of Colorado and members of
its football program (O’Driscoll, 2004). While acting as hosts for visiting recruits these
Student-athletes illegally utilized alcohol and sex as part of the enticement of signing top
PTOSpects. This incident, and many others that go unpublicized, actively involve a moral

dilemma of some sort to be decided by the student (athlete). The research aims to identify

 

organizational culture in resolving such dilemmas can be addressed by points presented
in this study.

The analysis of character development should also take into consideration the
divisional structure (Division I, II, and III) that exists within the membership of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). There are differences across Divisions
related to the size, scholarships, and hierarchical structure of the athletic program and the
respective institution. Organizational culture is inﬂuenced, in part, by the size, tightness,
age, and founding history of the institution (Clark, 1980). For example, there are
differences in the anticipated revenue generated by the athletic programs and the level of
emphasis placed on winning (NCAA, 2002). Variations in the process/framework being
utilized, the values, and even the mission of the institution could impact the “total”
development of the student in different ways across the Divisions.

It would be reasonable to believe that if asked whether or not athletics build
character most college presidents, athletic directors and coaches would quickly state,
“Yes, athletics does build character.” In addition, if asked what student-athletes learn
from athletic participation, the responses would likely span the gamut of positive
“character building” attributes such as leadership, teamwork, discipline, perseverance,
commitment, and sacriﬁce. This study will explore the apparent disconnect between this
subjective sense that sport builds character and the implementation of a consistent
framework for student-athlete character development.

Organizational Culture
There are several factors that inﬂuence an institution’s ability to affect the

character of its population of students, including student athletes. One of the most

 

important factors is organizational culture. By viewing an athletic program, and its
character building philosophy of athletics, through a lens of organizational culture it may
be possible to generate insight into the leadership and values of those responsible for the
effective delivery of the institution’s athletic program. An organizational culture
perspective may also lead to a greater understanding of how, when, where, and even why
the enhancing effect of collegiate athletics either does or does not take place, and may
also reveal what values are being taught.

Masland (1986) describes organizational culture as a powerful force that serves to
control the behavior of those within it (the organization). An organization’s culture
inﬂuences what is done, how it is done, and who is involved in doing it (Tierney, 1988).
All of this seems quite germane to (collegiate) athletics’ intended purpose of developing
character within higher education. From the outside looking in, organizational culture
would appear to play a role in the effective establishment and communication of
institutional values and the process of developing character. There are multiple aspects by
which to analyze an organization’s culture. For example an institution’s culture can be
investigated by focusing on such essential concepts as environment, the mission,
symbolism, and socialization to name a few (Chaffee, 1988; Tierney, 1988). Tierney
(1988) points out that the culture of higher education varies by institution and that no two
institutions are identical.

However, within any institution the existing culture of one department can vary
from the culture of other departmental units. Higher education is an example of such
cultural conﬂict. Institutions have met with a great deal of criticism in relation to their

management and lack of (cultural) inﬂuence upon intercollegiate athletics (Knight

 

Commission, 2002). As the popularity and fan base of intercollegiate sport, particularly
that of football and men’s basketball, continue to grow, the public image and integrity of
higher education continues to suffer under the cloud of allegations of exploitation and the
neglect of student athlete welfare (Boggan, 1999; Schulman & Bowen, 2001). Given the
high stakes, win at all cost philosophy that has developed within collegiate athletics, it is
questionable whether or not adequate attention is being paid to the “potential” character
building effects of athletics. It was this organizational culture lens that helped to guide
the present study by looking internally at collegiate athletics and its opportunity to impact
the personal development of its student participants.
Student-A thlete Support Services
Parham (1993) established that the solidifying of values is an important element

of the college student experience. Student-athletes are often placed in socially isolated
positions as a result of athletic participation; as such, they often lack the opportunity to
develop social skills in the same manner as the general student body (Parham, 1993).
Other unique challenges such as these that are faced by student-athletes have been
discussed and outlined by Parham (1993) and Ferrante, Etzel and Lantz (1996). The
learning of how to balance academic and athletic demands, along with adapting to a
certain degree of isolation from social and more “mainstream” activities are a few. Such
challenges are in addition to the demands already placed upon the general college student
(Chickering, 1981; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). A valid attempt, by all involved, to
meet the developmental needs of student-athletes remains a mission of most athletic

departments across the country (Ferrante et al., 1996).

 

Most institutions of higher learning offer student development programs
(Chickering, 1969, 1976; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
For the population of collegiate student-athletes it is important to identify the key
methods and opportunities to assist them with the intricate student development puzzle.
This approach becomes even more important given that the “big time” revenue
generating sports of men’s basketball and football have tended to graduate student-
athletes at a lower rate than the general student population (NCAA, 2001). As a result,
the implementation of character development becomes that much more critical in
preparing young people to become productive and contributing citizens. This is often a
dual goal not widely expressed as degree completion.

In 1994 the NCAA made an effort to address the needs of the “total” student [with
character being a central part of that “total”] while also attempting to meet the special
developmental challenges faced by student-athletes. These efforts began with a
comprehensive life skills program (Ferrante, 1996; Ward, 1999). Since its inception in
1994 the CHAMPS Life Skills Program has taken a holistic approach to the development
of the student-athlete. The Life Skills Program addresses ﬁve broad areas: 1) Academic
Commitment, 2) Athletic Commitment, 3) Personal Commitment, 4) Career
Development Commitment, and 5) Service Commitment. Programs such as CHAMPS
have been designed to increase opportunities for student development, and potentially to
enhance character development through exposure to certain settings and events.

However, many initiatives provided through the Life Skills Programs can be
Considered quite passive and do not require or mandate student-athlete participation in a

Speciﬁc number of planned events. Some student-athletes do not and will not participate

voluntarily (Ferrante et a1, 1996). These opportunities for growth and development are
not being fully utilized. Although the Life Skills Program has great intentions, its
effectiveness is not known, and it does not appear to reach a signiﬁcant number of
student-athletes.

An important aspect of the socialization of students is the selection of quality
experiences for the learning and development of values and morals (Chickering &
Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 1998; Lumpkin et al., 1999; Pascarella, 1997; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005; Schwartz, 2000). Because student-athletes spend an exorbitant amount
of time involved with activities, both mandatory and “non-mandatory,” directly related to
their sport, there is an ample supply of opportunities for quality learning and
development. It is within these instances that coaches, in particular, have a grand
platform (as well as a captive audience) with which to build and inﬂuence student-
athletes’ moral development.

Society maintains high expectations for the outcomes of higher education
(Chickering, 1981; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 1998; Pascarella, 1997; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005). This sentiment generally includes athletic programs, which often
establish the public’s ﬁrst perception and serve as the only mode of interaction between
the institution and the public. In an institution of higher learning, academic recognition
and achievement are viewed as the more critical components of the college student
experience. However, academics do not fully encapsulate the “life lessons” that students
experience prior to their departure from institutions of higher learning (Chickering, 1976;

Sehlossberg, 1981).

10

When reviewing the impact of athletics upon moral development, the literature
does not provide sufﬁcient and conclusive empirical evidence to support the “sports
builds character” belief (Oglivie & Tutko, 1971; Shields & Bredemeir, 1995; Stevenson,
1975, 1985). The proposed study will explore efforts to deliver quality “life lessons” and
moral tests that spur the development and growth of moral reasoning.

Statement of Purpose

The popularity of intercollegiate athletics seems to be at an all-time high. Yet, it
appears that the original reason for establishing intercollegiate athletic competition has
been forgotten (Boggan, 1999; Schulman & Bowen, 2001). In working with student-
athletes, athletic departments too often focus upon maintaining the athletic eligibility of
the student and not upon the multiple elements that are vital to overall student growth and
development (Chickering, I981; Ferrante et al., 1996; Parham, 1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). As a result, this population of students is often left to manage and plan
their own development. This phenomenon is exacerbated with the admittance of “high-
risk” populations statistically less likely to obtain a college degree (Suggs, 1999).

The primary purpose for conducting this study was to explore and assess the
perceptions held by head coaches, athletic directors and presidents regarding their roles
and responsibilities as related to student-athlete character development. In particular, the
research examines each individual’s perceptions concerning his/her impact upon the
development of character by student-athletes. This study aimed to identify and explore
the values, beliefs, and actual behaviors that were practiced by head coaches, athletic
directors and presidents in their efforts to directly or indirectly impact student-athlete

character development.

11

 

This research provides greater insight about the role and relationship between
those most intimately involved with intercollegiate athletics and student-athletes.
Indirectly, this study takes into consideration the external environmental factors
presented by both the institution and the athletic department, and the potential inﬂuence
of such factors upon the perceptions and behaviors of a coach.

This research addresses present conditions that aim to promote “character
development” and social values. It was hoped that the values and beliefs of coaches,
athletic directors, presidents and senior administrators are congruent with the basic tenets
of higher education’s mission [service, teaching, and research], and that consensus would

be found amongst the institution, athletic department, and head coaches.

Statement of Research Questions
The following research questions were developed to address the purpose of the
study:

1. Do Division I and III head coaches, athletic directors, and institutional
administrators believe that student participation in intercollegiate athletics
build character?

2. What do Division I and 111 head coaches, athletic directors, and institutional
administrators perceive to be the essential elements/components needed to
develop character in student-athletes? [lnformally or Formally; Advertently or
Inadvertently]

3. Are there differences among the head coaches, athletic directors, and
presidents regarding how character is developed in student-athletes?

4. Are there differences among head coaches, athletic directors, and presidents
regarding their views and perceptions related to the impact athletics has upon
student-athlete character development?

5. Are there differences between Divisional levels regarding the impact of
athletics upon student-athlete character development?

12

 

Deﬁnition of Terms

Athletic Director — The chief administrative ofﬁcer of the Department of Athletics of a

 

college or university.

Attitudes - Dispositions or tendencies to make evaluative judgments concerning objects

or events (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 14)

Belief — An idea held to be true.

Character - Intelligent direction and purposeful control of conduct by deﬁnite moral
principles (Eddy, 1959). The moral action model of Shields and Bredemeier (1995)
holds four virtues as being related directly to character: compassion, fairness,
sportspersonship, and integrity.

M — Head of an athletic team viewed as responsible for the performance and conduct
of the student-athlete members of the team (Humphrey, Yow & Bowden, 2000).

M11 — Knowledge of what is considered good, proper and right (Lumpkin et al., 1999).

Moral development — The evolving growth process by which one learns to take other into

 

 

consideration when making moral decisions (Lumpkin, et al., 1999).

Moral education — The intentional process of informing and making one knowledgeable

 

0f the morals that unify members of a group. Based upon the premise that civilization
has a common core of shared values, referred to as universal values or public values.

MoI‘al environment — The aggregate of social and cultural institutions, forms, patterns,

 

 

and processes that inﬂuence the life of an individual or community.

W — An individual viewed as a good example to follow with regard to

moral behavior.

M — The governing body of most intercollegiate athletic programs.

13

 

Organizational Culture — Induces purpose, commitment, and order; provides meaning and
social cohesion; and clariﬁes and explains behavioral expectations (Masland, 1988).
President — The chief executive ofﬁcer of a college or university.

Prosocigl Behavior - Social action intended to beneﬁt others without anticipation of
personal reward, indeed, perhaps at some cost or risk to oneself (Gibbs, 2003, p. 112).
)1;ng — An enduring belief that a speciﬁc mode of conduct or end-state of existence is
personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state

of existence (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995, p. 15)

Signiﬁcance of the Study

There is a history of concern about scandals and proposed reforms, and student-
athlete welfare among intercollegiate athletics “big-time” programs (Byers, 1995;
Boggan, 1999; Knight Commission 2001). In this pressure-ﬁlled and “win-at-all cost” era
of intercollegiate athletics, concerns about “values” and “character development” have
taken center stage and become even more compelling. The larger context presents a
general concern about appropriately managing the developmental needs and welfare of
student-athletes.

This study seeks to make a signiﬁcant contribution to empowering young men
and women with the “values” and social skills that will be in line with the basic tenets of
higher education’s mission. In addition, although there is no sufﬁcient substitute for a
college degree on the job market, for the population of students who will not obtain a
degree this research will be of substantial beneﬁt. As a result, we can increase the

likelihood that we will come to stand more ﬁrmly on Gerdy’s (1997) third justiﬁcation

14

 

for the maintenance of athletics within higher education — that athletics are educational
and character building.

This investigation will be valuable for all who are interested in American higher
education. A particular audience interested in this proposed research may be the student-
athlete population and their families. Athletic directors, presidents, trustee members, as
well as conference and NCAA administrators and legislators may also ﬁnd this analysis
to be of interest. Essentially, the goal of this research was not merely to get more out of
athletics and athletic programs, but to place more of a collective interest into the
“teachable moments” and opportunities for character development often presented
through athletic participation. Finally, this investigation will lead the ﬁeld to moving
closer to an unveiling and understanding of how the stated mission and values of the
institution are translated and conferred throughout the administrative and athletic

structures, and then onto students via athletic participation.

15

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction

This chapter will survey literature that is relevant to the issue of intercollegiate
student-athlete character development. The various areas being reviewed are a) the role
of intercollegiate athletics, b) organizational culture, c) moral development, and d)
student-athlete support services. The perceived beneﬁts of athletics are discussed on
almost a daily basis. A closer look into the actual impact of intercollegiate athletics will
now be investigated.

This era could be considered one of the ﬁnest in the history of intercollegiate
athletics. As the overall graduation rate for the population of student-athletes hits an all-
time high of sixty percent, and as the total armual revenue generated by the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) [and its member institutions] exceeds four
billion dollars, “big-time” intercollegiate athletics is at the peak of its popularity
(Dempsey, 2002; NCAA, 2002).

However, some will say that this shining moment in intercollegiate athletics is
tainted by a few contentious topics. Among the points of concern are the primacy of
athletic participation and its apparent precedence above all other student-related activities
and requirements (Knight Commission, 2001). This concern has led to accusations of a
disregard for student-athlete welfare. There is also public lapses of integrity by athletic
programs, such as violations in recruiting, illegal payments, grade ﬁxing. To make
matters worse, there remain whispers regarding the exploitation of student-athletes in a

system already considered by some to be biased and unfair (Byers, 1995; Boggan, 1999;

16

Knight Commission, 2001). Taken together, these factors have prompted many to ask
what the true purpose of an athletics program is on a college campus (Chu, 1989; Gerdy,
1997; Lucey, 1982; Simon, 1991). Many of the actions and behaviors that occur within
athletics run counter to the very character and moral ﬁber expected of higher education
(Byers, 1995; Knight Commission, 2001; Sperber, 1990). The most recent and common
examples of this can be found in the multiple recruiting and extra beneﬁt violations
committed by various institutions.

Lost amidst the issues are the student-athlete and the purpose of maintaining
collegiate athletics. Intercollegiate athletics has three distinct purposes that justify its
existence within the body of higher education (Gerdy, 1997). First, athletics generates
revenue, visibility, and prestige for the university. Second, athletics is entertainment and
serves a unifying function for an increasingly fragmented university community. These
two purposes are widely accepted inside and outside of the academy.

One could argue that the third reason for collegiate athletics -- that it builds
student character -- is the one given by university leaders most often over the years
(Gerdy, 1997). Yet it has neither wide appeal beyond the academy, nor have academic
institutions solidly demonstrated anticipated effects (Sage, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier,
1995). There has been no consistent and conclusive empirical evidence to support that
athletic participation builds character in a higher education setting (Adler & Adler, 1990;
Oglivie & Tutko, 1971; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Stevenson, 1975, 1985). The

current study intends to assess the effects of intercollegiate sports on character

development.

17

Higher education is recognized as an institutional setting that promotes multi-
faceted learning and development - a principal product is the “student” (Chickering,
1981; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh, 1998; Pascarella, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Student growth and development (e.g., personal, professional, social) within
higher education institutions occurs in both a formal and informal manner. Intercollegiate
athletics and its feeders purportedly could ensure that student-athletes gain in these
fundamental ways from the college student experience.

Graduation rate is one indicator of success for academic institutions. By NCAA
(2004) assessment, a small number of Division I, II and III athletic programs were in the
upper eighties and low nineties in graduation percentages in 2003. These are recognized
as the exceptions and not the rule. The 62% average graduation rate experienced in 2003
by the body of student-athletes across Division I was a record high, while Divisions II
and 111 posted 53% and 58% respectively (NCAA, 2004). For the Division I revenue
sports of men’s basketball and football the graduation rates are found several points
below the national average. As an example, for men’s basketball the graduation rate was
44%, while football saw its average rate of graduation sit at 55%. However, until the rate
of graduation reaches a respectable percent for all groups, educators and administrators
must seek to take advantage of and/or create opportunities that will teach valuable “skills

for life” and “character building” attributes.

The Role of Intercollegiate Athletics Programs

Athletics has been a part of the collegiate environment for as long as most

Americans can remember. Soon after its arrival athletics became by far the university’s

18

 

most public and recognized department and program (Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Chu,
1989; Gerdy, 1997; Sperber, 1990). The role that intercollegiate athletics presently plays
in higher education varies by whom you ask. It is important to understand the evolution
and history of college athletics to appreciate how it arrived at its present role(s) in the
university.

It has been 175 years since the ﬁrst intercollegiate athletic contest took place
between higher education institutions (Andre & James, 1991). With American post-
secondary institutions ﬁrmly rooted in the German and English models of higher
education, school administrators who held high and proud the intellectual sanctity of
academia looked upon activities such as athletics with much disdain (Chu, 1989; Covell
& Barr, 2001; Westmeyer, 1985). For many early administrators there was no clear
purpose in the futile playing of games, and they nearly moved to forbid such games
(Andre & James, 1991).

Early competitive athletic events primarily consisted of rowing, track and ﬁeld,
and crew. Students sought out athletics because they desired to display and compete in
physical contests against rival institutions (Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997). With no beneﬁt or
value found in these games by most administrators, students were allowed to operate and
manage every aspect of the athletic program (Andre & James, 1991; Gerdy, 1997).
Control over athletics began to change once football came upon the scene near the close
of the nineteenth century. One particular event, as pointed out by Rudolph (1990),
signaled the pending change in higher education’s stance on athletics. In 1893, an annual
football game played between Yale and Princeton drummed up such hoopla that it

seemed to have become the primary focus of many in and around New York (Chu, 1989).

19

At the turn of the twentieth century, many institutions were ﬁnancially insecure
and sought creative means of revenue generation. During this time, and for years to
come, many higher education institutions struggled to maintain consistent streams of
revenue and enrollment (Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997). The quick growth in popularity of
college sport, particularly football, and the potential generation of prestige and revenue,
created a wave of new and reﬁned thinking regarding the value of athletics to the entire
institution (Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997). For administrators, athletics soon became too
popular and too important for students to continue to maintain and deliver it to the public
in representation of the institution (Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997; Rudolph, 1990).

The onset of the 1900’s brought a widely held belief among leaders of higher
education that the success of one’s athletics greatly inﬂuenced the amount of resources
offered to it. This belief led to the acceptance of athletics as a key part of higher
education:

Regardless of whether a successful sports team generated additional

resources and political favor for a university—point that remains in

dispute to this day—college presidents believed that a successful

football program legitimized their institution as a major, big-time

university. This trend intensiﬁed during the 19303 when transportation

and communications advancements made long-distance travel and the

broadcast of games on the radio a part of an expanding sports

marketplace. Intercollegiate athletics was no longer regional in scope.

With these changes came opportunity to gain widespread national

prestige and visibility. Athletics was formally incorporated into higher

education’s structure because academic leaders believed that a

successful athletic team could serve an important public relations

function for the university, which in turn would result in increased

ﬁnancial support. (Gerdy, 1997, p. 29)

During this period intercollegiate athletics assumed a large role within higher

education, and it would continue to grow. As universities and colleges began to

experience growth and expansion within and across various departments and

20

constituencies, the institution lacked a sufficient means of binding all of these groups
together (Gerdy, 1997). Athletics ﬁlled this void and supplied a common purpose that
continues to tie and unite thousands (Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Chu, 1989; Chu &
Segrave, 1985). A successful athletic program would bring together very fragmented
external and internal populations. No other program on campus can meet this aim. As the
legendary coach Paul “Bear” Bryant put it, “It’s kind of hard to rally around a math
class.”(In Chu, 1989, p. 158)

As college athletics, its role(s), and even its impact have grown beyond the
imagination of countless past (and present) administrators, it is important to keep in mind
that athletics is but one among many units that make up a higher education institution.
The fundamental intent of higher education is to address and meet the needs of society
(Bok, 1983, 1992; Gerdy, 1997). Toward this end, there typically is an established
statement of mission, vision, purpose, and goals. It is critical for every unit to work in
support of the institution’s mission. Also, the institution is potentially in a position of
mistrust and misunderstanding because so much in higher education is unknown and
unobservable by the public (Chu, 1989).

Athletics serve as an institution’s symbolic representation and is at the center of
the public’s perception of higher education (Chu, 1989; Duderstadt, 2000). Although
many would like to dismiss intercollegiate athletics as games and simple entertainment
for its fans, intercollegiate athletics has enormous potential to contribute to the higher
education experience (Bok, 1992; Chu, 1989; Duderstadt, 2000; Gerdy, 1997). For
example — students, along with faculty and staff often develop fond memories, school

Spirit, and camaraderie around the athletic events of an institution. The present level of

21

power and inﬂuence that college sport has taken in our society allows it to promote
various values — from education and fair play to cheating and win-at-all-cost behavior
(DiBiaggio, 1992, 1995; Duderstadt, 2000; Sperber, 1990). In addition, there are even
greater opportunities for athletics to impact the students participating in them. However,
for any level of greatness to be realized by intercollegiate athletics (and higher
education), the present system must be brought to a higher level (Knight Commission,
2001):

The current inseparability of sports, especially football, from the

infrastructure of higher education was preﬁgured late in the previous

century in the building of expensive stadiums on college property —

inevitably with borrowed funds to be repaid from spectator charges,

the frequent playing of championship games in metropolitan centers,

and the increasingly widespread coverage of games by newspaper and

later by radio. For it was only when the sporting scene began to move,

emotionally and at times literally, beyond the conﬁnes of the college

playing ﬁeld that the social and populist linkages were formed that

gave intercollegiate contests a security their intrinsic character could

never have sustained. (Bailey & Littleton, 1991, p. 6)

Athletics, like each department that makes up a university or college, must
actively contribute to the mission of the larger institution (Gerdy, 1998). Those tasked
with insuring athletics’ contribution to higher education are the president, athletic director
and coaches (Duderstadt, 2000).

Role of Presidents

Presidents are readily recognized as the chief executive ofﬁcer (CEO) of the
academic institution. Over the course of time the role and even the power of the president
has shifted. The size and structure of colleges and universities has changed, and with

these changes there have been adjustments in the duties of presidents. In particular, much

of the sovereignty once afforded to presidents by their trustees early in the development

22

 

of higher education is no longer present (Chu, 1989). Overall, the role of the president in
relation to athletics is misunderstood by many, both within and outside of the institution
(Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Duderstadt, 2000).

As it relates to athletics, Bylaw 2.2 of the NCAA Constitution plainly states: “The
institution’s chief executive ofﬁcer is responsible for the administration of all aspects of
the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures”
(2003 NCAA Manual, p. 3). It is the responsibility of the president to oversee the proper
functioning and overall integrity of athletics. For programs regarded as “big time”
athletic programs, the ﬁscal health and success of athletic programs must also be kept
under watch. Although athletics may not be the centerpiece of every institution,
presidents are the critical link in keeping the athletic department tied to the institution and
in line with the institutional mission(s) (Bailey & Littleton, 1991).

Even though the NCAA bylaws place authority and responsibility on college
presidents, there are moments when it is unclear who is ultimately heading the athletics
program (Duderstadt, 2000; Kerr & Gade, 1989):

This point of authority, while legislatively clear and incontrovertible,

is often ambiguously communicated, to both university faculty and

public, when institutions at times of crisis or signiﬁcant change in the

athletic program seem represented not by the president but by the

governing board or even by the athletic director. Unfortunately, the

agreement on the president’s authority in these matters is not always

secured explicitly with the governing board at the time of appointment,

perhaps due to the unjustiﬁed assumption that the point is already

understood or to the fact that many individuals are promoted, as it

were, into the ofﬁce of president without any signiﬁcant experience in

the administration of athletics and thus are not aware of the critical
importance of this issue. (Bailey & Littleton, 1991, p. 67)

In this present era of our sports-dominated society it is difﬁcult for any president to run

the institution (of Div I-A status) effectively without being actively involved in its

23

 

athletics program (Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Chu & Segrave, 1985; Gerdy, 1997).
Athletics has reached such a level of popularity and solicits far too much attention from
the public for a president to attempt to disconnect him or herself from the athletics
program (Bailey & Littleton, Duderstadt, 2000). Continuity of leadership makes this issue
more complex given that turnover remains at a high level for college and university
presidents (Bailey & Littleton, 1991).

Role of the Athletic Director

Although the president is held responsible for all outcomes pertaining to athletics,
the day-to-day responsibility and authority of maintaining proper control of an
institution’s athletic program falls upon the athletic director (Bailey & Littleton, 1991). In
addition, athletic directors are also typically held responsible for developing and
maintaining a keen knowledge and understanding of the rules and legislation of the
NCAA and in the respective conference (Duderstadt, 2000).

Because collegiate athletics is embedded in an academic environment, some hold
that the role of the athletic director should be more educationally oriented. As stated by
Curry (1996), there is a need for athletic directors to be more heavily involved with
academics:

The athletic director should ﬁrst of all be an educator. The director of

the nineties must help integrate athletics and education, he or she must

serve on the academic councils with deans of colleges and the chief

academic ofﬁcer (academic vice-president or provost). The athletic

director will enhance the welfare of the student-athlete by providing

orientation programs for student-athletes dealing with campus life,

academic policies and developing a formal process for evaluation of

the program. The athletic director should also provide programs that
deal with awareness of diversity. (Craig, 1996)

24

 

Over time the selection of and even the search criteria for athletic directors has
evolved toward ﬁnancially savvy individuals. In a 1994 survey, Eastman and Beaudine
found that the most common desired traits and characteristics of Division I presidents and
athletic directors were:

1. Strategic Thinking —— the ability to develop, evaluate, and implement short and long-
terrn plans.
2. Knowledge of and sensitivity to gender equity issues and regulatory procedures.
3. Ability to manage complex ﬁnancial issues and budgets.
4. Capability to direct a large and diverse staff, including coaches.
5. Marketing expertise.
6. Strong public speaking, writing, and media relations skills.
7. Creativity and problem-solving abilities.
8. Effective human resource talents for dealing with parents, students, faculty, booster
groups, and sponsors.
As pointed cut by Gerdy (1997), this list fails to include academic goals of any kind. This
evolution can be viewed as a reﬂection of the direction in which athletic programs have
moved (Duderstadt, 2000).
Role of the Coaches

The delegation of responsibility for intercollegiate athletics continues with the
role of the coach. Each coach is deemed responsible for the conduct of his/her program,
and the success of the athletics program is believed to depend largely upon coaches
(Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Knight Commission, 2001). Success entails the team’s

performance on the ﬁeld [wins and losses] and student-athlete behavior off the ﬁeld

including the classroom.

25

 

As deﬁned by Webster (2002), a coach is one who instructs players in the
fundamentals of competitive sports and directs team strategy. The term coach has its
roots in Great Britain. It was used to describe a tutor who assisted a student through his
examinations (Humphrey et al., 2000).

The position and role of a head coach is no small order. The head coach wears
multiple hats. A coach is considered “at once a teacher, a psychologist, a father/mother
ﬁgure, and various other roles that he or she ﬁnds it expedient or necessary to assume at a
given time” (Humphrey et al., 2000, p. 49).

The “high stakes” environment of intercollegiate athletics, generally associated
with Division I football and men’s basketball, makes coaching stressful, including the
constant pressure to win, whether real or made up (DiBiaggio, 1995). However, both the
payout and punishment for winning and losing can both be extrinsically and intrinsically
motivated:

For the coach, the rewards of success (i.e., a winning season) are

psychological as well as economic. A “Bear” Bryant of Alabama or a

Woody Hayes of Ohio State can enjoy national fame and take

modestly concealed satisfaction in the fact that he is far better known

than the governor of the state — not to mention the president of the

university. The results of failure (i.e., losing season) are punitive:

coaches whose teams have done badly can expect to be pilloried in

print, burned in efﬁgy, and separated from the university. John

Robinson, a football coach at Southern California, complained to

Sports Illustrated writer John Underwood about the psychological

burden of the incessant death threats that are an occupational hazard of

college coaching. (Andre & James, 1991, p.22)

At the onset of the growth of collegiate athletics, coaches generally held a
position as a member of the faculty (Gerdy, 1997). As college sports began to blossom in

pOpularity, many institutions decided to hire full-time coaches. To this day many hold

26

 

tightly to the belief that the primary responsibility of coaches is, and should always be, as
educators (Gerdy, 1997; Bailey & Littleton, 1991).

The impact of a coach’s behavior and opinion upon the members of his or her
team are potentially boundless, and should not be taken for granted (Humphrey et al.,
2000). Bailey and Littleton (1991) reafﬁrm an important point:

The institutional position for its athletic program must clearly establish

the role of the coach as a teacher, not merely for the enhancement of

athletic ability but also for the responsibility for promoting and

contributing to the total education of the student-athlete in his or her
program. The potential contribution coaches can make to education is
suggested in this observation by a prominent head football coach in

Division I-A: “If the coach is not convinced that education is

important to that student-athlete, the student-athlete is not going to be

interested in going to class and making as good grades as he can. He’s

got the only excuse he needs. The man he looks up to for all his

guidance has made it clear that it really doesn’t matter what he does as

long as he shows up on Saturday and gets it in the end zone. He’s

been taught from day one: you please the coach and everything’s OK.”
(p. 80)

Ideally, the qualities of a successful coach are centered upon balance. There is
“the balance between being caring, motivational, supportive, and approachable, while
maintaining the ﬁrm discipline and uncompromising determination to require of student-
athletes the academic and competitive excellence that also characterizes outstanding
college coaches” (Humphrey et al., 2000, p. 49). Also, while many expect so much of
collegiate coaches, for the overall beneﬁt of all involved it is important that coaches be
kept well informed and well supported (Bailey & Littleton, 1991).
Organization and Administrative Structure

Through standards and regulations established by the NCAA and its member
institutions, intercollegiate athletics are split into multiple divisions of competition. The

size and population of the institution usually determines the divisional level into which

27

 

each institution seeks to place itself. There are certain ﬁnancial ramiﬁcations, such as
ﬁnancial aid awards, tied to each division with regard to revenue sharing by the NCAA
among institutions and their respective conference(s).

Division 1. Member Division I institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports
for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports
for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well. There
are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria. For
sports other than football and basketball, Division I schools must play 100% of the
minimum number of contests against Division I opponents — anything over the
minimum number of games has to be 50% Division 1. Men's and women's basketball
teams have to play all but two games against Division I teams: Men’s basketball teams
must play at least 1/3 of all their contests in the home arena. Football teams are classiﬁed
as Divisions I-A or I-AA. Division I-A football schools are usually fairly elaborate
programs. They have to meet minimum attendance requirements:

1:] 17,000 people in attendance per home game, or

Cl 20,000 average of all football games in the last four years, or

a 30,000 permanent seats in their stadium and average 17,000 per home game, or

:1 20,000 average of all football games in the last four years, or be in a member
conference in which at least six conference members sponsor football or more
than half of football schools meet attendance criterion. Division I-AA teams do
not need to meet minimum attendance requirements. Division I schools must meet
minimum ﬁnancial aid awards for their athletics program, and there are maximum
ﬁnancial aid awards for each sport that a Division I school carmot exceed (NCAA,
2003)

Division II. Institutions in Division II have to sponsor at least four sports for men

and four for women, with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season must be

28

 

represented by each gender. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport,
as well as scheduling criteria. Football and men's and women's basketball teams must
play at least 50% of their games against Division II or I-A or I-AA opponents. For sports
other than football and basketball there are no scheduling requirements. There are no
attendance requirements for football or arena game requirements for basketball. There are
maximum ﬁnancial aid awards for each sport that a Division II school must not exceed.
Division 11 teams usually feature a number of local or in-state student-athletes. Many
Division II student-athletes pay for school through a combination of scholarship money,
grants, student loans, and employment earnings. Division II athletics programs are
ﬁnanced in the institution's budget like other academic departments on campus.
Traditional rivalries with regional institutions dominate schedules of many Division II
athletics programs (NCAA, 2003).

Division III. Institutions in Division III have to sponsor at least ﬁve sports for
men and ﬁve for women, with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season
must be represented by each gender. There are contest and participant minimums for each
sport. Division III athletics features student-athletes who receive no ﬁnancial aid related
to their athletic ability, and athletic departments are staffed and funded like any other
department in the university. Division III athletics departments place special importance
on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators. The student-
athlete's experience is of paramount concern. Division III athletics encourages
participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to

Students, placing primary emphasis on regional in—season and conference competition

(NCAA, 2003).

29

 

ﬁt

at

In.“

R.

Irkplﬁlrkllt‘

Part of the organization and administrative structure of collegiate athletics
includes the ﬁnancing and costs associated with intercollegiate athletics. This ﬁnancing
generally varies by division level. Division I institutions treat athletics as an auxiliary
activity, and are separated by a ﬁnancial ﬁrewall from the budgets of academic programs
(Duderstadt, 2000). Most Division I programs are expected to operate from the “every
tub on its own bottom” budgeting method. This method places each athletics program in
a position to generate enough revenue to meet or exceed its expenditures. For some
programs this can be achieved with little to no support from central administration. In
contrast, most Division III athletic programs are included in the institutional budget as a
department within the academic structure of the institution. As a result, athletic programs
rely primarily on institutional ﬁnancing and subsidizing of athletics. Typical expenses for
athletic programs are listed below. There are certain revenues and expenses primarily

addressed by Division I institutions:

Revenues Expenditures
Ticket Sales Salaries and Beneﬁts
Guarantees Athletic Scholarships (Div. I)
Payouts from postseason play (Div. 1) Travel and recruiting
Television (Div. 1) Equipment, supplies, medicine
Corporate sponsorships, advertising, licensing Insurance
Unearned revenues Administrative

Booster Donations Capital expenditures (Div. I)

Student fees and assessments

State or other govt. support

Traditional revenue sports of football and men’s basketball typically generate a
Signiﬁcant percent of the revenue for an athletic department. A considerable portion of
those revenues are used to cover the expenditures for those two teams (Duderstadt, 2000).

At the close of the business day very few Division I programs actually earn a proﬁt each

30

year (Duderstadt, 2000). There is a general myth that exists among the public that the
multi-million dollar deals with television networks are paid directly to each Division I
athletic program.

Summary

Although athletics “should” be touted and regarded as another department on
campus, the reality is that no other department appears in the news (print, TV, and radio)
every day like the athletics program (Bailey & Littleton, 1991, Chu, 1989). It is difﬁcult
not to know about the athletics program, particularly for Division I schools. Athletics
brings attention and prestige to the institution (Bailey & Littleton, 1991 , Chu; 1989;
Gerdy, 1997).

To understand the role of athletics within the context of higher education in
America requires examining the many agents involved in the daily operation of the
institution. Former Harvard University president, Derek Bok (1985) put it this way:

But America is different. Its universities are unique in their efforts to

please many constituencies — prospective students, donors, legislators,

and the general public. The growth of intercollegiate sports aptly

illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of constituency-oriented

system of higher education. With enthusiastic support from students,

alumni, and even government ofﬁcials, our colleges have developed

athletic programs that have brought great satisfaction to thousands of

athletes and millions of spectators. Few aspects of college life have

done so much to win the favor of the public, build the loyalties of

alumni, and engender lasting memories in the minds of student-

athletes. (Bok, 1985)

Athletic programs continue to serve as a symbol of success for the institution and
the overall health and success of athletics is also a sign of effective leadership for

institutional presidents (Andre & James, 1991; Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Chu, 1989;

Gerdy, 1997). This evolution led to replacing students with administrators and coaches in

31

the management and direction of athletic teams. The institution now takes full
responsibility for every facet of the games and their pending success (Andre & James,
1991; Chu, 1989; Gerdy, 1997).

As pointed out by Littleton and Bailey (1991) the inseparability of athletics and
the institution is readily observed in the building of elaborate multi-million dollar campus
stadiums. Although the role of athletics may shift for some institutions, such permanent

structures make it clear that parts will remain central to the operation of many institutions

of higher education.

 

Organizational Culture

“The way we do things around here” lies at the heart of describing organizational
culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). Culture is an important aspect of our lives, but the idea
and concept of culture is one that remains very difﬁcult to pin down (Morgan, 1997;
Pedersen & Sorensen, 1989; Tierney, 1988). Masland (1985) describes organizational
culture as a powerful force that serves to control the behavior of those within it (the
organization). An organization’s culture inﬂuences what is done, how it is done, and who
is involved in doing it (Tierney, 1988). Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning,

and shared understanding are all ways to describe culture (Geertz, 1973; Morgan, 1997).
From a historical perspective, there was a resurgence of research in the area of
organizational culture in the 19805 (Masland, 1985; Tierney, 1988). Goffee and Jones
(2001) point out three reasons for the surge of interest in corporate culture. First, there
was an increased interest in addressing the challenges brought about by corporate

globalization. Second, “strong” cultures, which displayed clearly expressed and widely

32

 

practiced values, seemed to be high achievers. Third, organizational cultures viewed as
distinctive were thought to have a long-term competitive advantage because competitors
could not easily replicate them.

Although the origins of the study of organizational culture did not begin with
higher education, the concept of organizational culture is not new to colleges and
universities (Masland, 1985). Higher education has been deﬁned by four cultural spheres:
1) cultures based upon disciplines, 2) the profession of academics has its own culture, 3) l
institutional cultures, and 4) a national culture of higher education (Clark, 1980). In

addition, Clark (1980) adds that an institution’s cultural strength is dependent upon size,

 

tightness (interdependence), age, and founding history. Stronger cultures display greater

coherence among beliefs, language, ritual, and myth, while weaker cultures lack such

coherence.

Essential elements in organizational culture are the beliefs, values, and norms
(Hultrnan & Gellerman, 2002). In their work Hultrnan and Gellerrnan (2002) describe
beliefs as subjective assumptions, conclusions, and predictions. Values are looked upon
as standards of importance, and norms are standards of behavior based on beliefs and

values (p. 70).

Cultural Assessment

Tierney (1988) established a framework for evaluating the culture of the
organization. This framework included: the environment, mission, socialization,

information, strategy, and leadership of the setting.

Environment. The environment encompasses the present state and condition of

the institution. It includes the present student population, ﬁnancial situation, as well as

33

 

the school’s present relationship and positioning with the campus, local, and national
communities. It sets the tone and establishes a base of leadership that deﬁnes the
organization’s surroundings and the existing attitudes of various constituencies (Tierney,
1988).

Mission. The disclosed intent (mission) of the institution outlines an underlying
principle, as well as the criteria, for the development of high quality curricular program
(Tierney, 1988). Related to mission are all employees as well as the student population.

One measure to evaluate members of the organization is by comparing individual and/or

 

departmental goals and achieved outcomes to the ability to meet the mission of the r

institution. 1
Socialization. This concept refers to the ﬁt between individuals and the

organization, both in skill and ability. Faculty, staff, and students should also feel

comfortable with the present social values and norms displayed within the institution.
Information. This aspect refers to understanding the content of information and

how it is passed throughout the organization (i.e., mailings, memos, face-to-face

gatherings).
Strategy. This element refers to how decisions are made, the hierarchical

processes and formal structures that exist, and how plans are implemented.
Leadership. This concept refers to the expectations that employees hold of
leadership, the identiﬁcation of leadership, and the formal or informal nature of the
identiﬁed leaders of the organization (Tierney, 1988).

Tierney (1988) also noted the strategic use of symbols. He decidedly did not

mention the role of subcultures or roles of cultural artifacts such as buildings or statues.

34

 

However, after tying each of these concepts together, Tierney (1988) stated that cultures
vary by institution, and a cultural perspective of higher education was not a panacea for
all institutional woes.

Tierney’s framework bears some similarities to the sociological perspective
provided by Goffee and Jones (2001). They present four main areas by which to perform
cultural observations of both public and private organizations. First, physical space is
examined for how is space allocated, decorated, shared, or defended. Second,
communication patterns are examined for how information is passed from one person to
the next (e.g., email, memo, face-to-face, etc.), inclusiveness/exclusivity, and availability
to certain persons. Third, the management of time is examined for how long people stay
at work, how is time utilized while at work (work/socializing), and the length of time
spent in jobs. F curth, individual expression of personal identities is examined for
common dress codes, manners of speech, rituals, what people identify with (for example -
traditions, mission, vision), and the strength of this identiﬁcation. Each of these areas
provides an abundance of information and symbolic meaning regarding the existing
culture of an organization.

Organizational Subcultures

The existence of subcultures is common within any organization, particularly with
larger organizations (Morgan, 1997 ; Tierney, 1988; Zellmer-Bruhn, Gibson & Aldag,
2001). Subcultures arise as a result of more frequent member interaction with one set of
people than with other people (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2001). As Morgan (1997, p. 129)
notes, “Organizations are mini-societies that have their own distinctive patterns of culture

and subculture”. The display of a public face and a private face by an organization is an

35

 

aspect of culture — a fragmented culture (Morgan, 1997). Members of the organization
say one thing privately and do another thing publicly. This phenomenon can be observed
when the mission statement of an institution is in stark contrast to what is actually being
acted out by its members.

Cultural inﬂuences are viewed as occurring at multiple levels, within the
institution and across the system of higher education both locally and statewide (Tierney,
1988). Higher education has various units, departments, colleges, and the like. The
existence of multiple cultures does not mean that the dominant culture has been or will be
rejected (Pedersen & Sorensen, 1989). With this in mind, one goal of administration is to
keep cultural conﬂict to a minimum, while fostering the development of shared goals
(Tierney, 1988).

Research has shown that the goals and/or mission of different subcultures
sometimes come into direct opposition with other subcultures (Gregory, 1983). The
subculture of athletics has been noted to have a dynamic of intense loyalty (Adler &
Adler, 1998). The intense loyalty generally is from the athlete to the team and his/her
coach (and institution), and involves ﬁve conceptual elements: domination, identiﬁcation,
commitment, integration, and goal alignment (Adler & Adler, 1998). The authors note
that loyalty of this degree is typically found in combat units and religious cults.
Strengths of Cultural Metaphor

The culture metaphor has several strengths. For example, the use of symbolism is
applied to each facet of the organization (Morgan, 1997). Most artifacts within the

organization hold social meaning, thereby facilitating better understanding of the daily

36

 

 

10:

01’;

r
t

functioning of the organization. Another strength of this metaphor is that it attempts to
point out the shared systems of meaning within the organization (Morgan, 1997).

Zwell (2000) outlines speciﬁc characteristics leading to a successful culture: 1)
fostering employee development and encourages employees to maximally impact the
organization, 2) providing an avenue for highly competent employees to exercise their
talents and impact the organization, 3) creating a work environment in which employees
are engaged, challenged, and motivated, and 4) maintaining systems compensation that
reward employees for their performance and their contribution to the organization’s
success (p. 12).

Summary

The analysis of culture provides higher education with another tool by which to
diagnose distinct problems (Tierney, 1988). An examination of culture does not produce
an output of “high” or “low”; it is interpretive and provides each individual with the
opportunity to arrive at his/her own meaning (Geertz, 1973). More often than not
institutions recognize the external factors that impact the organization such as economics
and politics. However, the importance of cultural observation brings recognition to the
internal forces that serve to shape the organization (Tierney, 1988).

If the success of the organization in part relies upon the culture, then the degree to
which members agree and care about the values and norms is essential to this success
(Flynn & Chatrnan, 2001). One compelling task for academic leaders is the effective
management of organizational (academic) culture, which involves the management of

meaning and the management of social integration (Tierney, 1988).

37

 

Moral Development and Higher Education

Moral Cognitive Development Theory

At the start of twentieth century there was little interest in the topic of moral
development (Rich & DeVitis, 1994). Some believed that moral development could not
be studied objectively. Others point to a lack of concern, as well as a lack of consensus,
related to the identiﬁcation of society’s current primary moral concerns. Yet in
intercollegiate athletics a better understanding of moral development contributes to a
harmonizing of individual needs and societal pressures (Lumpkin et al., 1999; Rich &
DeVitis, 1994). At present little is known about the moral development of intercollegiate
student-athletes.

The study of moral development has been approached from competing frames of
reference (Chickering, 1969; Kohlberg, 1984; Lumpkin et al., 1999; Piaget, 1932; Shields
& Bredemeier, 1995; Thomas, 1997). The general theory of moral development focuses
on the study of how and why moral beliefs and actions change over the course of one’s
life (Thomas, 1997). However, the general intent of moral development theory is to
address the issue of how and through what process individuals develop a moral

PeI'Spective (Thomas, 1997). This complexity continues to make this a difﬁcult topic to

research (Stoll & Beller, 1998).

Cognitive moral development derives from a constructivist theory (Lumpkin et
al., 1 999; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995) and it serves as the focus of the current research.
Mor a] development is often assessed across different points in the lifespan (i.e.,

childhood, adolescence and adulthood). Other theories attempt to account for the entire

11ﬂier—wan (Kohlberg, 1972, 1984; Rich & DeVitis, 1994). The following review is not

38

ray
s,”

exhaustive. Instead it focuses on signiﬁcant perspectives held in the study of cognitive
moral development. Although I place the primary focus on moral development in the
collegiate environment and of young adults, I also review well-established theories on
child and adolescent development relevant to the study of moral development that occurs
by college.

Constructivist Approach. In a constructivist approach the process of moral
development incorporates the concepts of fairness, care, and justice. Using a
constructivist approach, the truth is constantly sought from interactions with the physical
and social environment (Knowles & McLean, 1986; Kohlberg, 1984; Lickona, 1976;
Piaget, 1962; Windmiller, Lambert & Turiel, 1980).

The work of Piaget and Kohlberg are particularly relevant. Although the analysis
and tools of assessment may differ, Stoll and Beller (1998) report overall that those
emphasizing cognitive processes believe that: 1) morality can be learned, 2) learning has
a deﬁnitive process, and 3) if learned, morality can be taught, and 4) if taught, morality or
the process of thinking can be measured. At the heart of the learning process are the
environment, modeling, and a speciﬁc, formal education process (Stoll & Beller, 1998).

Jean Piaget — Cognitive Moral Judgment. The work of Piaget is considered
among the more innovative because he was the ﬁrst to study moral development from a
cognitive approach (Lickona, 1976; Piaget, 1932). The work of Piaget (1932, 1962)
remains directly relevant and among the more currently utilized theories of cognitive
moral development. His model was based on the cognitive development of children
(Piaget, 1932, 1962). Piaget believed that a child’s ﬁrst encounter with learning is a direct

result of his/her physical experience with the environment. In other words, it is this

39

 

1i:

initial experience that serves as the foundation for all other cognitive abilities (Piaget,
l 932, l 962).

Piaget (1932) divided the thought process into two separate yet interdependent
elements — the ﬁgurative and the operative. Figurative elements are those things that are
mental, imaginative, and promote mental imagery. At the other end of the spectrum is the
operative stance. The operative perspective concerns as the rules that govern ﬁgurative
thought and the way that ﬁgurative aspects of thought are utilized (Rich & DeVitis, 1994;
Windmiller et al., 1980)

In Piaget’s (1932) early work on the moral lives of children, the application of

 

rules during game playing was used to study children’s beliefs about right and wrong. It
was Piaget’s (1932) ﬁrm belief that all development emerges from action, and that from
this action we build (and rebuild) our knowledge of the world surrounding us. From his
observations of children playing, Piaget arrived at the understanding that morality also
occurred as a result of development (Lickona, 1976; Piaget, 1932,1965; Rich & DeVitis;
1994; Thomas, 1997).

Piaget’s contribution to the study of moral development is widely recognized
(Rich & DeVitis; 1994; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). His works inspired many
following him. Highlights of Piaget’s work were his skills of observation in working with
children.

Kohlberg ’s Theory of Moral Development. The work of Lawrence Kohlberg is
heavily based upon the work of psychologist Jean Piaget and philosopher John Dewey.
Kohlberg’s theory claims to be both psychological and philosophical in nature (Kohlberg,

1969, 1971, 1972, 1984). Kohlberg was concerned with principles (such as justice) rather

40

than the relative values (i.e., cooperation and equity) focused on by Piaget (Piaget, 1932;
Rich & DeVitis, 1994).

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development targeted the motivating factors behind
acts, whether they were moral or immoral (Kohlberg, 1972, 1978). It was thought that
each individual’s interaction with their environment helped to forge a set of core values.
Kohlberg did not support the idea that as long as persons believed an act to be right then
that particular act was morally justiﬁable (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995).

Through his work, Kohlberg outlined a system of classiﬁcation based on three
levels and six stages of moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1969, 1971, 1972, 1984). The three
levels of moral reasoning are the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.

A change represents a shift in the social-moral viewpoint of the individual. (See Table 1

below)

41

Table 1

Kohlberg’s Levels and Stages of MoraiDevelmiment

 

 

 

I.

II.

III.

Pre-conventional Level

Stage 1:

Orientation to punishment, obedience, and physical and material
power. Rules are obeyed to avoid punishment.

Stage 2: Naive instrumental hedonistic orientation. The child conforms to
obtain rewards.

Conventional Level

Stage 3: “Good boy” orientation designed to win approval and maintain
expectations of one’s immediate group. The child conforms to avoid
disapproval. One earns approval by being “nice.”

Stage 4: Orientation to authority, law, and duty, to maintain a ﬁxed order,

whether social or religious. Right behavior consists of doing one’s
duty and abiding by the social order.

Post-con ventional, Autonomous, or Principled Level

Stage 5:

Stage 6:

Social contract orientation, in which duties are deﬁned in terms of
contract and the respect of others’ rights. Emphasis is on equality and
mutual obligation within a democratic order. There is an awareness of
relativism of personal values and the use of procedural rules in
reaching consensus.

The morality of individual principles of conscience that have logical
comprehensiveness and universality. Rightness of acts is determined
by conscience in accord with ethical principles that appeal to
comprehensiveness, universality, and consistency. These principles
are not concrete (like the Ten Commandments) but general and
abstract (like the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative).

(Rich & DeVitis, 1994, p. 86)

 

The ﬁrst level of moral development is associated with the age level of

elementary students. While in this ﬁrst stage, children are believed to behave according

to the direction of some authority ﬁgure (Kohlberg, 1972, 1984). Adherence to social

norms is established by the fear or threat of some form of punishment (Kohlberg, 1972,

1984). In the second, stage the child seeks to maximize his/her own best interests.

42

 

The conventional level is associated with the adult population. Those in the third
stage, demonstrate a greater appreciation for the “greater good” of those immediately
close to the individual such as family and friends (Hoffman, 1970; Kohlberg, 1972,
1984). It is a stage where the approval of others in one’s inner circle is important. The
fourth stage claims that obedience to the law is important as individuals take on a
heightened sense of duty. It is understood that the shared need for norms and conventions
is necessary for the general society to maintain and adhere to laws as well as to social
duties.

The ﬁnal level of Kohlberg’s theory, post-conventional level, is one that Kohlberg
did not believe most adults would not reach in their lifetimes (Rich & DeVitis, 1994). At
this level individuals base decisions upon principles (e.g., Golden Rule). Empirical
research supports distinct stages between 1 through 5, but not 6 (Rich & DeVitis, 1994;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Kohlberg’s theory is credited by Rich and DeVitis (1994) as stimulating greater
research and criticism, and for opening new ways of thinking about moral development.
Kohlberg’s theory has proven to cross cultural boundaries and is supported by numerous
studies spanning numerous cultural groups (Thomas, 1997).

Critics such as Gilligan (1977) point out that Kohlberg’s research may reﬂect bias
against females because it is driven primarily by the interest in and perceptions of men.
There were a disproportionate number of male subjects involved in the work of Kohlberg.

Kohlberg’s methodology of utilizing short hypothetical stories to create moral
dilemmas for discussion, which he would then probe, is classical and well known

(Shields & Bredemeier, 1995). Each stage formulated by Kohlberg can only be reached

43

 

in its speciﬁc sequence. Kohlberg posited that people are not necessarily honest and
dishonest. Rather people commit honest and dishonest acts (Rich & DeVitis, 1994).
Moral Development — In the Context of A thletics

Does Athletics Build Character? The debate regarding the character building
power of athletics has. been ongoing (Sage, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985). So often
athletics is looked upon as a model of the culture, and is purported to reﬂect the values of
the people as a society (Boxhill, 2003; Sage, 1998; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985). In
American society, in athletics we see the best and the worst of society. Some will do
anything to win, while others will make a point to follow the rules to the letter.

Part of the debate is tied to the fact that “character” is a very rich term and
difﬁcult to deﬁne consistently across individuals (Boxhill, 2003; Lumpkin et al., 1999;
Sage, 1998; Schwartz, 2000; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985). In the research concerning the
relationship of athletics to character, there is no universal terminology (see pages 13-14
for deﬁnitions of terms used in this study) and no consistent ﬁndings about the process
through which character is developed by athletics (Boxhill, 2003; Lumpkin et al., 1999;
Shields & Bredemeier, 1985).

Sage (1998) identiﬁes several difﬁculties in developing well-conceived empirical
research. First, the word “character” as a socially constructed term is vague — leaving it
open to varied deﬁnition. In addition, “good” character traits can differ greatly by culture.
Even when clearly deﬁned it is difﬁcult to verify the character building effects of sports.
In contrast, Stoll and Beller (1998) posit that from a cognitive moral development
viewpoint universal values exist. These moral values can be learned and can be

measured.

44

 

 

From a historical perspective, the concept that sport builds character is directly
related to 19th century English tradition (Miracle & Rees, 1994). Student sports teams
found within secondary boarding schools for boys were viewed as portals for the
promotion of a host of virtues (Mangan, 1981). As a result, British school administrators
attached and promoted the added beneﬁt of “character” to the physical exercise that the
students received (Mangan, 1981; Miracle & Rees, 1994; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985).
The future success of boarding school alumna was attributed to student participation in
school athletic events (Mangan, 1981; Miracle & Rees, 1994; Sage, 1998; Shields &
Bredemeier, 1985).

In the late 1800’s, the British maxim of sports building character soon became an
American belief (Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; Sage, 1998). Today “sport, it is argued,
provides a social environment for acquiring culturally valued personal and social
attitudes, values, and behaviors; moreover, it is implied that what is learned in the sport
setting transfers to other spheres of life.” (Sage, 1998, p. 16)

Empirically, Stevenson’s (1975, 1985) review of research concerning the
socialization effects of participation in sport found no valid evidence that participation in
sport causes socialization effects. In his 1975 review, Stevenson referenced three types of
socialization effects: psychological, behavioral, and attitudinal. The psychological
effects examined by Stevenson (1975, 1985) focused on personality characteristics of
athletes and non-athletes, as measured by personality inventories. The behavioral effects
looked at the relationship between participation in sport and behavioral features as
revealed by grade point average, intelligence tests, and delinquency. Lastly, Stevenson

found no evidence to suggest that sport participation causes any veriﬁable socialization

45

effects. The work on delinquency has shown a positive relationship with athletic
participation but there was no establishment with regard to its causality (Stevenson, 1975,
1985). Shields & Bredemeier (1995) and Sage (1998) uncovered ﬁndings similar to
Stevenson.

In 1994, Miracle and Reese discussed the mythical status of school sport as a
builder of character, the alleged multiple beneﬁts of athletic participation for students,
and the widely anticipated outcomes of society relating to sports. The purported beneﬁts
center on the socialization effects on the athlete. As a result, students are expected to
learn positive social values that will transfer into other areas of their lives (also see
Gerdy, 1997). In a nutshell, interscholastic athletics are seen as a means for maintaining
and preserving the values of American society. Even so, Miracle and Reese (1994) arrive
at the conclusion that there is no evidence that sport builds character.

Some research suggests athletic participation has a negative impact upon

character and moral development (Beller & Stoll, 1994; Decker & Lasley, 1995).
For instance, in a comparative analysis of the moral cognitive reasoning of two
groups of high school athletes and non-athletes, the athletes scored lower on
moral development than their non-athlete peers. Also, athletes showed a steady
decline from 9'h grade through 12'h grade on moral reasoning scores, while non-
athletes tended to see their scores increase over their high school career (Beller &
Stoll, 1994; Decker & Lasley, 1995). The researchers did not determine the
reasons for these outcomes, recommending further study.

Additional research displaying the potentially negative outcomes attained

by student athletic participation can be found in the work of Stoll, Beller, Cole,

46

and Burwell (1995). This research compared the moral reasoning scores of
Division I and Division III student-athletes of NCAA schools. At both levels
student-athletes consistently scored signiﬁcantly lower than nonathletes on the
Hahm-Beller Values Choice Inventory for moral reasoning. The author’s ﬁndings
concluded that at that time the manner in which competitive athletics was
practiced, modeled, and taught adversely affected moral reasoning of participants
(Stoll, Beller, Cole, & Burwell, 1995).

Those involved hope athletics instills a set of values transferable to the world

outside of sport (Miracle & Rees, 1994). Yet, “sport has done little to transform dominant i

 

social values to enhance personal development and promote social justice for a majority
of participants” (Shields & Bredemeier, 1985, p 1).

The magnitude of school sport has reached a ritualistic status and signiﬁcance in
our culture. As noted by Miracle and Rees (1994) school sport is ritualistic in that groups
of people set seasonal markers by the playing of certain sports (p. 18-20). This ﬁnding is
indicative of an American addiction to sports (Gerdy, 2002).

It is important to consider the unique experiences of each engaged
student/participant rather than group experiences. Shields and Bredemeier (1985) point
out that each sport presents different dynamics (individual/team, coaching style,
contact/noncontact) and that speciﬁc contexts should never be overlooked in the
discussion of the moral psychology that is developed through sport. The question is better

stated: how could the contribution of athletic participation be enhanced?

47

Moral Education

When considering the American system of education there are opposing views
regarding the expectations of our schools to educate beyond the formal learning in the
classroom (Hollander & Saltmarsh, 2000; Pascarella, 1997; Rich & Devitis, 1994).
Gallup polls have found that over sixty percent of respondents held the belief that moral
development is a primary responsibility for public schools (Rich & Devitis, 1994). This
same expectation appears to be held for America’s higher education institutions as well.
Pascarella (1997) agrees that higher education settings have established themselves as
places that develop individuals who can think and act morally. However, scandal and
unethical behavior have rocked our country, with government ofﬁcials setting aside
moral values, big business knowingly cheating employees and investors out of millions,
and sports participants using banned substances to enhance their performance. These
scandals have fueled the dismay and distrust of the nation. Many involved in these moral
breakdowns have typically been college educated.

As a result, some believe that higher education institutions are no longer a viable
setting for teaching morals (Hollander & Saltmarsh, 2000). Some people view higher
education as disconnected from social ills and concerns. However, school administrators
are supposedly attempting to reverse this negative perception (Hollander & Saltmarsh,
2000).

Conversely, with all of this in mind extensive research reports that higher
education institutions signiﬁcantly inﬂuence the growth of moral reasoning among
COIlege Students (Pascarella, 1997). These institutions have a history of inﬂuence and

impact. Historically, Morrill (1980) points to Greek philosophy, the wisdom of European

48

drinkers, the British schools and colleges, American moral activism, and the religious
traditions of the Jewish and Christian faith as all inﬂuencing the moral aim of higher
education. As Boxhill (2003) states,

“it does not follow that educational institutions can or should be totally

value free. The proper kind of neutrality for educational institutions is

not total value freedoms but non-partisanship on controversial issues,

which have no direct tie to the educational mission of the institution

itself. However, schools, including colleges and universities, must

insist on civility in the classroom so that learning can take place,

respect for evidence and rational canons of inquiry and investigation,

and willingness to consider rather than suppress the points made by

others.” (p. 23)

In higher education, however, there are several misconceptions about character.
Schwartz (2000) points out that some educators in higher education resist pursuing the
teaching of character (morals) because they believe that by the time students reach
college the individual’s character has already been formed. From this perspective, it is
not the place of faculty to foster “character” which has covert religious or conservative
meaning.

At the heart of every collegiate institution are its vision and mission statements.
These statements have evolved considerably over time with respect to moral education
(Dalton, 1985). The institutional responsibility to the student has shifted and become
intertwined with goals of meeting the needs of the community, and with ultimately
Preparing students for useful careers.

Early teachings of morality often took place with the direct teaching and study of
the Bible. In the nineteenth century the focus was on moral philosophy and a student’s

establishment of moral truth within the context of general learning and knowledge

(Morrill, 1980). In the present, it remains equally important to identify a variety of means

49

to enhance multiple facets of student personal development, particularly moral and
character development (King, 1997; Kuh, 1998; Pascarella, 1997). Traditional liberal arts
schools have had greater success in improving moral reasoning. Currently, administrators
anticipate that throughout the student’s development within the college setting — each
student will come to “ﬁnd their way” through the college experience.
Summary

People arrive at their decided moral position (values, beliefs, norms) in many
ways. Simply from a cognitive perspective individual moral development is most likely

to occur with the presence of three important factors: moral environment, moral

 

modeling, and moral education (Stoll & Beller, 1998).

It is important to understand the cognitive moral development approach,
particularly as a component of and means to enhancing character. In addition, individual
differences and experiences are unique. For example, some may be greatly inﬂuenced by
their interaction with a certain individual (e.g., coach) thereby setting the stage for moral
modeling to occur. Nevertheless, all who are actively engaged with students, particularly

coaches, must understand the impact and effect their behavior has upon students

(Bareﬁeld, McCallister, Bungum & Page, 1997).

Student-Athlete Support Services
The work of past researchers indicates that some have questioned whether enough
is being done to meet the needs of today’s student-athlete (Boggan, 1999; Dempsey,
2002). The guidelines outlined in the NCAA yearly manual regarding student-athlete

welfare (Article 2.2) make it clear that: “Intercollegiate athletics programs shall be

50

conducted in a manner designated to protect and enhance the physical and educational
welfare of student athletes” (2003 NCAA Manual, p.3).

One indication of student welfare is graduation rate. Over a 12-year period, 10 of
the 16 top men’s basketball programs (based upon NCAA Sweet 16 appearances) failed
to meet the national graduation rate of 42 % (Wieberg, 2002). The elite football programs
did not fare too much better. In 50 of the 63 schools that make up the Bowl
Championship Series (BCS), the nations 6 top-tier conferences, the graduation rate for
football athletes was lower than that of the male student body at those same institutions
(Weiberg, 2001). More recently, graduation rates for 2002-2003 Bowl-bound college
football teams were worthy of note and concern. There were 25 (45%) of 55 teams with
student-athlete graduation rates that were 10 to 20 percent lower than the school’s overall
student-athlete graduation rate (Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 2003).

Other concerns about student-athlete welfare, both in the past and in the present,
relate to the amount of time students are expected to invest in athletic competition and
preparation — both formally and informally (Dempsey, 2002; F errante et al., 1996).
Depending upon the level of competition and the sport in which a student participates, a
student may spend in excess of 30 hours per week on sport-related activities. Student-
athletes have voiced their concern regarding this issue, and former NCAA President
Dempsey (2002) reports about this topic:

“They talk about the intrusion of athletics on their time, especially

personal time. They talk about their inability to integrate into the rest

of the student body because of time demands and the isolation

imposed upon them by coaches. They discuss the socialization and

“culturalization” failure they feel because their world is rarely allowed
to expand beyond the width of the ﬁeld or court.” (p. 9)

51

Although academics stands as the focal point of the student-athlete experience, it
is not the only aspect of concern. Boggan (1999, p.42) claims, “the key issue for all of us
engaged in college sports is making sure that we concentrate on supporting the student-
athlete’s educational development as a contributing member of the society of the
institution and our society in general.” Boggan (1999) also points out the very low
percentage of student-athletes that go on to play professionally. In men’s basketball 2%
of student-athletes will play professionally. In football 3% will play professionally.
Development Issues and Concerns

The developmental issues and concerns of intercollegiate student-athletes tend to
mirror that of the general student population (Chickering, 1969, 1976; Chickering &
Reisser, 1993; Parham, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These challenges include
identity development, interpersonal and personal relationships, career development,
separation from family, and establishing a set of consistent values, behaviors, and beliefs.

In addition to the general student development concerns, student-athletes must
meet a unique set of challenges (Ferrante & Etzel, 1991; Nishimoto, 1997; Parham, 1993;
Valentine & Taub, 1999). Parham (1993) lists these challenges as learning to balance
academics and athletics, adjusting to a degree of isolation, managing success or failure,
managing satisfying multiple relationships, being more cognizant of their physical health,
and termination of an athletic career. This is quite an intimidating list for a young college
student, which leads some to speculate whether or not a “student-athlete” is real or
illusionary. These challenges faced by student-athletes often lead to the psychological

and developmental concerns later in the career and/or life (Hinkle, 1994; Parham, 1993).

52

 

Stress and coping is a consistent theme at the heart of these unique challenges faced by
student-athletes.

Support service programs for this population generally are in place, and
interventions have been developed to meet many of the student’s needs (Carodine,
Almond & Gratto, 2001; Ferrante et a1. 1996). However, some issues must still be
addressed. For example, support programs tend not to focus on the development of
character. Yet the establishment of values and beliefs is identiﬁed as a concern among the
general student population (Chickering, 1969, 1976; Chickering & Reisser, 1993;
Parham, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Life Skills

In an attempt to provide balance to the collegiate student-athlete experience and to
address the growing needs of this population of students, the NCAA developed a
comprehensive life skills program. In 1994 the NCAA rolled out what is now known as
the Challenging Athletes Minds for Personal Success (CHAMPS) Life Skills Program
(Ward, 1999).

This holistic approach to the development of the student-athlete addresses ﬁve
broad areas, with speciﬁed purpose:

Academic Commitment - to support the academic progress of the student-athlete toward

intellectual development and graduation.

Athletic Commitment - to build philosophical foundations for the development of
athletics programs that are broad-based, equitable, and dedicated to the well-being of the
student-athlete.

Personal Commitment - to support the development of a well-balanced lifestyle for

student-athletes, encouraging emotional well-being, personal growth, and decision-
making skills.

53

 

Career Development Commitment - to encourage the student-athlete to develop and
pursue career and life goals.

Service Commitment - to engage the student-athlete in service to his/her campus and
surrounding community.

Programs such as this one have been designed to increase opportunities for student
development, and potentially offer character development through exposure to certain
settings and events (NCAA, 2005).

Many initiatives provided through the Life Skills Programs do not require or
mandate student-athlete participation in a speciﬁed number of planned events. Some
student-athletes do not and will not participate voluntarily (F errante et al., 1996). Without
strong support from coaches the program will not reach its potential (Carr & Bauman,
1999). As a result these opportunities for growth and development are not fully utilized.
Although the Life Skills Program has great intentions, its effectiveness is not known, and
it does not appear to reach a signiﬁcant number of student-athletes.

Summary

Some researchers and professionals have focused on the needs of student-athletes
(Danish, Petipas & Hale, 1995; Ferrante et al., 1996; I-Iinkle, 1994; Kirk & Kirk, 1993).
Efforts are being made to meet the needs of students either through present programming
or with practical models (Denson, 1996; Ward-Roof & Hatch, 2003; Watson, 2003).
There was no signiﬁcant discussion about the character (moral) development of the

student-athletes in the literature on student welfare.

54

Chapter Summary

The literature base is void of the perceptions of institutional presidents, athletic
directors and coaches about the role of institutional culture in the athletic program. In
addition, the literature does not tie these areas to the moral cognitive development idea
that character (morality) can be taught with the presence of important elements (i.e.,
moral environment, education and models).

The assumption that character development occurs thru athletic participation has
not been proven with any level consistency (Arnold, 1994; Sage, 1998; Shields &
Bredemeier, 1985). Literature on the role of the president, athletic director, and the coach
typically does not claim that a function of their position is to be builders of character
(Bailey & Littleton, 1991; Chu, 1989, Gerdy, 1997). Should it be their obligation?

Research has identiﬁed the unique needs of student-athletes (Parham, 1993) and
efforts to meet these needs of student-athletes (Danish, Petipas & Hale, 1995; Ferrante et
a1, 1996; Hinkle, 1994; Kirk & Kirk, 1993). Studies have identiﬁed the ability of athletics
to negatively impact moral development (Beller & Stoll, 1994; Decker & Lasley, 1995),
and some research has looked at the role of coaches as being the center-piece of having
athletics play a more effective role in the character development of athletes (Yeager,
Buxton, Baltzell & Bzdell, 2001).

The opportunity for intercollegiate athletic programs to have a lasting effect on
the “total growth” of student-athletes remains at issue. Athletic programs have
continuously upheld the belief that athletics does indeed build character. The theoretical
model of cognitive moral development tells us that certain key factors need to be in place

to create the greatest likelihood of developing character (Bredemeier & Shields, 1985;

55

 

Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1999; Piaget, 1932; Stoll &
Beller, 1998). These factors include a moral education, moral role models, and a moral
environment (Stoll & Beller, 1998; Lumpkin et al., 1999). A review of the literature
revealed several studies that assessed the ability of athletic participation to impact
character. In general, no consistent empirical ﬁndings have indicated that athletics
impacts character.

Previous studies have taken an outcome perspective, attempting to assess the
degree to which a change in character development has occurred (Stevenson, 1979,
1985). This approach has left a need to examine the process and variables that may
contribute to the anticipated outcome, including factors beyond the formal structure of
the organization. By studying organizational culture across various institutions,
underlying reasons for particular student development outcomes may be discovered.

The present void in the literature is created by a failure to engage those at the
helm of athletic programs (i.e., coaches, athletic directors and presidents) in a reasonable
dialogue regarding the methods and means (individually and/or collectively) by which

their respective programs attempt to (or not) enhance the character of student-athletes.

56

 

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the perceptions held by
coaches, athletic directors, and institutional administrators regarding their roles and
responsibilities related to student-athlete character development. In particular, the
research examines each individual’s perceptions concerning his/her impact upon the
development of student-athlete character. This examination of perceptions shall occur
while comparing two Division I and two Division III (2) institutions.

A review of the literature found no conclusive evidence that athletics does indeed
build character. Most prior studies focused on the outcomes experienced by the
participants (student-athletes). Few researchers investigated the perspective of coaches,
athletic administrators, and institutional administrators regarding the impact of athletics
on student-athlete character development. This study ﬁlls that gap.

A critical element of this study was to identify and explore the perceptions,
values, beliefs, and actual behaviors that were put into practice by coaches to impact
character development, and to also compare these views with those of athletic directors
and presidents.

This chapter describes the conceptual framework. It then outlines the design of
the study and research questions. It also describes the participants and their respective

insti tutions, the interview items, the data collection procedures, the analysis of the data,

and the limitations of the study.

57

 

Conceptual Framework of the Study

The theory of cognitive moral development provides the researcher with a
framework from which to perform the present research. This theory stipulates that key
elements — moral education, moral role models, and a moral environment must be present
in order for moral development to be taught (Bredemeier & Shields, 1985; Gilligan,
1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin et al., 1999; Piaget, 1932; Stoll & Beller; 1998, 1998).
These critical elements provided a comparative standard of measurement by which to
examine perceptions and behaviors that occur within the setting and structure of
intercollegiate athletics. The presence or absence of any of these elements will assist in
elucidating the level and degree of actual “potential” that may be present for enhancing
moral reasoning of student-athletes.

The framework of organizational culture provided by Tierney (1988) was utilized
to investigate the impact and role played by organizational culture in the character
development of collegiate student-athletes. The concepts utilized by Tierney (1988) to
perform an intense analysis of organizational culture are: environment, mission,
socialization, information, strategy, and leadership. Tierney (1988) arrived at this
particular framework following a year of investigating American higher education. His
Stated intent was to provide a working framework to diagnose culture in colleges and

universities so that distinct problems can be overcome. The aspects of organizational
culture of interest for this research were mission, environment, socialization and
leadership.

One way culture is used in organizational theory, as identiﬁed by Christensen and

Kreiner (1984), is as an analytical tool for the researcher to understand complex social

58

 

organizations. This organizational culture framework provides a window to observe and
examine distinct core values that hold the organization together (Pedersen & Sorensen,
1987)

In following with the premise begun by Tierney’s (1988) work, this conceptual
framework provided a method to begin diagnosing culture in colleges and universities.
As Schein (1981) pointed out, in order to observe organizational culture, a researcher
must ﬁnd the visible and explicit representations.

Just as there are external dynamics that inﬂuence higher education institutions
such as the economic and political conditions, there are also very intense internal forces
that serve to move an institution. Culture is one of these internal forces. Tierney (1988)
points out that these internal forces [culture] have their roots embedded in the history of
the institution, along with its values, processes, and goals. Sport in America has
developed its own set of values as it inﬂuences culture in higher education.

Tierney (1988) articulates how organizational culture tends to be only addressed
or recognized during moments of crisis, or following publicized debacles. At these
moments of crisis members of the organization are in reactionary postures as opposed to
proactive positions to maximize productive change within the organization. Crisis
moments often are the result of administrators not having a solid grasp of the cultural
conditions and inﬂuences that exists within the institution

A key aspect of Tierney’s (1988) perspective that made this an ideal framework
was that it proposed that as challenges continue to mount for higher education the need to
understand organizational culture will only intensify. The deﬁned elements of Tierney

(1988) provide operative cultural concepts to be utilized as a framework for researching

59

 

culture. As a result, an increased understanding of organizational culture will more likely
lead to improved management and enhanced performance. This present body of research
provides enhanced understanding of organizational culture within several unique higher
education institutions.

Design of the Study

This study was designed to provide a synopsis of the perceptions held by head
coaches, athletic directors and presidents regarding their perceived roles and
responsibilities in impacting the character development of student-athletes. This study
aimed to identify and explore the perceptions, values, and actual behaviors practiced by
coaches, athletic directors, and presidents in their efforts to directly and/or indirectly
impact student-athlete character development.

This research provides greater insight on the relationship between student-athletes
and those within the institution immediately involved in their development. In addition,
the study provides a comparative analysis of the present level of internal consistency
found between coaches, athletic directors, and presidents concerning the desired values,
and behaviors surrounding one of the basic tenets of higher education’s mission.

Research Questions
Research Question 1

1. Among coaches, athletic directors, and institutional administrators - does

student participation in intercollegiate athletics build character?

Research Question One sought to gain insight regarding participant’s belief in the
premise that athletics builds character. Interview questions 8 and 11 were related to

Research Question One.

60

 

Research Questions 2 and 3

2. What do coaches, athletic directors, and institutional administrators perceive to
be the essential elements/components needed in order to develop character in
student-athletes? [Inforrnally or Formally; Advertently or Inadvertently]

3. By position - what, if any, differences are found in the perceptions and beliefs
of presidents/senior administrators, athletic directors, and head coaches
regarding how character is best developed in student-athletes?

Research Question Two sought to gain insight regarding participant’s knowledge,
understanding, and beliefs regarding the elements they considered important to
development of character in student-athletes. Interview question 10 was related to
Research Question Two.

Research Question Three sought to identify differences between participant
positions regarding what each respective group perceived and/or believed to be the
essential elements needed to develop character. Interview question 10 was related to
Research Question Three.

Research Questions 4 and 5

4. Are there differences, by position, between presidents/senior administrators,
athletic directors, and head coaches regarding their perceptions, values, and
beliefs in relation to the impact athletics has upon a student-athlete’s character
development?

5. Are there differences between Division levels regarding the impact of athletics

upon student-athlete character development?

61

 

Research Questions Four and Five sought to identify differences between
participants by both position at the institution and by division level regarding what each
respective group perceived to be the impact athletics had upon student-athlete character
development. Interview questions 8-11 were related to Research Questions Four and
Five.

Participants

The participants of this study consisted of coaches, athletic directors, and
presidents (including vice presidents to whom athletics [the athletic director] must
report). This population was drawn from four colleges and universities within the state of
Michigan. Each institution’s athletic program holds member status as an afﬁliate with the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Two of the four institutions were
Division I programs, and two additional programs held a Division III classiﬁcation.
Among the four institutions selected none are church afﬁliated. At the time of this study
there were approximately 24 colleges and universities with NCAA sanctioned athletic

programs within the state of Michigan. (see below Table 2)

62

 

Table 2

Michigpn Colleges and Universities 1N CAA Members)

 

 

Institution Division Level
Adrian College 111
Albion College 111
Alma College 111
Calvin College 111
Central Michigan University I
Eastern Michigan University I
Ferris State University I & II
Finlandia University 111
Grand Valley State University II
Hillsdale College 11
Hope College 111
Kalamazoo College 111
Lake Superior State University I & 11
Michigan State University I
Michigan Technological University I & 11
Northern Michigan University I & 11
Northwood University II
Oakland University I
Olivet College III
Saginaw Valley State University 11
University of Detroit-Mercy I
University of Michigan I
Wayne State University I & II
Western Michigan University I

 

(source: www2.ncaa.org/sports)

 

In order to be considered for selection for this study an institution was considered
in part by its mission statement. Those institutions identiﬁed as having a stated mission or
institutional goal to develop “the total person” and/or any aspect of personal development
beyond academics was eligible for selection.

A description of the institutions involved in the study was reported in such a way
as to protect conﬁdentiality of the institutions and the participants. Both of the Division

III institutions are private, liberal arts programs and have student populations ranging

63

from approximately 1,000 to 1,500. There are at least two revenue sports, and all sports at
both institutions are of Division III status. Both of the Division I institutions are land
grant, research programs that have student populations ranging from 25,000 to 45,000.
There are at least two revenue sports represented, and all sports at both institutions are of
Division I status.

The sample of coaches represented segments of what is traditionally considered
revenue sports (football and men’s basketball) and non-revenue sports. The non-revenue
sports in this study were baseball, women’s soccer, women’s basketball, and softball. In
addition, an equal sample of both men’s and women’s sports teams were selected from
each respective institution. The same sports were interviewed at each institution. In total,
23 coaches, 4 athletic directors, 4 presidents, and 2 vice presidents were interviewed for
this study. (see below Table 3)

As seen in Table 3, all key participants (coaches, athletic directors, and
presidents) at each institution participated. Ninety-seven percent of those who were asked

to participate actually participated.

64

Table 3

P_articipants and Participation Rate

 

 

Position Division Division Total
I III Participants
Requested Actual
Coaches
Football 2 2 4 4
M Basketball 1 2 4 3
Baseball 2 2 4 4
W Soccer 2 2 4 4
W Basketball 2 2 4 4
Softball 2 2 4 4
Athletic Directors
2 2 4 4
Administrators
Presidents 2 2 4 4
Vice Presidents l 1 2 2
Total 16 17 34 33
Instrument

Consistent with the conceptual framework, the interview items reﬂected relevant
literature in the ﬁeld of organizational culture within higher education (Tierney, 1988),
and student-athlete character development (Lumpkin, Stoll & Beller, 1999; Stoll and
Beller, 1998). The interview guide was separated into ﬁve distinct content categories.
These sections included: 1) character development, 2) leadership, 3) environment, 4)
socialization, and 5) mission (Lumpkin, Stoll & Beller, 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998;
Tierney, 1988). The resulting 14 questions used for the interviews were developed to

assess the perceptions, values, roles, and behaviors of the participants. The items were

65

related to the perceived effect athletics has upon student-athlete character deveIOpment,
and the role of coaches, athletic directors and presidents in that process.
Character Development

This section focused on the values, perceptions, and experiences of participants
about the concept of character development and the basic factors of learning (and
teaching) morality. These questions drew from various researchers and their work related
to the process of cognitive moral development (Bredemeier & Shields, 1985; Gilligan,
1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin et al., 1999; Piaget, 1932; Stoll & Beller; 1994, 1998).
The following questions made up this portion of the interview:

° How do you deﬁne character?

° Based upon your experience, does student participation in intercollegiate athletics
build character? Explain. (If not, can it build character? Explain)

° What essential elements/components must be provided or must be present in order to
develop character in student-athletes?
(Elements = Moral Education/Moral Role Model/Moral Environment)

° Can you list all who you perceive as responsible for addressing the issue of character
development among intercollegiate student-athletes?

° Do you make a speciﬁc attempt to address character development among student-
athletes?

° Reﬂecting upon your background and experiences (both professionally and

personally) what and/or who has inﬂuenced your views on student-athlete character
development?

Leadership
These questions focused on the expectations that participants held of leadership,
the identiﬁcation of leadership, and the formal or informal nature of the identiﬁed

leader’s role as it related to athletics and student-athlete character development (Tierney,

66

1988). Three questions were developed to analyze the aspect of leadership as related to
developing student-athlete character and were based primarily upon Tierney’s (1988)
framework for evaluating culture. As Tierney points out (p. 16), actions [of the president]
develop and reinforce an institutional culture. This would reasonably hold truth for all in
positions of leadership. The following questions made up this portion of the interview:

' What role do presidents/A.D./coaches play in the building of character among
student-athletes?

' Should character development be of concern for those heading intercollegiate
athletics at the institutional level (Athletic Directors and Presidents)?

Environment

This section centered on participant perception(s) regarding the campus
community’s attitude toward and relationship with the intercollegiate athletic program at
the institution. This included the native student population, institutional ﬁnancial
situation, as well as the relationship and positioning of the athletic department with the
campus, local, and national communities. As pointed out by Tierney (1988), environment
sets the tone and establishes a base of leadership that deﬁnes the organization’s
surroundings and the existing attitudes of various constituencies. Three questions were
developed to analyze the aspect of environment and were based primarily upon Tierney’s
(1988) framework for evaluating culture. The following questions made up this portion of
the interview:

0 a. What are the external factors that impact your role as a head coach at this
institution?

0 b. What are the external factors that impact the role of a head coach at this institution?
' How does the college/university setting impact student character development?

0 What do you perceive to be the college’s/university’s attitude toward athletics?

67

Socialization

One question focused on participant perceptions about his/her view of what it
takes to achieve success as a student-athlete and beyond college. This question was based
upon Tierney’s (1988) framework for evaluating culture that looks at the “ﬁt” of an
individual in relation to the institution. The following question makes up this portion of
the interview:
° What does one need to know in order to survive/excel in this organization as an

athlete, as a student, and also following their undergraduate experience?

Mission

Questions in this section explored participant’s knowledge about the stated goals,
objectives, and purpose of the respective institution. It was anticipated that the likelihood
of achieving the mission becomes more probable if the individual has a reasonable grasp
of the mission. As identiﬁed by Tierney (1988), a standard of measurement for evaluating
organizational effectiveness is the mission. Three questions were developed to analyze
this aspect of mission and were related to Tierney’s (1988) framework for evaluating
culture. The following questions make up this portion of the interview:
° What do you understand to be the mission of the College/University?
' What is the mission of the athletics department?

Pilot Test

Following the completion of the initial design of the interview guide a series of

pilot interviews was conducted with a small group of coaches at a junior college (in

Michigan). The interview guide was revised as needed following this pilot study.

68

In particular, no major changes were implemented. However, there were several
questions that were rewritten in order to achieve greater clarity for the interviewee.
During the piloting process if a participating interviewee asked, “What do you mean?”
(or similar), this would require that a question be rewritten. In addition, the order of the
interview guide was also adjusted for what would be described as ﬂow and continuity.

Demographics

The 97% response rate was considered high, especially when considering the time
of year. Just prior to the start of the academic year (August) is quite a busy time for most
administrators, and certain coaches were in the midst of preparation for their respective
fall sports. Tables 4-6 present both categorical and continuous demographic data on
participants.

Participant Characteristics

Head Coaches. Table 4 (below) presents the characteristics of the entire sample of
coaches. Overall, respondents from this segment of research participants were
predominantly male for both Division I (7 of 11 - 64%) and for Division III (1 of 12 -
92%) institutions. The mean age of the coaches was 44 years for Division I [Revenue 46
years and Non-Revenue 43 years], and ranged from 30 to 53 years of age. The mean age
was 41 years for Division III coaches [Revenue 48 years and Non-Revenue 38 years] and
ranged from3l to 61 years of age. The sample of coaches consisted of former collegiate
athletes. Ninety-one percent of Division I coaches [Revenue 3 of 3 and Non-Revenue 7
of 8], and 100% (12 of 12) of Division III coaches had participated as collegiate athletes.
Division I coaches in the study averaged 11.9 years of head coaching experience

[Revenue 14 years and Non-Revenue 11.1 years], and ranged from 1 year up to 25 years.

69

Table 4

Head Coﬁagh Characteristics

 

Division I Coaches

Division III Coaches

 

Revenue Non-Revenue Revenue Non-Revenue
Characteristic Mean Mean Total Mean Mean Total
Div.I Div.III
N 3 8 11 4 8 12
Age (Yrs) 46 44 48 38
Gender 3of3M 4of8M 4of4M 7of8M
N/AF 4of8F N/AF lof8F
Yrs as a Collegiate
Head Coach 14 11.1 7 8.8
Collegiate Athlete 3 of 3 7 of 8 4 of 4 8 of 8
Highest Degree
B.A. 3of3 8of8 4of4 8of8
M.A.IMBA 1 of 3 7 of 8 3 of 4 4 of 8
PhD or Terminal none none none none
Yrs at Institution 3.6 9.2 7.75 9.3
Yrs-Current Position 3.6 7.8 5.25 8
Number of positions
currently held at 1 1.125 1.25 2.3

the institution

 

Division III coaches averaged 8.25 years of head coaching experience [Revenue 7 years

and Non-Revenue 8.8 years] and their ranges were from 2 to 17 years. The majority of

the coaches - 72% of Division I coaches [1 of 3 Revenue and 7 of 8 Non-Revenue] and

58% of Division III coaches [3of 4 Revenue and 4 of 8 Non-Revenue] have obtained a

Master’s degree. The difference in graduate degree attainment between Division I and

Division 111 may be the result of public attention often received by Division I athletics,

7O

and the role of higher education institutions to portray coaches as educators, as well as
being formally educated. Greater numbers of Division I positions state that the Master’s
degree is preferred, while Division III institutions appear to request most often a graduate
degree.

Some coaches held multiple positions in addition to the primary role of a head
coach, including that of course instructors. In fact, there are instances of Division III head
coaches also serving as assistant coaches of other teams. The mean number of
jobs/positions held by Division III coaches was two [1.25 jobs for Revenue and 2.3 jobs
for Non-Revenue]. The mean number of jobs for Division I respondents was one [1 job
for Revenue and 1.12 jobs for Non-Revenue]. In addition, for Division I coaches the
average length of time a coach had presently spent at their respective institution was 7.68
years [Revenue 3.6 years and Non-Revenue 9.2 years] and ranged from 4.5 to 25 years.
The mean was found to be 8.8 years at their respective institution for Division III coaches
[Revenue 7.75 years and Non-Revenue 9.3 years] and ranged from 5 years to 21 years.
Division I coaches average was approximately 6.6 years as the current head coach
[Revenue 3.6 years and Non-Revenue 7.8 years], and ranged from 1 year to 25 years.
Division III coaches average 7 years [Revenue 5.25 years and Non-Revenue 8 years] and
ranged from 2 to 17 years as the current head coach.

As anticipated, a male coach headed each of the traditional revenue sports. The
revenue sports are all-male teams. However, both women and men coached the non-
revenue female sport teams. Within the population of head coaches a high percentage of

these individuals were former athletes.

71

Division I revenue coaches had spent the least amount of time at the institution.
The number of years at the institution equaled the total number of years as a head coach.
Nearly all other coaches (Division I and 111) had spent some time at the institution prior to
becoming the head coach, often as an assistant. The volatility that accompanies “big
time” athletics brings the hiring and ﬁring of coaches on a yearly basis at a major college
institution.

The hiring of head coaches for revenue sports usually does not happen from
within the program. A new head coach is generally hired to bring in a fresh start and a
new beginning. Typically there is no working up through the ranks at one institution. On
occasion an assistant coach may be hired on an interim basis through the end of a season,
and depending upon the team’s performance he may be hired or released at the close of
the season by the institution. In most situations revenue coaches are ﬁred along with most
of, if not all of, their entire staff.

Another point of interest was identiﬁed in the number of positions held in
addition to head coaching by Division III coaches. Division III coaches on average held
one additional position beyond coaching duties. These coaches would usually instruct
courses at the institution, or hold another athletics related position. In comparison,
Division I coaches would have one role to focus upon. Division III appears to retain the
original model of higher education and collegiate athletics where the coaches maintain an
active on the college campus. The multiple roles of Division III coaches may have
reﬂected the limited ﬁnancial resources experienced at this level where athletics remains

a part of the institutional budget.

72

Athletic Directors. Table 5 presents the characteristics of the sample of presidents
and senior administrators involved in the study. Depending upon the organizational
structure of the institution general oversight of the athletic program may rest with the
president or another senior—level administrator. During this study two institutions had
their athletic program report to the president, and the two other athletic programs reported
to a senior administrator. Both of the senior administrators held the title of vice president.
The mean age of the president was 47 years and 50.3 years combined for all participating
administrators for Division I, and 49.5 years and 45.6 years respectively for presidents
and all participating Division III administrators.

There were key disparities that surfaced between division levels. With the present
sample there was a gap between years of age, years at the institution and the number of
years in the current position with Division I Athletic Directors accruing more years in
each category. Division I Athletic Directors also spent time as collegiate head coaches at
some prior point in their careers. This can be expected to provide some degree of insight
regarding the experience and ability to relate to coaches. Again, Division III Athletic
Directors held a greater number of roles/positions that include a wider range of duties
than their Division I colleagues. This could possibly be attributed to institutional size and

resources.

73

Table 5

Athletic Director Characteristics

 

 

Division I Division III
Athletic Directors Athletic Directors
Characteristic Mean Mean
N 2 2
Age 64.5 42.5
Yrs as a Collegiate
Head Coach 26 0
Collegiate Athlete 2 of 2 2 of 2
Highest Degree
B.A. - -
M.A./MBA 2 of 2 2 of 2
PhD or Terminal - -
Yrs at Institution 31 3.25
Yrs-Current Position 6.5 1.25

# of Positions
currently held at l 1.5
the institution

 

Presidents and Senior Administrators. Table 6 presents the characteristics of the
sample of athletic directors. The mean age of the sample of athletic directors was 64.5
years for Division I, and 42.5 for Division III athletic directors. Among this sample of
athletic directors, all were former collegiate athletes. It was found that Division I athletic
directors had a mean of 12.3 years of head coaching experience, while Division III
athletic directors had not acquired any collegiate head coaching experience. One hundred

percent of all athletic directors within the study have obtained a Master’s degree. The

74

mean number of jobs/positions held by Division III athletic directors (1.5 jobs) was

slightly greater than that of Division I athletic directors (1 job). Division I athletic

directors averaged approximately 6.5 years in their current position, and Division III

athletic directors average 1.25 years. The mean duration of years at the current institution

of the present athletic directors was 31 years for Division I athletic directors, and 3.25

years for Division III athletic directors.

Table 6

President and Senior Administrator Characteristics

 

 

Division I Division III
Presidents All Senior Admin Presidents All Senior Admin
Characteristic Mean Mean Total Mean Mean Total
Div. I Div

III
N 2 3 2 1 3
Age 47 49.5 45.6
Yrs as a Collegiate
Head Coach 0 1.5 2
Collegiate Athlete 0 of 2 l of 2 2 of 3
Highest Degree

B.A. - - -

M.A.IMBA - - 1 of 3

PhD or Terminal 2 of 2 2 of 2 2 of 3
Yrs at Institution 16 13.5 12
Yrs-Current Position 2.5 3.5 3.25
Number of positions
currently held 1 1.5 2.5

at the institution

‘

75

On average, Division III Presidents held prior experience as a collegiate head
coach. This can be expected to provide some degree of insight and understanding
regarding the experience and ability to relate to coaches. The number of positions held
was greater for Division 111 participants than for Division 1.

Overall the differences found between division levels may not be generalized as
the norm if compared to the entire population. However, there are no female coaches of
traditional revenue sports (men’s basketball and football) within Division I institutions.

The population of Division I and Division III presidents and senior administrators
differed in terms of their participation in collegiate athletics. None (0%) of the
participating Division I administrators were former collegiate athletes or collegiate head
coaches. It was reported that 50% of Division III presidents, and 66% of the participating
administrators had been collegiate athletes and also a collegiate head coach. In fact,
Division III senior-level administrators had acquired a mean of 2 years of head coaching
experience.

Each of the presidents in the study had an earned doctoral degree (100% of
Division I and Division III). The mean number of jobs/positions held by Division III
administrators was 1.5 positions for presidents, and 2.5 positions when considering all of
Division III administrators sampled in the study. The mean for all sampled Division I
administrators was 1. Division I presidents average approximately 2.5 years in their
current position, and Division III presidents average 3.5 years. The mean duration of
years at the current institution of the present presidents was 16 years for Division I

presidents, and 12 years for Division III presidents.

76

Data Collection Procedure

Consent to conduct the study was obtained from the University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects at Michigan State University. This study was

approved on July 30, 2004.

All 33 interviews conducted during the study were structured face-to-face
interviews. To conduct the interviews, at four separate institutions, the potential
participants (coaches, athletic directors, and presidents and senior administrators) were
solicited individually by electronic mail (e-mail). The e-mail addresses were gathered
from listings posted by each institutional staff directory. A typed letter was mailed to all
with a posted e-mail address. Each delivered e-mail and letter explained the purpose of
the study (Appendices B-D) and requested a date to meet and conduct the interview. A
follow-up phone call was made to any individual who did not respond within 7-10 days
to the initial e-mail or mailed letter. Ninety-seven percent of those contacted within the
four institutions agreed to participate.

Once meeting dates were established with each participant the interviews were
conducted at the campus ofﬁce of each participant. Open-ended interview questions were
used to gain greater understanding of the perceptions, values, beliefs, and behaviors of
each participant. With approval of each participant the interview sessions were tape-

recorded so that the interviewer would be most attentive to the interviewee rather than
taking verbatim notes. Each interview (see Appendix A) was completed within
approximately 30 minutes. The data collection period covered approximately eight

weeks.

77

Descriptive data about the participants was also gathered which detailed the
duration of each participant’s career and their tenure at the present institution
(Appendices F-H). Information regarding each participant’s level of academic
attainment, athletic background, and area of study was also gathered.

Through the use of a coding system the anonymity of each participant was
carefully protected. All of the data were then grouped so that no information could be
associated with any speciﬁc individual or institution.

Data for this study were collected through the process and application of
organizational case studies. Each institution was analyzed in this manner. The aim of a
case study is to allow for a systematic gathering of information that provides the
investigator with a view into the life of the organization (Berg, 2001). A case study is not
regarded as an actual data-gathering technique, but it is accepted more as a
methodological approach that incorporates different data-gathering measures (Hamel,
Dufour, & Fortin, 1993).

The intent of these case studies was to identify a clearer understanding of the
perceptions of those most intimately involved with intercollegiate athletic programs at the
institutional level. These perceptions would reﬂect the utilization of athletic participation
as a tool to impact character development, and would also provide insight regarding how
these individuals operate as a cohesive and collective unit to achieve this aim. Case study
data are expected to yield detailed, highly rich, and in-depth information (Berg, 2001).

While visiting the respective institution information, this researcher gathered

campus artifacts and symbolism as they relate to the institution and athletics. A separate

78

note-taking system was utilized in the assessment of the cultural artifacts and symbolism
found when visiting the campus.
Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for participant responses to the demographic and
basic information questions (Tables 4-6). Tables for this preliminary data analysis
reported cumulative frequency and relative frequency distributions of the responses.

In using a structured interview format, an open coding of the interview data was
conducted for each response to each question (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This open coding
provided an opportunity to examine all of the responses for both similarities and
differences, with regard to all participants.

The overall richness of the data called for a blending of manifest and latent
content analysis as described by Berg (2001). The resulting search for common
responses, themes, and/or patterns was conducted to assess organizational culture among
the participating institutions. For each interview question an actual counting and
tabulation of responses were tabulated within each position group (Revenue Coaches,
Non- Revenue Coaches, Athletic Directors, and Presidents and Senior Administrators) to
calculate a percentage for the frequency of a response.

Cultural data were analyzed by thematic analysis (Masland, 1985). Thematic
analysis allows the researcher/analyst to identify trends and underlying themes within the
organization. Through this basic technique a central “story line” can often be developed

describing the organization’s culture (Masland, 1985).

79

Research Question 1 was examined using the results of the content analysis as
reported by the participants. The objective of this question was to assess beliefs related to
the outcome effects related to student participation in intercollegiate athletics.

Research Question 2 was examined using the results of the content analysis as
reported by the participants. The objective of this question was to determine what
participants perceived as being the key elements needed in order to develop character in
student-athletes.

Research Question 3 was examined using the results of the content analysis as
reported by the three groups, the coaches, the athletic directors, and the presidents/senior
administrators. The objective of this comparison was to determine whether there were
differences in perceptions held between the groups regarding the identiﬁed key elements
considered necessary in order to develop character in student-athletes.

Research Question 4 was examined by comparing the results of the content
analysis as reported by the three groups of participants [coaches, the athletic directors,
and the presidents/senior administrators]. The objective of this comparison was to
determine whether there were differences in perceptions between the groups regarding
the impact of athletics upon student-athlete character development.

Research Question 5 was examined using the results of the content analysis as
reported by respondents from the two division levels (I and III). The objective of this
comparison was to determine whether or not there were differences in perceptions
between division levels (I and III) regarding the impact of athletic participation upon the

development of character in student-athletes.

80

Generalingility

Case study methodology serves as a point of information to generate progressive
thought regarding the topic of character development and intercollegiate athletic
participation. It should not be taken as an absolute truth regarding all similar institutions.
When properly applied, case studies can provide understanding about similar institutions,
individuals, groups, and events (Berg, 2001).

Summgy

Chapter III presented the methods and procedures used in this study. General
characteristics describing participants were reviewed, along with the process by which
participants were obtained, and the procedures utilized to gather data were also discussed.

The research instrument and its development were described.

81

Chapter IV
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the perceptions, roles and
values maintained by coaches, athletic directors and presidents of collegiate institutions
regarding the impact of intercollegiate athletic participation upon student-athlete
character development. The research relied primarily on the comparative and contrasting
views and opinions of coaches, athletic directors, and senior institutional administrators.
The level of institutional consensus, knowledge, and common practices of those most
directly involved with athletics was sought in the attempt to observe their impact on
student-athlete character development.

Chapter IV includes interview results discussed within the institutional case
analyses. Cultural data were analyzed by thematic analysis (Masland, 1985). Thematic
analysis enables identiﬁcation of trends and underlying themes within the organization.
Through this basic technique I attempted to develop a central “story line” to describe
each organization’s perspective (Masland, 1985).

The interview questions sought to unveil the respective attitudes, values, beliefs,
and behaviors of coaches, and athletic and institutional administrators, and each of their
respective relationships to anticipated outcomes involving student-athletes. Responses
were grouped and presented by institution [Center College, Mountain College, Gala
University, and Rainbow University] and were categorically presented by content area

[character development, leadership, socialization, environment, and mission]. Case

82

studies used data gathered from those tied most directly with athletics and student-
athletes.
Institutional Case Apalvses

To maintain conﬁdentiality ﬁndings are described in a manner to protect the

identity of the institution and the participants.
Center College

Center College is private residential coeducational liberal arts college nestled
within a small town of the state. The buildings of the institution are all nestled closely to
each other, and most buildings are situated in the central portion of the campus within
walking distance. There were no major physical landmarks that stood out across the
campus. A four year institution, Center College was founded over 110 years ago and had
enrollment ﬁgures with over 1, 300 undergraduate students. The student population is
predominantly white. Center College awards Bachelor’s degrees. Center College has a
rich cultural heritage that it has held in tact for over 100 years.

The intercollegiate athletic program of Center College competes at the Division
111 level. Financially, it receives support from its central administration just as other
departments at Center College. There are over 16 varsity sports teams. The sporting event
stadiums were of reasonable size. The football stadium was not noticeable at any great
distance. Athletic department ofﬁces were housed within a classroom building near the
center of campus. The ofﬁces of the coaches and the athletic director were all located
within one building on the same ﬂoor and in close proximity of one another. The

president was located in the central administration building.

83

Character Development

A review of the responses provided by Center College displayed that 5 of the 8
respondents stated that athletics built character. Within this group were ﬁve out of six
coaches. Coaches of Center College often identiﬁed speciﬁc experiences and/or
outcomes witnessed as a result of student participation in intercollegiate athletics. These
coaches described how intercollegiate athletic participation presented “real life”
opportunities leading to the growth and development of the student-athlete. Athletics was
viewed as an activity that “pushes you and shows who you are.” Also, athletics was
looked upon as a means to build various personal qualities such as humility while also
learning to handle the ups and downs of life. With regard to the focus placed on student
development, one coach believed that with athletics the process is more important than
the results:

“Yes. You learn how to handle the ups and downs of life. Life is 10%

what happens to you and 90% how you react to it. With athletics the

process is more important than the results. We can use sports as a mini

lesson for life.” (3016/3)

Other opinions of respondents [2 administrators] from Center College believed in
the potential for intercollegiate athletic participation to impact character. These
administrators expressed the belief that athletics can build character, but does not always
have this intended effect. According to these respondents, there must be an intentional
effort made to have such a desired outcome. In addition, the choices made by the student
must be considered. As one administrator acknowledged, the eventual choices made by

the student-athlete play a role as to whether the growth experience is either positive or

negative. In and of itself, athletics will not build character:

84

“Athletics certainly can build character, and it should — but it does not
always. There has to be an effort made for it to do so.” (3023/3)

“It [athletics] has an ability to, but it does not always. Some situations
enhance character while others do not. The eventual choices made by
the student [athlete] play a role as to whether it is positive or

negative.” (3022/3)

One revenue coach presented a unique response. This coach considered athletics
as a tool that displayed ones’ character rather than built it. This respondent believed that
some traits were enhanced through involvement in intercollegiate athletics:

“Athletics reveals character more so than actually build it. There are

character traits that are enhanced through involvement in

intercollegiate athletics. However, athletics will not improve deep

character ﬂaws. High school coaches have a better chance of building

character.” (3019/4) ‘

Interviews revealed a variety of deﬁnitions of “character” found at Center
College. Four of eight participants [two administrators and two coaches] related character
to an individual’s morals or values. Character was also described by three of eight Center
College respondents [1 revenue and 2 non-revenue coaches] as “who you are when
nobody is watching.” In addition, three (coaches) of eight participants also identiﬁed a
correlation between character and an individual’s actions and behaviors:

“There are multiple aspects of character. We are judged by our acts

and how we make other people feel, not just what we say. Honesty,

integrity, and saying the right things build character. No person is a

ﬁnished product. Character is something that is built every day.”
(3018/3)

“Character is not just the development of values, but your values on
display. It is how you carry yourself. It is your representation of the
team family and your own family.” (3020/3)

85

Respondents at Center College identiﬁed such key elements as role modeling, the
setting of expectations, and self-discipline as critical to building character. Two of eight
participants stated self-discipline as being an essential element. Self-discipline was an
element or trait that participants believed student-athletes needed to possess to maximize
their development experience.

Three coaches [2 revenue, 1 non-revenue] among eight participants believed that
the setting of expectations (and standards) by those in authority was an important element
in the development of character. Five of the eight participants [1 administrator, 4 non-
revenue coaches] of Center College considered role-modeling important. One coach
believed that a student-athlete must observe both positive and negative role models to
identify what to do and what not to do. An administrator linked building character to
having an athletic program of the highest integrity with the program modeling
sportsmanship. Other less common responses included providing an appropriate
environment and directly teaching character. The following is what a coach and an
administrator, respectively, said regarding role-modeling:

The student-athlete needs to see both positive and negative role

models. This way they are able to see what to do and what not to do.
Every one is a role model. . .either positively or negatively. (3018/4)

The key to building character is to have an athletic program of the
highest integrity. Then you must model sportsmanship. Presidents in
the conference have agreed to model sportsmanship, and we will call
each other on inappropriate behavior. Coaches have to model
sportsmanship and integrity. (3023/4)

With the exception of two coaches, all respondents believed that at Center

College student-athlete character development was the responsibility of all who came

86

into contact with the student while he/she was at the institution, ranging from coaches
and administrators, to faculty and parents/family:
Faculty members, coaches, administration, support staff, everybody.

Everyone on campus must model the behavior we expect of the
students. (3022/7)

I think, again, in a small setting that it is spread more widely. I think

our professors and advisors here have an impact. You know, it

probably goes without saying, for those involved in athletics, and the

coaches involved with them. Because our [coaches] expectations are a

little bit clearer, in a sense there is a team responsibility. A little bit

more clearly deﬁned, perhaps. But the student-athletes run into the

same thing with our professors here because they’re in small classes,

typically. Their professor knows their name. (3019/8)

Seven of the eight respondents [all except 1 non-revenue coach] stated that
character development was of enough importance to Center College coaches and
administrators that they make an intentional effort to address the character development
of student-athletes.

When respondents were asked to assess all in their lives (from youth to that
moment) who had inﬂuenced their current philosophy regarding the development of
character, many types of individuals were listed. Mentioned most often by respondents
were parents/family [by 2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach], and
former coaches [by 1 administrator, 2 revenue coaches, 1 non-revenue coach]. In
addition, mentors [by l administrator, I revenue coach] and general life experiences [by
2 non-revenue coaches] were listed as inﬂuences. Each respondent provided at least three
signiﬁcant inﬂuences over the span of their life.

In summary, Center College seems to hold a high regard for the impact of

athletics on intercollegiate student-athlete character development. There was not much

87

group consistency, however, in how respondents deﬁned character or the organization’s
overall perception of the key elements to best develop character. Most respondents,
though, afﬁrmed that they made speciﬁc attempts to address character development. In
addition, at Center College everyone is looked upon as having a responsibility for
addressing character.
Leadership

At Center College each respondent (8 of 8) believed that character development
should be of concern for leaders of the institution. Oftentimes this concern could be
expressed both directly and indirectly with student-athletes, as it was explained by some
study participants of Center College:

“Not anything directly. Again, because they’re my team. So they’re

not there. Indirectly, yes, because they [student-athletes] want

someone they can look up to and be proud of. I’m sure they wouldn’t

want the athletic director to be someone who’s dishonest or anything
like that. It is indirectly.” (3015/6)

Yes. Parts of the mission intentionally address character components -

such as leadership and service. If we all fulﬁll the mission, then we

impact character. (3022/7)

Respondent descriptions of the role-played by the president and athletic director
varied. The president was viewed by 4 of 8 [2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1 non-
revenue coach] as one who sets the standards and as one who is ultimately responsible for
all that goes on within athletics and at the institution. Yet there were additional

expectations of administrators. The president in particular was looked upon as the

spokesperson and promoter of athletics. The president as well as the athletic director was

88

expected by 3 of 8 [l administrator, 2 non-revenue coaches] to promote and develop the
image and perception of the athletic program to the campus and local community:
The president’s role is to insure that athletic program meets the
standards and quality of the institution. To keep the bigger picture in

mind, so that it all meshes together. A.D. also has goals and outcomes
to meet. They develop a sense of direction for the program. (3023/ 8)

That’s interesting. I think it’s more - I think from the very, very top

that person can help develop pride and character through their positive

response to athletics and really showing that athletics is very

important. (3016/1 1)

Despite these expectations, some respondents [3 of 8; l revenue coach, 2 non-
revenue coaches] at Center College acknowledged that the president was far too busy to
be directly involved with the student-athletes. However, 3 of 8 respondents [1 revenue
coach, 2 non-revenue coaches] believed that the smaller institutional size of Center
College increased the possibility of administrators interacting with the student-athletes.

The perception of the athletic director’s role was fairly clear among respondents
at Center College. The athletic director was viewed by 6 of 8 respondents [2
administrators, 2 revenue coaches, 2 non-revenue coaches] as setting the direction of the
athletics program and managing the day-to-day activities of the program. The athletic
director was expected to provide more detailed direction than the president. Respondents
generally saw the athletic director as managing athletics by developing and applying set
policy.

Head coaches were unanimously considered (by 8 of 8 respondents) to hold the

ultimate responsibility and the greatest impact in the building of character among student-

89

athletes. This belief appeared tied to the head coach’s ability to impact student behavior
by allocating or reducing playing time in athletic competitions.

The viewpoint of administrators’ roles in the building of character was generally
consistent among those at Center College. Most study participants held similar
perceptions regarding the role and expected behaviors of the president, athletic director
and even head coaches. There was a clear expectation that athletic directors and
presidents would promote and support athletics throughout the institution and in the
community. There was an underlying feeling that these anticipated and even hoped for
actions were not always taking place.

Environment

External factors often can impact head coach effectiveness and success
(Humphrey, Yow, & Bowden, 2000). At Center College ﬁve of six of the head coaches
[2 revenue coaches, 3 non-revenue coaches] listed ﬁnancial or budget related issues as
affecting their role as a head coach. One of two administrators considered the budget to
impact the role of head coaches. Because Center College’s athletics budget is tied to the
institutional budget, the Board’s decision is crucial to athletics. Each year the Board of
Center College decides on ﬁnancial allocations to institutional units and departments. In
addition, coaches at Center College revealed that Admissions inﬂuenced roster sizes of
teams as much or more than athletics. Admissions often requested that coaches maintain
a speciﬁc number of student-athletes on the squad to meet necessary institutional
enrollment ﬁgures. For many coaches this administrative decision was frustrating, having

little to do with athletics.

90

Another external factor considered important by coaches [1 revenue, 2 non-
revenue coaches] was recruitment and retention of qualiﬁed assistant coaches and
athletes. Each of these coaches identiﬁed the importance of the institution’s geographic
location in the state. Center College’s location is just far enough away from other cities to
make it difﬁcult to attract qualiﬁed part-time assistants. This situation was exacerbated
by a limited budget since the athletic program lacked funding to hire full-time assistants
for most teams. According to some coaches a qualiﬁed assistant would most likely need
to live and work in the general vicinity of Center College, which was not common.

Other environmental concerns centered on respondent perceptions of the general
collegiate environment. The college setting was viewed as holding and creating a
tremendous opportunity to affect student-athlete character development. There was an
understanding among 7 of 8 Center College respondents [with the exception of 1 non-
revenue coach] that the 18-22 year old time period was one of growth and development
for college students. The key to this growth, according to respondents, was to involve
students in decisions that they must make on their own without their parents. Living in
residence halls on campus was critical to this experience. Participants considered the
residential campus to provide dormitory experiences, student organizations, and social
settings that challenged an individual’s character. Participants cited the smaller campus
size of Center College as vital to personal development because it had greater
opportunities to impact character development:

“The college setting is both good and bad. As a small school, it makes

it easier to have an impact on students. College has an impact for life.
Who you surround yourself with is important.” (3020/14)

91

“As a residential campus there are plenty of opportunities to shape
student character: dorm life, Greek life, parties, and community
service. It’s all important in helping people make choices.” (3019/14)

I think it’s another step along your educational path. They’re fairly
highly developed in that area before we get them, but, again, it’s
another step. Mom and Dad aren’t waking them up saying, “Hey, it’s
8:00 o’clock. Get your butt in school.” They’ve become adults and
are making all those decisions. So that’s where I kind of put a lot of
responsibility on them, and I think the college or university does also.
(3016/ 15)

The attitude of the campus community regarding intercollegiate athletics was
perceived by most participants [2 administrators, l revenue, 2 non-revenue coaches] as
being positive and signiﬁcant. Athletics were considered integral to the college student
experience. The perceived importance of athletics was linked, by some participants, to
the high percentage of the student population that were athletes. It was estimated by some
that at Center College close to 40% of the student population were student-athletes:

But it’s an important part of the institution because a lot of students

here are student athletes. Close to 40 percent. So it is a major part of

it. Now, whether the faculty feels the same, I have no control over

that. But the institution, yes. It is an important part. If they get rid of
athletics, they might as well get rid of half the student body. (3015/3)

Sometimes I think we’re viewed as a necessary evil. For example, my
team alone I recruited ##freshmen this year. ## out of a class of ### is
quite a percentage for one program to bring in. Our other team is
bringing in ##. Now you look at that, that’s over ## kids out of a class
of ###. Yes, they need the kids. Do they want to listen to me when I
go in and say, “I need $5,000 more for uniforms”? They don’t want to
hear that part. No businessman does. No accountant wants to hear
that — you know, he wants to see things running smoothly. (3018/3)

In contrast, three coaches [1 revenue, 2 non-revenue] described the campus

attitude toward athletics as less than positive. One description used was mixed — “some

92

like it and some don’t”-- and another considered the institution’s attitude to be
inconsistent and ignorant. It was even pointed out that both sides could use some
educating and enrichment about the other. The ignorance was symbolized by
misunderstandings and misperceptions. These study participants believed that mutual
education could beneﬁt by both sides. Respondents believed that educating students,
faculty, and staff about the role and potential beneﬁts of the athletics program was an
important administrative responsibility:

I think it’s inconsistent. There’s a group of very supportive faculty

and staff, and there’s another group that could really care less about it.

And I really think that for us to really prosper, the person at the top has

to sell some of these extra-curriculars, athletics, choir, band, all those

other components that are part of the college. If it’s not sold at the top,

I just don’t think it’s ever going to ﬁlter down. And some of its

education. Some of it’s educating the faculty what is athletics really

doing for the college? Why do we have athletics? How does it ﬁt in?

And, you know, we aren’t going to be on ESPN tomorrow night.

We’re going to get our individuals or teams. So why do we have it?

Some of that’s education from the top, but also the top is really being a

component for us and selling the value of what athletics can do for the

college. (3016/5)

Overall, respondents were quite consistent in the view of the impact of the college
setting on student-athletes. Most considered the college years to be a period of growth
and development that is inspired by new and different experiences that challenge an
individual’s held beliefs and values. Less consistency was found between coaches and
administrators about the external factors that impact the role of the head coach. Even less
consistency about the perception of the institution’s attitude toward athletics existed.
Socialization

Participants provided a wide range of viewpoints about the traits a student needed

to succeed as an athlete, a student, and later on in post-college experiences. Two of eight

93

participants stated that hard work and effort were important. Two others at Center
College believed that self-respect was important. Other responses included students
having a passion for what they do, never giving up, making good choices, and thinking
about what the student is doing.

Center College respondents based their perceptions on experiences using their
own frame of reference as a guide. This phenomenon resulted in some disparity and lack
of consistency, which could lessen the impact made on college student-athletes. With
various coaches and administrators each providing their personal pathway to success, and
each pathway heading in multiple directions, a student-athlete may opt not to adhere to
any of the advice because of the lack of consensus.

Mission

According to ﬁve of eight respondents [2 administrators, 2 revenue coaches, 1
non-revenue coach] the mission of Center College sought to develop well-rounded
students and productive citizens. Three of these ﬁve study participants stated that a liberal
arts education was crucial to provide a well-rounded experience. Here is what three of the
ﬁve respondents believed:

Our mission is to help students to graduate as a whole person:

academically, emotionally, socially. To educate them on how to better
their lives and their community for life. (3022/1)

We are an institution that seeks to provide a broad-based background
with diverse academic challenges. There is a point to teach students
how to think on their feet. (3020/1)

...Its mission is to produce a well-rounded, involved student who has,
in a small college setting, has the opportunity to pursue the things
about which they are passionate. (3019/ 1)

94

The mission of athletics was perceived by 4 of 8 respondents of Center College [1
administrator, I revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coaches] as providing an educational
component beyond classroom learning. Four of eight respondents [2 administrators, 2
non-revenue coaches], also believed that athletics actually was a partner in reinforcing
the institutional mission:

The goal of athletics is to supplement the mission of the institution.

Athletics provides us with another area to improve the overall welfare

of the students. It really provides another classroom for learning.
(3022/1)

I think athletics reinforces that [institutional mission] greatly in that
athletics you know, we’re going to basically follow along the same
guidelines but more in a probably less critical thinking area. More of a
reactive, tenser situation. Cause people to think on their feet. Work
within a group setting a little bit more than a classroom setting. And
provide more of — give the student athlete more of an opportunity to
develop leadership roles. (3018/1)

Athletics is a part of the total challenge and package of the college

experience. The time that is spent with coaches is extremely

developmental. There is so much that is learned while competing as a

student-athlete. (3 020/ 1)

There were also a few individuals who stated the mission of athletics was to
provide students with an opportunity to compete beyond high school with a high level of
coaching and competition. A few (3 of 8) participants believed that athletics reinforced
the institutional mission because academics remained the chief priority.

A portion of athletics mission was considered a tool for the enrollment of students
at Center College. One coach stated the following:

I see athletics as — at a school like this, even more than the big

Division I schools, I see it as an enrollment tool to attract students. So
it gives those kids an opportunity. Kids that are good students but also

95

have some athletic ability to continue doing something they very much
enjoy doing and was a big part of their life growing up. So I see it as,
you know, from a business standpoint, enrollment. We bring in, I
would say, 33 percent, even up to 40 percent of the student body in
athletics. (3016/1)

In reviewing both missions, the institutional mission was considered readily
observable in athletics because athletics served as the testing ground for most things
learned while at Center College. Team work, time management, group skills and
leadership were reported skills and beneﬁts gathered by student-athletes , which were
then reﬁned within the setting of athletics.

The understanding of the institutional mission among those at Center College
appears more clearly understood than the mission for the athletic program. Respondents
provided a wider variety of interpretations of the athletic mission than the institutional
mission. In both instances greater clarity could be achieved for a more effective
relationship between athletics and the institution.

Institutional Summary

Respondents of Center College were somewhat at odds when discussing the
impact of intercollegiate athletic participation on student-athletes. Although a majority of
coaches (5 of 6) believe that athletics builds character, administrators of Center College
are not as convinced. One interpretive difficulty is the multiple deﬁnitions applied to the
term “character”. Respondents at Center College deﬁned character in at least three
different ways: 1) one’s morals and values, 2) one’s behavior and actions, and 3) “who
you are when nobody is watching.” There was agreement between administrators in
deﬁning character [morals and values], but no agreement was found among coaches or

between coaches and administrators.

96

Center College respondents consistently described role-modeling as the essential
element in the development of the student-athlete character. Role-modeling is one of the
three key elements identiﬁed by the literature as being necessary [role-modeling,
environment, educate] (Stoll & Beller, 1998). The lack of consensus with any other
elements besides role modeling potentially could adversely affect student-athlete
character development at the college.

The external factor identiﬁed most often by coaches differed somewhat from that
of the administrators. Four of six coaches [2 revenue, 2 non-revenue] commonly gave
budget concerns/issues as a factor. One administrator also identiﬁed budgets as a concern
for coaches, but both administrators identiﬁed student welfare issues as an important
external factor for coaches.

An understanding and articulation of Center College’s mission was well
understood. Just over half (5 of 8) of the participants described the mission in a consistent
fashion. The president quoted the exact mission, while others provided a reasonable
summary of Center College’s mission. Only one-half shared the same intended mission
of athletics [2 administrators, 2 non-revenue coaches].

The relationship between the coaches and the athletic director was open. The
coaches seemed to believe in the ability of the athletic director to represent the interests
of athletics. There was more of a relaxed and comfortable relationship between the
coaches and the athletic director. However, the relationship between those in athletics and
the president did not appear to be as familiar or at-ease. Coaches in particular spoke of
the president as more of a position or ﬁgurehead and not as someone with a real

connection and involvement with the athletic program.

97

Overall there were several improvements that could be made in various areas
related to student-athlete character development at Center College. Improved
communication would enhance the clarity and understanding of both the missions and
possibly help those involved with athletics develop a common deﬁnition of character for
its student-athletes. Improving communication would also provide administrators with a
better idea of the relative importance of external factors affecting the potential impact on
student-athletes.

Mountain College

A small residential collegiate institution located in a quaint town in the south
central region of Michigan, Mountain College ﬁrst opened its doors over 150 years ago.
The institution is a private, co-ed, 4-year liberal arts college with a diverse enrollment of
over 1000 full-time students. The institution does not have major physical landmarks on
its campus. The classroom buildings are spread within a short distance from the central
point of campus. The ofﬁces of the coaches and athletic director are spread across several
classroom buildings or residence halls. The Mountain College senior administrators are
located in the central administration building.

Athletics is included in the central budget of the institution, and is funded in the
same way as other departments on campus. The athletic facilities are in proportion to the
general structures of the campus. Mountain College is a Division III level athletic
program. There are more than 17 athletic teams at Mountain College. Each is conference
afﬁliated. The sporting event stadiums were of reasonable size, and the football stadium

was not noticeable from a distance.

98

Character Development

Student-athlete participation at Mountain College has developed a positive
perception among many of those involved with intercollegiate athletics. Seven of the nine
Mountain College respondents [2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 4 non-revenue
coaches] believed that athletics does build character. Each individual pointed to speciﬁc
lessons to be learned as a result of intercollegiate athletic participation. For example,
being part of a team and interacting with individuals from diverse backgrounds and
distinct personalities helped build character. In addition, the ability to perform in high
pressure situations was also considered to be a builder of character:

Yes it does build character. Being in athletics and part of a team brings

out things in you that you don’t know are in you. Interacting with

people you don’t know, and building relationships are Only a part of

the development process. (3006/4)
One administrator agreed that intercollegiate athletics “can and does” build character.
This respondent explained that character was always being built and could be affected by
athletics either negatively or positively.

Yes. It can and it does build character. However, the result can be

either negative or positive. The messages sent by the coach are often

the deciding factor. (3013/3)
This administrator believed that much of the responsibility for building character was in
the hands of coaches. Several coaches agreed with this position.

Two of nine participants of Mountain College disagreed with the majority, stating
that athletics did not build character in the current environment. However, they believed

ﬁhat the potential for intercollegiate athletics to build character was readily present. They

Believed that a concerted effort was necessary for athletic participation to affect character

99

development. One stated that everyone involved with intercollegiate athletics wants to
believe that athletic participation builds character, but the major portion of development
has already taken place by the time they get to college:

The potential is there. Athletics reveals character. By the time we get

them it is really late. We would like to believe that we have some

impact, but a high percentage of it is already in place. (3010/4)

Mountain College respondents deﬁnition of “character” produced diverse
responses. Three of nine respondents [2 administrators, 1 non-revenue coach] believed
that character was “how one acts when no one is watching.” Three of nine respondents [2
revenue coaches, 1 non-revenue coach] viewed character as being associated with and
reﬂected in one’s behavior regardless of the context or setting. Two others [1
administrator, I non-revenue coach] deﬁned character as “the core of a person” and that
character was something that could not be hidden or faked:

I would deﬁne character as responsible decision-making that is done

most of the time. When you choose to do the responsible thing

regardless of the situation or context, and you hold others accountable
as well. (3013/4)

Watch your thoughts, they become your words. Watch your words,
they become your actions. Watch your actions, they become your
character. (3012/3)

Character is about reputation. It’s what you do when no one is
watching. Honest and responsible. Treating all people with dignity and
respect. You can often judge one’s character by looking at their
friends. (3010/3)

Respondents differed in their beliefs about the key elements in building character.

Each participant provided multiple responses. Five of the nine respondents [3

100

administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach] considered role modeling a key
element in character development. Coaches were seen as central ﬁgures in role-modeling:

Role modeling, organization, clear communication, expectations,

consistency, and timely follow through are all involved in the

development of character. Coaches are to be the quality control

ofﬁcers to insure that certain standards are met. (3013/4)

Also, ﬁve of nine respondents [2 administrators, 2 non-revenue coaches] identiﬁed the
need to set clear expectations and limitations among student-athletes. Another key
component, listed by 4 of 9 respondents [2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1 non-
revenue coach], was the student-athlete’s self-discipline:

Students must have discipline. They must also have the ability to

adapt. Having a core set of values (knowing right from wrong) and act

on them appropriately is also important. Having a positive outlook is a

key as well. Coaches must role model for the team. Coaches must be

involved in a variety of activities (arts and the like). (3012/4)

Coaches and administrators differed in their views. Administrators identiﬁed role
modeling as the key component on this topic. Most coaches (3 of 6) believed that setting
expectations was key; only two coaches listed role modeling as an important element.

At Mountain College the general perception, held by all participants (9 of 9), was
that “everyone at the institution” had some responsibility for character development for
student-athletes, indeed for all students. A few respondents made direct reference to
character development being embedded in the institutional mission:

The mission of the institution states that everyone is an educator.

Coaches have the most impact because of what they ask of athletes in

preparation in and out of season. Professors, residence life, and others
should be an inﬂuence. (3005/6)

101

Well, I think everybody does, really. This is probably the moment

where I was more excited about [the institution] than anything is when

I saw the philosophy. (3009/6)

The most important individuals in building character were identiﬁed as:
faculty/professors (8 of 9), followed closely by coaches (7 of 9). Faculty received the
most emphasis because many respondents believed faculty were far more likely to
interact with the students. Some believed that coaches had the greatest impact because of
their long-term and more in-depth relationship with the student-athlete. Additionally, a
coach can impact student-athlete participation in their respective sport.

Surprisingly, only two respondents at Mountain College mentioned parents/family
as inﬂuencing character development among student-athletes. The literature consistently
shows parents typically holding the greatest impact in the lives of most young adults
(Windmiller, Lambert, & Turiel, 1980).

Every respondent at Mountain College stated that he/she made a speciﬁc attempt
to address student character development. Opportunities to discuss and build character
mentioned by respondents, included leading by example (role modeling) and discussing
character related topics during speciﬁc meetings and informal settings. In addition,
respondents claimed they could discuss character development during moments of
intense physical conditioning or following the loss of a game.

In reﬂecting on their own philosophy of student development, seven of the nine
respondents [2 administrators, 2 revenue coaches, 3 non—revenue coaches] stated that
former coaches had inﬂuenced their current perspective. Five out of six Mountain

College coaches agreed; one administrator held a similar belief.

102

The impact and inﬂuence of parents/family upon current philosophy proved to be
inﬂuential as well as ﬁve of nine participants [1 administrator, 2 revenue coaches, 1 non-
revenue coach] reﬂectively identiﬁed speciﬁc moments while growing up that served as
examples of what to do and/or how to conduct oneself. Family was identiﬁed most often
as either parents and grandparents. Lastly, some uncommonly mentioned inﬂuences on
current thinking were: life experiences (4 of 9) and teachers (2 of 9):

Working at the institution has inﬂuenced my philosophy. Developing

the institutional mission, my personal background all have had an

impact on how I view the world. Even my area of academic study has

had an impact. (3013/11)

The underlying sentiment sensed while discussing the topic of character
development with Mountain College respondents was one of group understanding and
agreement. With the exception of deﬁning “character” respondents were quite consistent
in their beliefs about character development.

Leadership

Many at Mountain College [6 of 9 — 3 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 2 non-
revenue coaches] identiﬁed the role of the president as establishing the overall
expectations and climate of the campus. The president was also expected by some [3 of 9
— 1 administrator, 2 non-revenue coaches] respondents to model acceptable behavior.
Along this same vein the athletic director was identiﬁed as (by 7 of 9) being more
intimately connected to the coaching staff and the daily activities of the athletic
department. The athletic director was viewed as the “coach of the coaches” with the duty

of hiring and/or ﬁring anyone in the department not upholding the values of the program.

The president saw his job as challenging the coaches and the athletes to be responsible:

103

They are expected to model appropriate actions and behaviors.
Athletic Directors have to challenge the coaches and athletes (to be
responsible). The President is the quality control ofﬁcer, and should be
constantly asking, “can we do better?” (3013/8)

The President establishes the overall expectations. The Athletic

Director is more intimately tied to the coaches and makes sure it

happens. It is the Coaches that have the inﬂuence with student-

athletes. (3011/9)

All Mountain College respondents believed that character development should be
of concern for those who head intercollegiate athletics. Most believed that the leaders
establish the climate for expected behavior and for the anticipated role athletics plays at
the institution.

Environment

Respondents noted three primary external factors affecting head coaches at
Mountain College: budgetary concerns [4 of 9 — 2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1
non-revenue coach], the need for upgrading facilities [4 of 9 — 3 administrators, 1 non-
revenue coach], and a concern for student-athlete welfare [4 of 9 — 2 revenue coaches, 2
non-revenue coaches]. Budget concerns were reﬂected in the inability of the department
to hire a full-time head coach for certain sports. The economy and the tightened ﬁnances
of the entire institution were also mentioned as limitations on athletics.

An external factor affecting coaches identiﬁed by each administrator and by
institutional facilities as well as one coach at Mountain College was the need and/or the
desire to improve not only the athletic facilities. This emphasis, in both circumstances it

seemed, that this was partially related to recruiting efforts as well as recognition of what

others in the conference were doing at that time. In comparing Mountain College to

104

similar institutions within its conference several participants considered Mountain as
being in the middle of the pack with regard to facilities, and in need of some upgrading
and improvements:

Institutional size and the fact that sports are tuition driven are external
factors. Then there is also limited funding available. Coaches often
must deal with fund raising and this is also an external factor. Facility
constraints also presents a concern. (3011/2)

Location can be a drawback — not as much to offer (visibly and
tangibly), but once students arrive they like the lack of distractions.
Facilities (athletically and institutionally) must continue to be
upgraded. (3005/2)

Student-athlete welfare encapsulates a range of issues, including academic
performance, and the personal relations and interactions of student-athletes. Four of six
coaches identiﬁed student-athlete welfare issues as an external factor that affected
coaches. An example of student-athlete welfare would be how a student-athlete’s
personal background affects transition into a new environment:

When students come here they come from a variety of backgrounds,

and not every home has a mom and a dad...not saying that a single

parent child has to have issues but that can be the case. In any case the

development and growth of students will be different. Students may be

in a new environment but those issues and behaviors they’ve learned

come with them. It can be a difficult adjustment for some of them. I

worry about the personal relationships of players. Who they hang out

with and what they do when they have free time can interfere with

their success. It’s difﬁcult to follow, but I make it clear what the

consequences will be for their behavior. (3010/2)

Another coach pointed out that many students enter college with undeveloped

social skills needed for social interaction with professors and others on campus:

Well, I think on this campus, how well students are able to interact
with professors is a big one because if they don’t have other people —

105

not just professors. They need other outlets, other avenues to go to,
people that they can trust. Otherwise, you get to handling everything
with that, and that gets tiring. It’s rewarding but it’s tiring. And I
think that external factor, how the student is able relate to teachers and

persons here, including the cafeteria workers, the janitors, that’s
something. (3009/2)

This phenomenon can lead student-athletes to seek individuals they could trust. In both of
these instances external factors affecting student-athletes created a need for consistent
follow-up by the coach, which took time away from other duties of coaching (game
strategy and preparation).

All participants (9 of 9) considered the period of college attendance as a time of
growth and development for the students. Respondents focused on both the size of the
institution [4 of 9 -— 1 administrator, I revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coaches] and the
nature of a residential campus [3 of 9 — 1 administrator, I revenue coach, 1 non-revenue
coaches] as having distinct impacts. Both were thought to create greater opportunities to
impact intercollegiate student-athlete character development:

With a small school you are always seen, and as an athlete you stand

out even more. So for student-athletes that can be a challenge. At a

smaller school the opportunity to have an impact is greater simply

because you have more time to interact with each student. Our student

to staff ratio at Mountain College is great. But no matter what, a

student has to develop the skills to survive in this environment.
(3008/2)

As a residential college there are greater opportunities to build
character in students. We have longer durations to expose students to
positive inﬂuences. Residence hall leaders, student life and student
organizations provide campus activities. So during the most formative
years of their adult life we can have that positive impact. (3011/2)

Especially important was the opportunity for students to make decisions without

immediate parental supervision (by 4 of 9).

106

They [students] are on their own. No one looking over them to ﬁx any
wrong decisions or to enforce any discipline. They are responsible for
their own decisions. This is a time to establish and shape who they
want to be. Athletics plays a part in helping to shape who they
become. (3005/12)

At Mountain College respondents expressed optimism about the impact of the
college environment on student development. However, one coach was not as conﬁdent
about its positive affects, stating that the college experience can swing both positively
and negatively:

College campuses in general have become more negative
environments. I would blame that on society’s lack of moral structure,
and a lack of moral character by students. It’s the images and the
acceptance of sexually explicit images and songs. Back when I was
growing up you couldn’t say certain things or do certain things
because it was just ﬂat out inappropriate. Now days everyone screams
about their rights. . .what about our rights to not have that ﬁlth all over
the place. There’s a lack of parental involvement and an increase in
immoral images displayed in the media. It all has an impact on student
behavior and often its not positive behavior. (3010/2)

Most respondents [7 of 9 — 3 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 3 non-revenue
coaches] at Mountain College described the campus as supportive and positive of
intercollegiate athletics. Respondents believed that athletics was a major selling point of
Mountain College, and that a high percentage of the student body were athletes.

Athletics is a major selling point and vehicle for grth of the

institution. Student-athletes make up a high percentage of the [overall]

student population and most people here know this. So they seem to

understand how the institution and athletics work to the beneﬁt of
everyone. (3007/3)

Athletics is a key component of this campus. People look forward to
the weekends and Saturday contests. The support is there. Some don’t
believe in athletics, but most believe it is a positive piece of the
institution and an integral part of what goes on on-campus. (3012/3)

107

For the most part there is a positive and supportive relationship, and

the perception of athletics is positive. There has been a history of

dualism to ﬁght through, but we continue to promote the positive

aspects of athletics on a college campus. One of those positive

attributes is that athletics pushes to integrate the student experience for

both participants and supporters. (3013/3)

Four of six coaches stated that Mountain College administrators were very supportive,
and that the institutional administrators worked to develop a clear understanding of the
role, value, and importance of athletics within Mountain College.

The external factors affecting coaches identiﬁed by administrators were not
identical to those of the head coaches. Overall, coaches expressed an appreciation of the
support provided by their administrators.

Socialization

Four of nine respondents identiﬁed [1 administrator, I revenue coach, 2 non-
revenue coaches] hard work or the development and maintenance of a work ethic as a key
to successful character development. Three of nine respondents [2 revenue coaches, l
non-revenue coach] indicated that students must treat others with respect and dignity.
Two respondents [l revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach] stated that it was important to
understand people and “know what makes them tick.” Other important elements
identiﬁed by respondents included being prepared, learning from mistakes, maintaining a
sense of balance, and maintaining a positive attitude.

Mission
Seven of nine participants [1 administrators, 2 revenue coach, 4 non-revenue

coaches] articulated the mission of Mountain College in the same manner. {Disclosing

108

the articulation of the mission may threaten confidentiality} Many respondents also
discussed how they applied the mission to their work with the student-athletes. The
mission of athletics was not as clearly articulated. Participant responses lacked the
consensus found for the institutional mission. Examples of respondent’s articulation of
the mission were: three of nine understood athletics as providing an opportunity to
participate in intercollegiate athletics [2 administrators, l non-revenue coach]; three of
nine [1 administrator, 2 non-revenue coaches] considered athletics a learning Opportunity
and a place to build skills; 2 of 9 [1 revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach] stated that
athletics’ mission supported the institutional mission; and 2 of 9 [2 administrators]
identiﬁed athletics as building character in student-athletes.

The same. I think it should match. It’s just another way of getting at

the same stuff. And that’s actually why I came to Mountain is because

of the mission. So I think athletics, it has to be just a branch, another

way to reach, just like - whether it be fraternities or other groups on

campus. Athletics is just another way to reach that same end. Have

the athlete leave with more than they came in with, hopefully, in the

process. And it usually happens that they leave something with us,

too. (3009/ 1)

The respondents of Mountain College had an exceptional shared understanding of
the institutional mission. This consensus works to ensure that few will stray far from the
overarching goals of the institution. However, less consensus among respondents about
the mission of athletics existed.

Institutional Summary

Most (7 of 9) respondents at Mountain College considered intercollegiate athletics

to affect character building effect character building of student-athletes. Less agreement

109

existed about the deﬁnition of character. Role modeling was identiﬁed most often (5 of 9)
as an important element in building student-athlete character.

The majority of Mountain College coaches believed that student-athlete welfare
was a primary external factor. The concern for the social interaction and the development
of relationships with trustworthy individuals was a frequent occurrence. Administrators,
in contrast, identiﬁed budget issues as the key external factor for head coaches. Each
respondent believed that an institutional effort was necessary to address character
development.

Seven of nine participants clearly articulated the institutional mission. Mountain
College had a high level of engagement and interaction with administrators beginning
with the president. The president made a point to engage and integrate the institution into
the envisioned value and purpose of athletics. Coaches expressed their appreciation for
the support and passion of the president for intercollegiate athletics, and many spoke of
the president’s appearance at a sporting event of nearly every team of the Mountain
College athletic program. The sense of community and collective work was visible. The

president seemed to create an atmosphere, at least among those in athletics, where
athletics is maintained as an important part of the institutional landscape. This
achievement was consistent with the president’s meeting each employee to express the
expectations of each member of Mountain College.

The president received the respect of all interviewed. The president created a
personal touch, helped to create such a positive atmosphere. For example, it was

mentioned in interviews that the president “goes above and beyond” what most presidents

110

would do. Respondents also discussed notes and emails of encouragement that were
received from the president as well.
Gala University

Gala University is a distinctive institution with a rich tradition and history both
academically and athletically. Considered among the oldest in the state, Gala has been
educating and serving the citizens of the state for over 145 years. One of the largest
higher education institutions in the state Gala boasts undergraduate and graduate student
enrollment ﬁgures that eclipse nearly all others. There are more than 200 programs of
study offered, and students attend from all over the state as well as many countries
around the world.

Athletics has been a part of the institutional landscape for years, and seems
literally inseparable from the make-up of Gala University. As an NCAA Division I
program there are over 20 varsity squads. The athletic program of Gala has enjoyed both
past and present success competing for conference and national championships on a
yearly basis. The athletic program of Gala is nearly self-sustaining in its ﬁnancing of
athletics. The facilities enjoyed by teams and fans are also physical landmarks on the
expansive campus. The ofﬁces of coaches are dispersed among three buildings and the
athletic department exclusively utilizes each of them. Administrative ofﬁces are found in
the central administration building.

Character Development

A majority of respondents [5 of 8 — 2 administrators, 3 non-revenue coaches]

believed that student-athlete participation in intercollegiate athletics built character in

student-athletes. Respondents with this belief identiﬁed experiences that taught student-

111

athletes various life lessons. These lessons were considered to be situations that only
athletics could possibly create:

Yes. Unequivocally. Absolutely. And I’m sorry for people that don’t
get that chance. Because you get into situations that cannot otherwise
be created. And the battles that we face. The locker rooms. The
traveling. The adversity. You never know what’s going to happen.
...And sometimes you can scoot through college, let’s say, and avoid
adversity. We can have no avoidance in athletics. And I think that’s
the difference. We are in it together come heck or high water, and we
have to make the very best of everything we go through. So it’s very
direct. (1006/4)

I don’t know where else in society today that you can bring a group of
people together, from all different walks of life, put them under the
same set of rules and teach them that hard work, self-discipline,
cooperation, perseverance, respect for each other, respect for the game,
which is the rules of the game — where else can you teach that today in
society? I don’t know anywhere else. You don’t get it taught at home
much any more. You don’t get it taught in the classroom much any
more. So I think we’re one of the last vestiges of teaching people
responsibility and teaching them that hard work does pay off. And
being on time is important. To me, that’s character. Building
character. (1012/4)

Three of eight respondents of Gala University believed that athletics presented an
opportunity to build character, but only when a speciﬁc point was made to have that
affect. These respondents did not believe that athletics would not build character in every
student. This group consisted of one administrator and two coaches [1 revenue, 1 non-
revenue].

It’s the same as uhh. . .in the spirit that not every student that comes to

the university graduates, not every student who goes and participates

in intercollegiate athletics comes out of the process with the character

that I or anyone else might like. (1013/4)

I’m a ﬁrm believer that it can. We will make sure that it does. And

you do that by having a set of disciplines and principles and
expectations that you live by. And if your players are forced and,

112

again, forced is probably the right word, to live by those expectations,
then it will build character. It is when we do not demand, we
sometimes are delinquent in our demands and expectations that we
don’t build character because we allow them to get away with things
that they shouldn’t. (1010/4)

Gala respondents varied in their deﬁnition of “character”. A majority of
respondents [4 of 8 — 2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach] related
character to one’s behavior and conduct. Respondents took into account peer pressure
and a willingness to behave in a manner that reﬂected one’s beliefs, as well as one’s
sense of right and wrong:

Character to me is a combination of things. Knowing what’s right,
knowing what’s wrong. Having the fortitude to do what’s right.
Being able to withstand social pressures and other pressures to do the
wrong things. And I’m talking about in everything from class, to your
job in the weight room, to your job on the practice ﬁeld, to your job
downtown. To me it’s more so to do what’s right. And we don’t need
to tell you what’s right and what’s wrong. Every kid knows what’s
right and what’s wrong. ...So to me character has that as well as a
great work ethic falls into character. A discipline, a knowledge of
what’s right and what’s wrong and the discipline to do what’s right
and what’s wrong, and the character to work hard at whatever it is that
you do or the discipline to work hard at whatever it is you do. I guess
when we talk to our players about character, it is those things. It is a
great work ethic combined with the discipline to do the right things.
(1010/5)

Three of eight respondents deﬁned character as an intrinsic trait, described as
being “an individual’s core and center.” Respondents believed that character should not
be assessed strictly by actions; it should include ‘Vvhat is in a person’s heart.” Among this
group were three non-revenue coaches.

Character’s what’s on the inside. You know, I think, to me character

involves your spirit, your soul. And it’s something, when I try to teach

character, I talk to kids a lot about what they have on the inside.
(1006/3)

113

Well, ﬁrst of all, I think character is everything. I think that it’s the
most important thing that I’ll do here. And I think that it’s a lot more
difﬁcult to teach in general when you lose than it is when you win.
So, winning, I think, helps lend you credibility. So that when you talk
about character, the kids are more apt to listen to you. If you’re a
loser, nobody listens to anything you say. How I deﬁne character? I
think for me it’s more the — it’s your core. It’s your center. It’s how
you feel about the world and the people in it. It’s how you value
things. (1007/3)

 

Setting or establishing clear discipline and expectations was most commonly

identiﬁed element for developing character in student-athletes [6 of 8 — 3 administrators,

 

1 revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coaches]. Follow up, consistency and fairness
were also identiﬁed as keys to ensuring the development of character. An administrator
also stated that it must be made clear to coaches that character development is a part of
the job:

First of all you have to have coaches that believe that it is a part of
their role, not simply winning and losing. And they have to have a
staff that both can work with students as individuals but also provide
the parameters of discipline that’s necessary to say that there is a
connection between how what you do on the ﬁeld and how you behave
off. And that really is a part of the team rules and discipline and
expectations. ...but there is no magic formula. (1013/5)

I think the biggest thing in my mind is making it very clear cut what
our expectations are. What those demands are. Make it as much as
you can, this is what we demand, this is what we expect. Okay?
There are a few things over here that we do not expect and we will not
allow. And don’t vary from that. You know it is pretty black and
white. Try to make it as much so as you can. And once they
understand the behaviors that you’re going to allow and maybe even
more importantly is those that you’re not going to allow, then it is easy
for them to follow that. Coach isn’t going to allow this. If I test
positive, my butt is out of here. When they understand that, then
they’ll do for the most part what it is that is expected. So I think
number one is making sure that they understand. (1010/6)

114

Other key elements believed to assist with building character were recruiting and
selecting students of character [2 of 8 — 2 non-revenue coaches] during the recruitment
phase. These respondents believed that in assessing student character on the front end
would reduce the work to do “on the back end” after the student arrived on campus.

Five of the eight participants [2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 2 non-revenue
coaches] believed that everyone was responsible for addressing student-athlete character
development. The president of Gala stated:

Well I think it is a team approach because clearly the coach and the

coaching staff have a responsibility. The student academic support

system has a responsibility, and the faculty and other support staff of

the university have a responsibility to partner with athletics to be sure

that we are maximally successful. It’s not just because a student is an

athlete that they are dealt with over there, that everyone has a

responsibility. That the academic advisors, the residence hall staff

...and the trick is how to get everyone aligned so that same messages

are being given. (1013/6)

Three of eight respondents at Gala identiﬁed head coaches and their assistants as
being responsible for addressing of character development in student-athletes. Each of
these respondents (two coaches and one administrator) placed special emphasis on the
yearlong day-to-day interaction of the coaches with student-athletes. These respondents
believed that the interaction between coaches and student-athletes was more frequent and
consistent than with other authority ﬁgures. Most important was the coach’s power to
control playing time:

Well, obviously, it probably starts with the leader. The leader is the

coach and the assistant coaches and so on because they have the day-

to-day meetings, the day-to-day operations with those people. Now, I

think it’s important, as well, myself, as an athletic director, to make

sure our coaches understand what I expect in terms of how they run

their programs. And, again, that’s part of my job to have the
philosophy in place as to how I expect them to do business. (1012/6)

115

..'. Hi.

 

6)

dc”

ab
cl:
de

[8

ins
161
C0]
per

3”

All participants of Gala University stated that they made an attempt to address
character. Team discussions led by staff persons and/or students was a common approach
utilized. Some respondents suggested books or other reading material to students in an
attempt to help develop character.

Respondents had at least one inﬂuence in their life that affected his/her current
philosophy of character development. Five of eight respondents [2 administrators, 1
revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coach] identiﬁed parents/family as an inﬂuence.
Four of eight respondents [2 administrators, 2 non-revenue coach] listed “life
experiences” as an inﬂuence on their philosophy of character development. Respondents
also named teachers (2 of 8) and coaches (2 of 8). Surprisingly, few mentioned coaches
as a key inﬂuence despite the belief that coaches affect student-athlete character
development.

Gala respondents differed in their deﬁnitions of character and in their beliefs
about the key inﬂuences on character. Through achieving internal understanding and
clarity Gala might improve its level of consensus and effectiveness in impacting character
development.

Leadership

Gala respondents expected institutional and athletic administrators to establish the
institutional vision and principles [7 of 8 — 3 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 3 non-
revenue coaches]. Most respondents [5 of 8 — 2 administrators, 3 non-revenue coaches]
considered the president to be far too busy to impact student-athlete character on a
Personal level. The president was expected to inﬂuence student development by hiring

appl‘Opriate key personnel across the university (2 of 8 respondents). In addition, two of

116

eight Gala University respondents identiﬁed oversight of the athletics program as a role

for the president:

I think the president should have the ultimate responsibility for setting
the direction of the institution. And I think athletics is the most visible
aspect of an institution. Certainly of this size. But I do think that it’s
the president’s ultimate responsibility to decide how big of a role or
how small of a role and what ultimately is rewarded and not rewarded
in athletics. But I think that it’s ultimately their responsibility, period.
I don’t think there’s anyway around it because there’s just too much
money — if a football kid gets arrested, it’s going to be in the paper the
next day. If the neurosurgeon who just discovered a new drug to cure
whatever, it’s going to be buried on the seventh page. That’s the
reality of it. So, you better have your hand in what’s going on over
here in athletics or you better be prepared for a Colorado. (1007/ 7)

 

Many respondents [4 of 8 — 3 administrators, 1 revenue coach] viewed the
athletic director as having a direct relationship with the coaches. An administrator
described the athletic director as the “coach of the coaches”. The athletic director was
also described [6 of 8 — 2 administrators, l revenue coach, 3 non-revenue coaches] as
the person that establishes goals and sets the standards athletics.

Well I think that the role of the athletic director has to hold
accountable the coaches in ways that take the parts of athletics that we
think are valuable and all of the promotional activities and really work
with the coaches to make sure they are doing those things, and having
appropriate team rules that reinforce the values that we talk about in
the 30 second spots, and the athletic director has to hold the coaches
accountable. I mean really that’s the function of the athletic director.
And they’ve gotta make a judgment that just because somebody wins
and they’re not paying any attention to the character development and
academic development of student-athletes that’s not good enough. But
on the other hand people have to win. So the athletic director is the
key element in trying to ﬁnd that balance. And also, the athletic
director has to be part of this culture of compliance. (1013/7)

There was consistent agreement that character development should be a concern

for those heading athletics. Many respondents (5 of 8) considered student-athlete

117

ch:

bu

IE

character development a concern for the institution as a whole. One coach believed that
building of character must be a priority in order to justify athletics’ role within higher
education. Most respondents (5 of 8) at Gala believed that character development was a
priority among institutional leaders.
Environment

Coaches had the most consistent view of the inﬂuence of the environmental
variables on athletics. Four of ﬁve coaches [1 revenue, 3 non-revenue] believed that
the recruitment of student-athletes was an external factor affecting their role as head
coach:

Well, like, for instance, if the university does something embarrassing.

You know, if there’s a major scandal in the agricultural department, it

would impact our ability to recruit. I mean, external to me would be if

the football team or another sport did something to embarrass the
university, that would impact my ability to recruit. (1007/2)

Location, are you a northern school, are you a southern school, are you

a western school, are you an eastern school? There’s a perception that

goes with location. Geographic desirability is really critical in

athletics and that plays a big role in recruiting. (1005/2)

Two (of ﬁve) coaches [1 revenue, 1 non-revenue] identiﬁed the relationship of
donors and boosters to the athletics program, and the politics created by those
relationships as key external factors affecting their jobs.

One coach recognized a change in the culture of youth sports an increasingly
important external inﬂuence. The pressure to perform being placed on children at

younger ages, by their parents, was affecting their performance as collegiate

athletes:

118

 

The changing dynamics and structure of the family. The culture of
sports clubs. Families get involved at early ages. That is both positive
and negative. Yet more and more often we begin meeting parents who
try to live through their children and push their children to play and
compete for a college scholarship or a shot at the pro leagues. By the
time the kid reaches college they are burnt out and the game is no
longer fun to them. You can also see it in the way parents behave in
the stands. They are too involved with what is supposed to be fun.
(1008/11)

Gala administrators identiﬁed a different set of external factors perceived to affect
athletics. Two of the three administrators identiﬁed NCAA and institutional rules of
operation as concerns that would affect a coach’s role.

Obviously the expectations that are a part of the NCAA, and their own
professional associations impact a coach in the same way that the
expectations of the national academy effect faculty members. There’s
also, I think, a greater scrutiny in the media over small events than is
true in the rest of the university in general. (1013/2)

Of course, the coach, as well, as to deal with conference, NCAA, and
school rules of operation, and has to follow those rules. So he has
these rules and his own set of rules that he has to go by in order to run
a program, a clean program. (1012/2)

Some external factors mentioned in combination by at least one administrator and
by at least one coach were: meeting the expectations of fans and the institution, and
student-athlete welfare:

Well, you have to look at it both ways. What are the external factors
that affect the student-athlete. These will be what also affect the
coach. And one is professional sports. Another is agents. The others
are their own family members or parents. Family members,
girlfriends, fans. . .the coach must make sure that the student athlete
understands that it’s primary that they look to the coach for direction
as opposed to turning outwardly and looking at the external sources for
direction. (1 012/2)

119

External factors...we must handle the politics of the University, and
the boosters. There is also recruiting. We must manage the extemals.
However, we must always keep our focus and attention on the student-
athletes. Are we making sure our guys [student-athletes] have
everything they need? Sometimes we forget the reason we have a job.
It is these guys. So there’s a bunch of external factors that get into this
in our job. But we have to make sure that we take care of those and
handle those and put that on the back burner and keep them where they
should be, it is a side bar. The biggest thing is to make sure that we
take care of our guys and spend time with them. And make sure that
they know that that door is open. (1010/2)

All respondents of Gala University believed that the collegiate setting affects
student-athlete character. Students were believed to be able to exercise and practice self-
discipline through decision-making, which worked to build character. Gala respondents
identiﬁed the residential campus, as fundamental to student development, articulating the
opportunities for the institution to model character both formally and informally:

Particularly with a residential campus there are greater opportunities to
impact character. This is a time of development for most traditional
students. Making decisions builds character, and this is the time that
students must make careful decisions. Things don’t always go right,
but that is part of the college experience. (1008/10)

One coach believed that although college plays a role, the family impact is much

greater:

1 don’t know how much we can change it if it’s already awful. I mean,
if a kid comes here a liar and cheat, it’s going to be more difﬁcult. I
think if a kid comes here on the bubble, then I think that the culture
around him deﬁnitely going to help him stay on the straight and
narrow. I think if I hang out with criminals, I’m going to become a
criminal. If I hang out with people who are not and I was a criminal, I
got a chance to change my ways. So I think that we play a role. I’m
not going to give us all the responsibility because I do think that a lot
occurs in character development zero to seventeen. And I’ve only got
four years with that kid. Okay. But I do think that I can help set the
kid on a path for success even if he came from a bad background.
Deﬁnitely. But if the kid really wants to be bad and do bad, there’s

120

nothing anybody can do about it. You got to really be open to the

possibility of being different. (1007/11)

Seven of the eight respondents [2 administrators, 1 revenue coach, 4 non-
revenue coaches] believed that general institutional support for athletics is present. Three
of ﬁve coaches took comfort in the efforts made by Gala’s administrators to support and
promote athletics to the University and the community. One coach stated that everyone at
Gala pursued the goal to be the best:

Well, I think the university is -- their perception is they want a winning

football team or they want a winning athletic program. They want the

very best program. They have a lot of pride in this university.

Believing that it is the best university in the country and they want

their athletic programs in my opinion to be somewhat the same.
That’s the feeling I get. (1010/4)

I think that overall there is a support. I mean everybody is always

concerned when there is a problem. And Gala U. over its history has

had its share of problems, and that really undercuts the conﬁdence of

the faculty and the alumni, and the students in the athletic program.

And we also try to build conﬁdence... For example the graduation

rate of student-athletes is at or above the graduation rate of the

population. So those are all ways in which one tries to deal with the

natural tensions. (1013/3)
One administrator differed in opinion, and believing that past indiscretions resulted in
some wariness regarding athletics and its role on campus.

In sum, Gala participants demonstrated a positive perception of the university
environment for athletics and student-athlete development. Coaches and administrators

differed in their perceptions of key environmental inﬂuence. Everyone at Gala perceived

the collegiate setting as having the potential to affect student character.

12]

Socialization

Two of the eight participants believed that maintaining a work ethic was an
important link to achieving success in all stages and facets of life. Work ethic was the
only key to success identiﬁed by at least two respondents. Other keys to success
included: maintaining integrity, understanding people, following the rules, respecting self
and others, remembering that life is centered upon making [good] choices, and make no

€XCUS€SI

No excuses. And all things are possible. You know, I really just
believe that — you know, I don’t have a problem with shit that
happened in your life impacts who you are today. But the bottom line
is, this world offers nothing but possibilities. And you can make all
the excuses in the world you want and you can go to your grave doing
it. But it’s a waste of time. And I really try to ask them to not settle,
to not make excuses for themselves or their teammates for anything.
And having an all-things- are-possible mentality. (1007/ 13)

The ﬁrst one is obviously development of a work ethic. That permits
you to not simply work on the things you love but to work on the
things that you don’t like to do. And to bring in that work ethic (to the
things you don’t like to do) the same passion that you bring for the
things that you like to do. Because that’s one of the essential keys to
being successful in life.

I think the second aspect is really internalizing a sense of fairness that
goes with following the rules of the game. In the literal athletic sense
and it goes with the way you treat individuals and the way in which
you would essentially, in that concept of fairness, treat others with
respect. And the third thing is to see your special talent and your
special characteristics as something that can only grow if you are
prepared to share it with others. (1013/11)

Mission
Four coaches [1 revenue, 3 non-revenue] and an administrator articulated their

Perception of Gala’s mission to be “educating students” — a diverse range of students.

122

Diversity was reﬂected in areas such as socio-economic status, sex, race and ethnicity.
These coaches believed that a portion of the institutional mission focused on providing an
educational opportunity to a wide range of the state’s citizens:
The mission is to provide all groups (without discrimination) with an
opportunity to get involved with excellent academic programs. Our

diversity is an important aspect. We appeal to a wide range of the state
population. (1005/1)

Our mission is to educate students. Most speciﬁcally, our focus is

upon the tax payers. We are more centered on the undergraduate

student experience than the graduate student. (1007/ 1)
Two administrators identiﬁed the mission of Gala as maintaining a high level of success
in teaching and research. No other respondents held this understanding of the mission.

Four of eight respondents articulated the mission of athletics as a striving to
promote and enhance the image of the university. The president along with three coaches
viewed athletics as being the community’s or the world’s ﬁrst interaction with Gala
University. Respondents believed this link results in members of athletics representing
the institution in a positive and even classy manner:

The mission is to compliment the image of the University, in terms of

both the expectations of student development as well as a sense of

ethics, and a pattern of success that brings distinction to Michigan

State through the performance of our student-athletes and our coaches.
(1013/1)

Our goal is to represent the university. To provide a classy and
positive model of the school. Provide students (athletes) with a total
life growth experience. (1 008/ 1)

Well, the mission of athletics, is for us to be — as I understand it from
our athletic director - is for us to be role models, people in the
community, to carry our success, carry our failures with a certain

123

dignity and pride. Those types of issues. Very much a Gala spirit, as
people like to refer to, as corny as that sounds. I think, actually - I
know it exists in terms of the prideful nature in which we do things.
(1006/ 1)
In contrast, 2 of 8 participants (an administrator and a coach) identiﬁed athletics as a
learning and development tool that supplements the more formal education of the

classroom:

To work within the framework of the university as being one of the
educational branches of the university. I look at what we do in
athletics as just as important as what you do in the classroom. You’re
developing leadership skills, you’re developing teamwork skills,
you’re developing conﬂict resolution skills, there’s always some
conﬂict. You’re dealing with time management; you’re having to deal
with stress and having to perform under high stress with high demands
and high expectations by your peers and by those who are not your
peers, your coaches who depend upon the student athlete to perform at
a certain level, quite honestly to keep their jobs. So it is a complex
educational environment I feel in athletics. (1005/1)

A coach and an administrator believed the mission of athletics was to provide an
opportunity for students to compete athletically at a ﬁrst-class program and high quality
academic institution. Additionally, two coaches articulated athletics’ mission as
providing an academic opportunity to students who would not have had the chance to
attend an institution like Gala University otherwise.

The traditional goal of any higher education institution is “to educate.” The
general understanding and articulation of the Gala University mission lacked uniqueness
that normally creates a distinction between Gala and other colleges and universities

within the state. Athletics was considered as the front line of public perception and public

relations for the institution.

124

Institutional Summary

Respondents at Gala University demonstrated group consensus in several areas.
Most (5 of 8) considered athletic participation to affect student-athlete character
development positively. Similarly, six out of eight participants believed that setting
expectations would assist in the development of character in student-athletes although the
literature did not identify this element as critical for building character (Lumpkin, Stoll,
& Beller, 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998). Five of eight respondents believed that the
responsibility for character development belonged to everyone on campus.

There was a lack of agreement about the relative importance of external factors on
the role of a head coach. Coaches’ perspectives differed from administrators. Differences
in the articulation of the institutional and athletic missions displayed group differences as
well. Institutional administrators held a more concise understanding of the institutional
mission than others at Gala U.

There was a deﬁnite positive attitude expressed by the participants of Gala
University regarding their experiences between the institution and athletics. Most coaches
and the athletic director expressed an active involvement by administrators, and this
seems to have made a difference. This positive attitude creates an opportunity for Gala to
improve everyone’s knowledge and understanding institutional and departmental
expectations.

Rainbow University

Rainbow University is positioned close to the upper peninsula of the state. The

buildings on campus are primarily modern. As a residential higher education institution

Rainbow University is coeducational with a campus enrollment of over 25,000 students,

125

which includes both undergraduate and graduate programs of study. There are over 200
professionally oriented undergraduate and graduate programsat the bachelors, master’s,
specialist’s, and doctoral levels. Rainbow University has had its educational doors open
for over 110 years.

Rainbow is a Division I afﬁliate of the NCAA and a member of an athletic
conference. Rainbow athletics supports over 15 teams, with men and women having
nearly the same number of teams. Rainbow athletics has experienced much success
primarily among its conference rivals. The coaches were spread across two buildings on
campus. Each building was generally exclusive to athletic department staff and activities.
The football and basketball facilities were large structures that stood out on the campus.
There was a separate indoor facility for football practices and preparation. The athletic
program of Rainbow receives ﬁnancial support from its central administration. Senior
administrators were housed in the central administration building.

Character Development

The majority of Rainbow participants [5 of 8 - 2 administrators, 2 revenue
coaches, 1 non-revenue coach] believed that athletic participation presents an opportunity
to positively build character. Certain elements must be in place in order for positive
outcomes to be achieved:

I’ll certainly say this, that it has the opportunity to build character.

There are a lot of people who don’t take advantage of opportunities.

So it’s not an automatic. But it forces you in situations that demand

that you demonstrate character. I was a coach for 16 years before I

was the athletic director, so I’ve had that opportunity to experience

both sides. And that’s the type of experience that I’ve been trying to
relay as I discuss it. (1022/6)

126

It can. It doesn’t mean it does. If you don’t emphasize to make a
person have character, then they won’t. You as a coach or as the
leader of a program and your staff have to say, “These things are
important to us.” And you have to tell the guys, “This is important.”
(1018/5)

Only two of eight Rainbow U. respondents supported the belief that athletics built
character. One coach took notice of higher graduation rates and selections made by
employers because of the skills developed by student-athletes:

Most deﬁnitely. It’s not a secret that student athletes have a higher

graduation rate. It’s not a secret that businesses like to hire athletes

because they’re competitive. They’re driven. They set goals. They’re

motivated. They know how to manage their time. I think personal

sacriﬁces. They make a commitment. They make a plan. They work

the plan. They achieve the goal. (1016/4)

Another coach believed that athletics reveals one’s character more than actually
building it. This respondent believed that the environment had to be appropriate, and that
student-athletes must be clearly taught to understand character:

It is one of many ways that you can build character. But what it really

does I believe is display character, more than builds it. Then I believe

it totally depends on the environment that the student-athlete is in if it

builds character. It can build bad character if it’s in a bad setting. it

can build positive character if it’s in a positive setting, and the coach, I

believe, has a huge responsibility in that area. I do believe that is

misplaced in society today, and win/losses have become more

important than the building of character. (1017/5)

Rainbow University respondents lacked consensus in deﬁning “character”.
Several respondents [4 of 8 - 1 administrator, I revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coaches]

deﬁned character as being an intrinsic quality, and considered character to be “who you

are as a person.”

127

Character is who you are when people aren’t looking. It really is
intrinsic to who you are, and it eventually shows in one’s behavior
sooner or later. (1020/3)

It’s the “true” person. What that person is truly all about. (1017/4)

Two non-revenue coaches deﬁned character in terms of trust and honesty, along
with ethics, morals and values. Others (2 of 8) identiﬁed a person’s display of
commitment as a sign of character. When discussing character one coach stated that
character must come ﬁrst in the recruiting phase:

Boy, that’s a good question. It’s like how do you deﬁne leadership. I
think that’s all part of it. I think leadership and character somewhat
are embracing. I think leadership, maybe, in my deﬁnition is —- you
know, leadership can be — should be, you know, what kind of effect do
you have around people around you. And I think character can be
lumped into that. I think character and intelligence have to come ﬁrst
in your recruiting of any student athlete. I think a lot of coaches screw
up when they put athletic ability ahead of character and intelligence.
(1019/5)

Three respondents [1 administrator, 2 non-revenue coaches] identiﬁed role
modeling by the coach as an important element. Several participants [3 of 8 — l revenue
coach, 2 non-revenue coaches] believed that supplying a proper environment was
essential for developing character. Three of eight respondents [1 administrator, I
revenue coach, 1 non-revenue coach] believed that developing a trusting relationship
with the student-athlete was critical to building character:

I think there’s one word that’s a key. It’s trust. I think when an

individual — provided, again, the person they’re trusting has some

values. I mean, you can trust someone that if you look at the outside

you say, that’s an individual you do not want to identify with. But I

think that’s a key role. If you trust someone, if you trust someone

because that person knows what’s right, that person — you trust

someone because that person cares about you, then I think you have
that opportunity to really develop character. (1022/8)

128

The head coach and his/her staff is the most critical element because
they shape the experience, and they are also role models. But it is the
coaches who set the standards and expectations. They then must be

ﬁrm and fair in any attempts to discipline and correct behaviors.
(1015/7)

So, I think there’s team building. You try to make sure that your
seniors, who’ve been through your program and been a part of your
program, understand that that is important to them. And as that
becomes important to them, then they go out and they make sure that
the others understand that that’s important in this program. And so
then it’s just not you as a single person or you and your assistant
coaches as a single person. It’s all of you moving out there and
saying, “Hey, this is what we’re all about.” And so that’s how you
create an atmosphere that understands that (and an atmosphere that
builds character). ( 101 8/ 6)

Two non-revenue coaches believed that setting clear standards and expectations
was also important for building character. Two coaches believed that students contributed
to their own character development by possessing and exercising self-discipline.

Most respondents [5 of 8 — 1 administrator, I revenue coach, 3 non-revenue
coaches] viewed character development as a responsibility of everyone in a position of
leading and guiding students at the institution. Three respondents differed in their
responses. The president of Rainbow University believed that the head coach held
primary responsibility for building the character of student-athletes. Two coaches
identiﬁed the team (assistant coaches and players) as having a great deal of responsibility
in building character in student-athletes:

Deﬁnitely your upperclassmen and your team captains. You want

your team captains and your leadership to come from your senior

class, if at all possible. They have the most investment. They have the

most experience. They can certainly give the best advice to the
younger athletes. (1016/6)

129

Every respondent (8 of 8) reported making speciﬁc attempts to address
character. Subtle and also more overt attempts to build character were identiﬁed by
respondents. Such things as honesty, follow through, and understanding were identiﬁed
as being subtle, while more direct methods were identiﬁed as: team discussions, placing
information in handouts, and even through coaching. Character was also reinforced via
daily interactions between coaches and student-athletes.

Respondents at Rainbow University reﬂected‘upon the inﬂuences of their current
philosophy of development. Five of eight [1 administrator, I revenue coach, 3 non-
revenue coaches] identiﬁed family members as affecting their philosophy. Former
coaches [4 of 8 —- 1 revenue coach, 3 non-revenue coaches], and friends/peers [4 of 8 - 1
administrator, 3 non-revenue coaches] were also identiﬁed as important inﬂuences on
beliefs about character. Families established the foundation with values, while coaches
related sport participation to actual life events and situations to be faced later in life.
Peers and friends assisted in the making of difﬁcult decisions. They were considered
“good people” who had been around through the ups and downs.

Little consensus among respondents existed for deﬁning character and identifying
essential elements for building character. Greater consensus was found about the
potential of athletics to build character in student-athletes. A majority of respondents
considered the entire university as sharing responsibility for the character development of
student-athletes.

Leadership
Collectively, the coaches at Rainbow University explained that the president and

athletic director did not have much direct contact with or affect on the student-athletes.

130

 

Instead their inﬂuence was on the coaches. One coach actually stated, “the president and
athletic director step back and let you do your job”:

Wow, student impact. I don’t know how much impact it [leadership]
has because you get into your world and, I think. . .the biggest thing is,
you get in your world. The impact the athletic director and the
president have...I think we get tied into our world, so I’m not sure how
much impact...besides, maybe, reading in the paper on issues and
things like that they catch. But I don’t know, because they don’t have
contact with them [student-athletes] on a daily basis or even on a
weekly basis. That’s, you know — I think both of them step back and
let us do our job, which I appreciate, rather than standing over your
shoulder every two minutes. I think it’s positive for a coach. But as far
as a player, I’m not sure how much impact they have. (1019/12)

Well, I think it’s just a trickling effect. I believe our president, of
course, is responsible for hiring the athletic director. And the athletic
director is responsible for hiring the coaches. And I think that they
hire coaches who have the integrity and all the things we discussed
here. Good character. Honest. NCAA rule abiding. They have the
knowledge of the sport itself. The teaching abilities. I think in that
way - you’re saying how does the university president and athletic
director impact?... I think that they set the standards. We have staff
meetings. They have guidelines for us. They have standards for us.
And they want our university represented in a ﬁrst-class fashion, both
on and off the court/ﬁeld. (1016/7)

Two non-revenue coaches and an administrator (3 of 8) believed the president
and athletic director were responsible for oversight. The president considered the athletic
director to be responsible for modeling ideal behavior and for hiring persons of integrity.
The athletic director saw the president’s role as overseeing the athletic program and the
institution.

Well, again, I think — the president has oversight of your program. So

it’s important that the president has an opportunity — and we bring him

in on various meetings that we have — in which he has a chance to, by

and large, see the athletes in whole and talk about what they mean to

the university and their importance. You know, again, in some
instances he or she may have the opportunity of one-on-one with

131

 

various teams or with individuals. And that impacts them very
signiﬁcantly. (1022/10)

Other roles for Rainbow’s leaders discussed by respondents included insuring that needed
resources were available (1 of 8), representing athletics to the institution (1 of 8), and
setting standards (1 of 8).

Rainbow University respondents understood character development as a concern
for those heading intercollegiate athletics. One coach afﬁrmed, “the moment educating
and developing student-athletes is not a part of any of our jobs then no time should be
wasted to quickly remove athletics from within the walls of higher education.”
Environment

Four of six coaches [2 revenue coaches, 2 non-revenue coaches] identiﬁed
fundraising and attending multiple fundraising events as an external factor that affect
their role as head coach:

I mean, we basically have to — you know, we raise certain money
through guaranteed games, but we also raise it through golf outings
and alumni fund-drives, through ourselves. That impacts us. That’s
an external force. Does it impact us? Absolutely. I mean, the more
you raise, obviously, the better the conditions can be. There’s not too
many externals — I’m trying to think external things. (1019/3)

I would say Rainbow Club donations impacts the budget. Relations.
What kind of relations do you have with your high school coaches,
your AAU coaches. External forces, I guess, would be a lot of things.
You go out and evaluate talent constantly. Your job is affected by
that. If you don’t identify good talent and if you don’t bring good
talent to the ﬂoor and produce, it all connects. So, I think you have to
have good relations, good communication, e-mail, telephone, in
person, written correspondence with both coaches, players. I think
that’s affected, too, by the NCAA restrictions. The NCAA rules tell us
that you can only do this and can only do that, especially with
prospects. (1016/2)

132

 

Two of six coaches considered the excess in NCAA rules and related paperwork to
adversely affect the operation of athletics:

Oh there’s huge things that impact me other than that [coaching]. The
budget and dealing with ﬁmd raising. Here which we spend a lot of
time. . .which I spend a lot of time on... (my staff and I). It takes away
some of the opportunities to interact with the student-athlete. The
amount of paperwork that is now required via the NCAA and each
institution, and with not having clerical that puts it all on the coaches.
The pressures of public relations and of not having other help to get
things done so that means that we have to do it. (1017/3)

In addition, two non-revenue coaches and the president saw ﬁnancial/budget related
issues as an external factor affecting head coaches.

The president and athletic director identiﬁed public perceptions and the media as
external factors affecting coaches. The president also mentioned recruiting and general
limits in spending within higher education as factors that affect the role of head coaches:

There are a lot of factors that impact the role of our head coaches. The
perception of the coach’s program by the public, media, and our
alumni. Often athletic programs are measured by wins and losses
especially at the Division I level. Also being ﬁscally responsible.
There is also recruitment and politics (that is related to the cost and
spending within higher education). (1023/2)

Well, there are a lot of external factors. Obviously, the ﬁrst external
factor that everyone has to have to be in coaching is perception. The
program that you develop, how is it perceived? How is it perceived by
the public? How is it perceived by the media? How is it perceived by
future student athletes and those that are in the program? Oftentimes
perception is based upon success. And oftentimes that is the degree in
which one is measured, especially at the Division I level. (1022/ 1)

Each respondent of Rainbow University considered the college setting as a place

where students can grow as young adults. The freedom and independence experienced

133

 

$1.) in
l .

created a learning and living environment where students developed as a result of making
their own decisions. Students learned accountability for their decisions and actions:

When you come to a university and you go away to school, you are
making your own decisions. And so you are going to develop your
own character and you are going to interact with other people. You’re
going to interact with other adults. And you’re going to hear a lot of
different things. Ultimately, you will be responsible for your own
actions and your own decision of what you think is right and wrong
and what you think is important or not important. (1018/10)

Well it certainly. . .you have to believe in what you do. Believe in your
ethics, believe in your morals, because you are going to be questioned
and challenged and pushed and prodded to do things so you have to
decide what you believe is right and what is wrong — and where the
limits are, so you have to be careful of limits and set them. So I think
it’s challenging for anybody. . .the students. And then being a student-
athlete adds a little bit more pressure to it. (1017/10)

Three of eight participants (two coaches and the president) believed the attitude
toward athletics was mixed with supporters and non-supporters. A sufﬁcient balance was
needed within the institution to bridge academics and athletics. Currently this gap was
considered difﬁcult to bridge because of the ongoing budget constraints faced across the
state. These respondents believed that the “mixed” attitude toward athletics was common
at many institutions across the state and the country:

It’s mixed. The realists understand that one basis for comparing

institutions is its divisional rank and athletic program. For a lot of

people they see athletics as being disconnected from the mission. They

do not see the beneﬁts. A majority are real and do understand the value

of athletics. Overall, I would have to say that there are mixed feelings
and mixed reviews among our faculty and staff (1023/2)

I think it’s no different than, maybe, some other universities I have
been with. I think we have a tremendous amount of support from the
president. However, I think that there are those few faculty members
out there that you see at every institution that think there should be less

134

 

emphasis on athletics and more emphasis on academics and can’t
understand why this money’s being spent for that. So it’s not
something I’ve not seen before. (1016/3)

Four of eight respondents [1 administrator, 3 non-revenue coaches] identiﬁed the
attitude at Rainbow University as supportive of intercollegiate athletics. One coach
mentioned the media’s inaccurate portrayal of the relationship between academics and
athletics:

I think that the public perception in the paper is inaccurate that
athletics receives too much. The actual perception of a lot of the
professors on campus I don’t believe its being truly marketed properly
or it’s not accurate what we are hearing in the paper. Because we
receive a lot of support, and I believe that there is not much negativity
at all. But then our student-athletes have been good students, and we
certainly are not on the excess side of the ﬁnancial situation, and
we’ve done well (winning and losing), and haven’t caused much — to
my knowledge- any negative publicity to the university. So as long as
everybody keeps it clean and doesn’t receive too much I think the
University is in favor, if in fact it was marketed. (1017/4)

I think it’s a higher percentage than we realize that value
intercollegiate athletics. Intercollegiate athletics is a part of the total
collegiate experience. Not only for the student athletes, as they
represent that university and as they move through it and achieve both
academically and athletically, but it also is a gathering spot for what
we say is the university itself, the other students that are on campus.
The opportunity to identify and to be able to broaden themselves as
they have an opportunity to be among athletics. The opportunity for
the community. The opportunity for the university itself in its image
and its alumni. (1022/4)

One coach provided a different lens to view Rainbow University. This coach
reported the institution’s attitude as being rather cynical toward athletics. The perceived
cynicism was linked to years of stagnant mindsets. This stagnant mindset symbolizes the

opinions and views of athletics that remain forever linked to former coaches and past

135

 

performances of years ago that are not accurate of present athletics staff or of present
performances.

In sum, Rainbow respondents differed in their perceptions of the institutional
attitude toward intercollegiate athletics. In particular, the factors identiﬁed as affecting
coaches did not agree with the factors stated by administrators. However, the perceived
value of the college experience was undeniable among Rainbow University participants.
A reasonable amount of discussion occurring across the institution would be beneﬁcial
for athletics and the general institution at Rainbow University.

Socialization

Commitment was identiﬁed most often as a key to success [4 of 8 — 1
administrator, I revenue coach, 2 non-revenue coaches]. Students must remain
committed through difﬁculties that are likely to come up in life. Maintaining a work ethic
(2 of 8) and honesty (2 of 8) were also stated by respondents. Other keys identiﬁed by at
least one respondent were respect for others, understanding people, and maintaining
integrity.

Mission

Four of eight participants [4 of 8 — 1 revenue coach, 3 non-revenue coaches]
articulated Rainbow’s mission as providing students with an affordable, quality
education. Two of these respondents also believed the mission was oriented toward a
liberal arts undergraduate experience. According to these respondents this mission
seemed consistent with the growth and development of the students:

...to develop them in a variety of ways. One is, obviously, the

educational part. And the educational part in the classroom becomes

important. Okay? What are they going to learn? What are they going
to become? What degrees are they working on? So that has to be one

136

 

of your main focuses, you know. And that is the university’s main
focus. That’s a priority. And then the other thing is, you know, you
have interaction. How they act socially with other students. That
becomes important. (1018/1)

To educate students. But to also help in their maturation as they
continue on in their educational endeavors. (1017/1)

Two respondents believed the mission was to provide an opportunity for students
from the region to obtain a degree while also developing productive citizens. The
president of Rainbow articulated an academically-oriented mission emphasizing teaching
and applied research by members of Rainbow University:

Rainbow University is academically geared, with a teaching mission.

There is a strong applied research focus. We do also place some

dedication to service. But the keys here are teaching, and this is closely
followed by applied research. (1023/1)

Well, as I see it, the mission of the university is what they say, is to
provide the wherewithal so that those in it can have every opportunity
to be able to succeed and to be able to achieve a degree and be able to
be a very productive member of society. (1022/ 1)

These respondents [3 of 8 — 1 administrator, l revenue coach, 1 non-revenue
coach] articulated the mission of athletics as assisting in the full development of student-
athletes. Athletic participation was believed to develop leaders and leadership skills that
would lead to success in areas beyond athletics:

Athletics is designed to create a certain environment for student-

athletes, students in general, the public, and alumni. It is a window

back to the university and often the ﬁrst and only opportunity to

interact with the institution. It serves to create a point of leadership for

students who are athletes. It’s a way of bringing people together

around a common focus. It builds an enormous degree of support and
enthusiasm from the institution. It creates some identity. (1023/ 1)

137

 

Four respondents [5 of 8 — l administrator, 2 revenue coaches, 2 non-revenue coach] also
discussed athletics’ mission as providing an opportunity to compete and participate in a
quality athletics program.

Some respondents mentioned that athletics’ mission was to serve as a front door
and a window into the institution. Athletics works as an external relations tool while also
building support and loyalty within the campus and local community. Two respondents
considered athletics as a tool that promoted the mission of the institution.

I think it’s a multi-purpose mission. It’s the front door of the

university. It’s for the student-athlete, to give them opportunities to

participate, to be a Signet of their education. For the general student
population. To give identity to the university. . .additional identity. To

have an escape and the ability to be a fan, which I believe helps the

morale of the student body, and therefore the overall positive

experience of everyone on campus, as well as the staff. I believe it also
has a role for the staff. So the total university. (1017/1)

I think the mission of athletics — and I think there’s a piece of pie in
our state for everybody. I think us getting student athletes from our
region and not from a national area and try to be as competitive as
possible and not risk the ethics and character you need to have.
(1019/1)

Many respondents at Rainbow believe they have achieved a balance of academic
and athletic success. However, the lack of consensus within the group regarding both the
institutional and athletic missions displayed a gap or a breakdown in communication.
Institutional Summary

Most respondents (5 of 8) believed that athletics has a potential to build character.
However, much less consensus existed in deﬁning character and in determining the

elements considered necessary to develop character in student-athletes.

138

External factors were perceived differently by organizational position. Coaches
and administrators disagreed on the factors affecting coaches. Coaches considered
fundraising and attending fundraising events as a factor, while administrators identiﬁed
public perceptions and the media as important factors affecting coaches. The majority of
participants believed that the entire institution was responsible for addressing character
development.

Articulating the institutional and athletic missions of Rainbow provided an
opportunity to observe another instance where a disconnection exists within the Rainbow
organization. The president was more conﬁdent in his description of the institutional
mission than other respondents. Nearly all others provided less description in their
articulation of the mission. The recurring theme of Rainbow University was a general
lack of consensus. This could symbolize that there are multiple units (teams) operating

separately within a larger system.

Summgy Discussion of Results

This section reviews the results of the study involving intercollegiate athletic
coaches, athletic directors, along with senior administrators to identify and explore the
values, beliefs, and behaviors about student-athlete character development. This section
is organized into three themes: character development, environment, and mission.
Character Development

Athletics Builds Character. There was a strong belief among the participants (21
of 33 - 63%), particularly among coaches, that intercollegiate athletic participation builds

character. Sixteen of twenty-three coaches (70%) believed that athletics builds character.

139

 

This belief was even greater among non-revenue sport coaches (14 of 16 - 87%). Fewer
coaches (2 of 7) of revenue sports held this belief. More Division III coaches (10 of 12)
than Division I coaches (6 of 11) held this belief. The other seven coaches held that there
is “potential” for intercollegiate athletics to impact character development even if it does
not do so currently.

When compared to athletic directors, senior administrators had less conﬁdence in
the ability of athletics to impact character. Two of four athletic directors agreed that
athletics build character. Both athletic directors were from Division I programs. Among
senior administrators 2 of 3 from Division III believed athletics built character. One of
these administrators felt that the character being built might be negative. One of three
Division I senior administrators believed that athletics built character. Almost all of the
33 respondents agreed that at a minimum intercollegiate athletics has an opportunity to
impact character development in student-athletes.

Deﬁning Character. Respondents varied considerably in their deﬁnition of
character. No institution demonstrated consensus in deﬁning character. Nor was there a
common deﬁnition by position or by division level.

Key Elements to Develop Character. Respondents at each institution listed key
elements necessary for building character in student-athletes. The most common

responses within and among the four participating institutions are shown in Table 7.

140

Table 7

Kev Elements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Element Rainbow Gala Center Mountain
University University College College
Role Modeling 3 of 8 1 of 8 5 of 8 5 of 9
Setting Expectations 2 of 8 0 of 8 2 of 8 4 of 9
Student Self-discipline 2 of 8 6 of 8 3 of 8 5 of 9
PrOper Environment 3 of 8 0 of 8 1 of 8 0 of 9
Teach Character 1 of 8 O of 8 l of 8 0 of 9

 

 

Table 7 provides a summarized comparison of the key elements identiﬁed by
institution as necessary for building character in student-athletes. Across all institutions
student self-discipline was stated most often by respondents, and followed closely by role
modeling. Respondents at Rainbow University were most familiar with the essential
elements listed [moral role models, moral environment, and teach morals] in the literature
as critical to student moral grth and development (Lumpkin et al., 1999; Stoll &
Beller, 1998). Not all institutions were familiar with each of the necessary elements for
effectively building character.

Responsibility for Addressing Character. Twenty-ﬁve of 33 (76%) participants in
the research believed that the responsibility for addressing character development fell
upon the shoulders of everyone at the institution. Only slightly fewer respondents from
Division I institutions than Division III institutions held this belief.

The belief that “everyone is responsible” for building character may run counter
both to public opinion and the sentiment found by other members (faculty and staff) of
the institution. For example, when an incident occurs involving a student-athlete many

are quick to point the ﬁnger at the coach or the athletic department. It is often heard that

141

“the coach is responsible for their behavior” or that “athletics does know how to control
the student-athletes.” However, greater individual responsibility seems to be afforded to
non-athletes when similar incidents occur.
Environment

External Factors. Respondents varied in their view of the external factors
impacting the role of a head coach by their role in the institution and by division level.
Tables 8 and 9 summarize the most common responses concerning external factors
impacting the role of head coaches. Table 8 is sorted by common responses and by role in

the institution. Table 9 sorted common responses by division level.

Table 8

External Factors by Position

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Athletic Institutional
Coach Director Administrator

External Factors (23) (4) (6)
Budget Concerns 7 2 2
Facility Upgrades 2 1 2
Student Welfare 6 2 l
NCAA Rules 2 l 1
Recruiting 7 0 1
Public Perception 1 1 2
Fund Raising 4 0 0
Location/Size of Town 3 0 0
Boosters/Alumni 2 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

142

Table 9

Extern_al Factors bx Division Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

External Factors Division III Division I
Budget Concerns 8 3
Facility Upgrades 4 1
Student Welfare 7 2
NCAA Rules 0 4
Recruiting 3 5
Public Perception 0 4
Fund Raising O 4
Location/Size of Town 3 0
Boosters/Alumni 0 2

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8 shows that the greatest agreement across positions was the external factor
budget concerns, followed by student welfare. Recruiting was’a high response category
for coaches, yet not considered as highly by athletic directors or institutional
administrators. Table 9 shows greatest agreement across division levels in the area of
recruiting. Within Division 111 common external factors were budget concerns and

student welfare. For Division I commonalities were strongest for recruiting.

Table 10

Perception of the Institution’s View of Athletics (“As Supportive”)
Bv Position and Division Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Position Division III Division I
Coaches 8 of 12 8 of 11
Athletic Directors 2 of 2 2 of 2
Institutional Administrators 3 of 3 2 of 3

 

143

Overall, respondents expressed feelings of support as they described their
perceptions of the institution’s view of athletics. Twenty-four of thirty-three (73%)
participants considered their home institution quite supportive of the athletic program.
Table 10 presents a breakdown by position and division level of the feelings of support
reported by participants.

Mission

Respondents from Division III institutions were better able to articulate the
institutional mission clearly and speciﬁcally. In contrast, Division I participants reported
a more general articulation of the institutional mission. By position and across division
levels, senior administrators displayed the greatest awareness and ability to state the
institutional mission than respondents in other positions. It appears that individuals
operating daily with work that requires understanding the institutional mission are better
able to explain and articulate it to others.

Most Division III respondents described the mission of athletics as a learning and
development tool for student-athletes. Division 1 participants were more divided in their
responses. There was a fair mix between athletics serving as both a learning and
development tool, and as external ambassadors of the institution. With the continued
growth and broad national coverage of collegiate athletics it has become more likely that
those being entertained will likely receive their ﬁrst introduction to an institution via its

athletics program.

144

 

Chapter V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction

The purpose of this study was to explore and assess the perceptions held by
coaches, athletic directors and institutional presidents regarding their roles and
responsibilities related to student-athlete development. In particular, the research
examines participants’ perceptions concerning his/her impact upon the development of
student-athlete character. As higher education seeks to substantiate the purpose and role
of intercollegiate athletics to both internal and external critics, it is most critical to bring
to light the potential developmental beneﬁts experienced by student-athletes.

A review of the literature disclosed many studies researching the impact of
athletics upon athlete character development. However, there was no conclusive evidence
that athletics does build character (Stevenson, 1975; Shields & Bredemeier, 1995; and
Sage, 1998). This investigation sought the perspective of coaches, athletic administrators,
and presidents and senior administrators regarding the impact of athletics upon student-
athlete character development. As a result certain beliefs, values, and behaviors were
identiﬁed as affecting the character building effect of intercollegiate athletics.

The ﬁve research questions developed to guide the study sought to yield speciﬁc
information about the perceived impact of intercollegiate athletics upon student-athlete
character. I desired to explore the degree of consistency between types of respondents
because athletics and its teams have often been viewed as disconnected from the general

institution. The research questions and related responses are summarized in the pages that

145

follow. The results of the additional content areas were discussed, as well as participant
data.

CONCLUSIONS
Character Development

Research Question 1

1. Among coaches, athletic directors, and institutional administrators - does

student participation in intercollegiate athletics build character?

Shields and Bredemeier (1995) and Sage (1998) support the sentiment of
Stevenson (1975, 1985) that empirical research has provided little to no information
regarding the psychosocial effects of sport participation. Despite this ﬁnding in the
literature, it was reported among all participants (by position and division level) that
athletics presents at least an opportunity or possibility to build character in student-
athletes. Many (63%) participants stood ﬁrmly behind their belief that athletics does
build character.

The responses gathered regarding the deﬁning of “character” displayed that these
deﬁnitions were based upon subjective experience(s) related to each participant’s own
life events or occurrences. Personal subjectivity characterized in the responses of nearly
all participants, which would likely be true at other institutions. Accordingly, there were
nearly as many unique responses about the deﬁnition of “character” as there were
participants. Overall there was a shared belief that student participation in intercollegiate
athletics has the potential to build character. None of the participating institutions used a

standard or comparative measure to assess the impact of intercollegiate athletics upon

146

character. Also, for most participants “character” was thought of in a positive light.
Character was seldom discussed as being negative or as producing a negative outcome.

Research Questions 2 and 3

2. What do coaches, athletic directors, and institutional administrators perceive to
be the essential elements/components needed in order to develop character in
student-athletes? [Informally or Formally; Advertently or Inadvertently]

3. By position - what, if any, differences are found in the perceptions and beliefs
of presidents/senior administrators, athletic directors, and head coaches
regarding how character is best developed in student-athletes?

Research Question 2 was designed to obtain comparative information regarding
the knowledge of participants about key elements needed to build character. The
theoretical model of cognitive moral development shows that certain key factors need to
be in place to create the greatest likelihood of developing character (Bredemeier &
Shields, 1985; Gilligan, 1982; Kohlberg, 1981; Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1999; Piaget,
1932; Stoll & Beller, 1998). These factors are a moral education, moral role models, and
a moral environment (Lumpkin et al., 1999; Stoll & Beller, 1998). No individual
participants identiﬁed each of the essential factors spelled out in the literature.

Of particular importance was the differentiation of key factors by the participating
coaches, athletic directors, and senior administrators. No participant group seemed to
possess a clear knowledge and understanding of the empirically-based elements needed
for developing character in student-athletes.

In a comparison of the key elements from the literature against the perceptions

reported during this study role modeling was mentioned by slightly over forty percent

147

(42%) of the sample. Supplying a sufﬁcient environment was reported by 12% of the
sample, while the teaching of character was stated by only 3% of the sample. Based on
this information there is a disparity between the literature and what is understood
amongst the present group of coaches, athletic directors, presidents and senior
administrators. This disparity or gap in knowledge is a potential area of concern.

“Athletics is educational [character building] for the student participants” (Gerdy,
1997, p. 33-34). If such boasted claims of athletics’ educational beneﬁt to student
participants continue to go unfulﬁlled intercollegiate athletics will likely damage the
culture and values of higher education. Institutional policy to support actions of chief
institutional administrators should make certain that true alignment between the
institution and athletics is fully realized. If not, is college athletics then destined to move
ever closer to the semi-pro status?

Research Question 3 was designed to determine consistency across positions
identifying the key elements. Among all Presidents and Senior Administrators, 4 of 6
identiﬁed role modeling as a key element in building character. Six of seven Revenue
Coaches reported that the setting of expectations was a key element, while Non-Revenue
Coaches (8 of 16) reported role modeling as a key element linked to best developing
character. Athletic Directors differed in their beliefs about what builds character. There
was a small level of agreement between two position groups (Presidents/Senior
Administrators and Non-Revenue Coaches) that reported role modeling as a key element
in building character.

No participant or a position group collectively stated all three of the key factors

identiﬁed in the literature, nor was any major level of consensus arrived at between

148

groups. This lack of consensus and shared view, as well as lack of understanding, may
adversely affect the ability of athletics to impact character development.

Research Questions 4 and 5

4. Are there differences, by position, between presidents/senior administrators,

athletic directors, and head coaches regarding their perceptions, values, and
beliefs in relation to the impact athletics has upon a student-athlete’s character
development?

5. Are there differences between Division levels regarding the impact of athletics

upon student-athlete character development?

Research Questions 4 and 5 were designed to determine the consistency between
positions and across division levels regarding the perceived impact athletics have upon
student-athlete character. There was a high level of consensus across all positions and
division levels in the belief that athletics has the ability to build character. There was also
some degree of agreement between position groups (Presidents/Senior Administrators
and Non-Revenue Coaches) that role modeling was a key element in building character.
Deﬁnitions of character, however, varied substantially by role group. Revenue Coaches
(4 of 7) deﬁned “character” as being who you are when people aren ’t looking. Presidents
and Senior Administrators (4 of 6) related character to a presence of moral values.
Athletic Directors (3 of 4) associated an individual’s behavior and conduct as character.
Non-Revenue Coaches did not develop major consensus as a group for a common
deﬁnition of character.

The identiﬁcation of “all” at the institution as holding a level of responsibility for

addressing the issue of character development for the body of intercollegiate athletes was

149

somewhat surprising. Although I expected some portion to identify character
development as a responsibility for all at the institution, 75% (25 of 33) was a higher than
expected percentage. All Presidents and Senior Administrators (6 of 6) held “all” at the
institution responsible for impacting student-athlete character. Two of the four Athletic
Directors reported that “all” at the institution were responsible. Among Revenue Coaches
six of seven believed that “all” at the institution were responsible. Sixty-eight percent of
all Non-Revenue Coaches reported that character development was a responsibility of
everyone at the institution.

Results contradicted the conventional wisdom that all matters involving a student-
athlete are only the concern of those in athletics, and particularly of the head coach. A
majority of the sample designated everyone on the college campus as having a part to
play in developing the character of student-athletes. However, each coach seemed to be
aware of his or her primary role and responsibility in impacting the character of student-
athletes.

Contrary to expectations only one-quarter (8 out of 33) of respondents mentioned
the role of parents and family in the character development of the student-athlete. Half of
these respondents were Division I and III Revenue Coaches. When asked to list those
responsible for addressing the character development of student-athletes, none of the
Presidents/ Senior Administration mentioned the role of parents/family.

When asked to recall all in their lives who had an impact on their philosophy of
character development, 57.5% (19 of 33) of respondents reported that parents/family
played an important role. Table 11 displays the number of respondents that identiﬁed

parents/family as inﬂuences on current character development philosophy. In contrast,

150

only 24% (8 of 33) of respondents listed parents/family as being responsible for student-
athlete character development. Table 12 (below) displays participant responses when they
were asked to list all who are responsible for the character development of intercollegiate
student-athletes.

Table 1 1

Parents/Family Inﬂuence on Current Philosophy By Position and Division Level

 

 

 

 

Position Division III Division I
Coaches 6 of 12 7 of 11
Athletic Directors 1 of 2 2 of 2
Institutional Administrators 2 of 3 1 of 3

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12

Parents/Family Perceived As Being Responsible for Ch_aracter By Position
and Division Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Position Division [B Division I
Coaches 2 of 12 5 of 11
Athletic Directors 1 of 2 O of 2
Institutional Administrators 0 of 3 0 of 3

 

Although the lack of a clearly understood and accepted deﬁnition of “character”
among participants was anticipated, it also presented a sense of confusion. It appears that
all who are in a position to impact the character development of student-athletes are
working toward potentially separate and different endpoints and outcomes. As a result,

their efforts may not be as effective as a collective approach that is well planned and

151

understood by each member involved with athletics and the character development of
student-athletes.

Some ﬁrmly believe that colleges and universities should remain neutral and
objective on the topic of character development. This tenet is virtually impossible to
accomplish. Higher education institutions, like other organizations, could never be
neutral since it reﬂects and promotes the culture of which it is a part (Masland, 1986;
Schein, 1994).

Intercollegiate athletics presents an opportunity to promote college student
development and values (Lumpkin, Stoll, & Beller, 1999). Values such as teamwork,
cooperation, and self-discipline are developed through athletic participation (Independent
Investigate Commission, 2004). However, attempts to deﬁne character remain one of the
most challenging and signiﬁcant concerns for those studying it (Shields & Bredemeier,
1995). This issue was evident in the ﬁndings of this research.

Organizational Culture

As Masland (1986) describes, organizational culture is a powerful force that
serves to control the behavior of those within the organization. An organization’s culture
inﬂuences what is done, how it is done, and who is involved in doing it (Schein, 1992;
Tierney, 1988). This phenomenon would seem quite signiﬁcant to (intercollegiate)
athletics’ intended purpose of developing character in the student-athlete population.
From the position of an observer, organizational culture would appear to play a role in the
effective establishment and communication of institutional values and the process of
developing character. Although there are multiple lenses to analyze an organization’s

culture only a few were selected for this study. The organizational culture concepts

152

 

reviewed here were leadership, environment, socialization, and mission (Chaffee, 1988;
Tierney, 1988). Tierney (1988) points out that the culture of higher education varies by
institution and that no two institutions are identical.

The acknowledgement and recognition of culture by the sample population often
became part of the discussion during interviews. One participant explained, “Our
department has a culture. Our coaching staff has a culture. And every institution is
different. You can’t have these kinds of things that go on in Colorado and not think that it
hadn’t been going on for years. It’s the culture. And so there’s no doubt in my mind that
we inﬂuence character.”

It cannot be overstated how complex organizational culture can be, both in nature
and design (Schein, 1992). The culture of athletics, like most departmental cultures on
college campuses, is often found to be intertwined with various aspects of the institution.
Culture seems to have many faces within an institution, and yet each culture that is
identiﬁed appears to overlap and cross paths at some juncture within the institution.

Leadership

This section focuses on gaining greater insight into the expectations that
participants hold of leadership, the identiﬁcation of leadership, and the formal or informal
nature of the identiﬁed leaders of the organization (Tierney, 1988). The identiﬁcation and
nature of leadership was formal and ﬂowed more so from the hierarchical structure
established within athletics and from each institution. The expected role and
responsibilities of presidents and athletic directors was fairly consistent across division
levels. Presidents were expected to oversee the program, set the standard or expectation

of the athletic program, and to be a role model for all at the institution. Most recognized

153

 

busy schedules limited the direct interaction of the presidents with the student-athletes.
Even limited interactions, though, could be very beneﬁcial and important for the students.
Athletic directors were seen as the daily managers of the athletics program. They were
expected to direct the program with set goals and outcomes. Athletic directors tended to
be looked upon to put departmental policies into effect, and model appropriate conduct.
All respondents agreed that character development should be of concern for all of the
leadership positions related to intercollegiate athletics.

Environment

The environment encompasses the present state and condition of the institution. It
includes consideration of the present student population, ﬁnances, as well as the school’s
present relationship and positioning with the campus, local, and national communities
(Tierney, 1988).

During the time of the interview process the state of Michigan’s higher education
institutions were experiencing signiﬁcant budgetary cuts. This ﬁnancial situation would
likely impact perceptions, and may also provide a backdrop in understanding why
resource shortfalls were pointed out as an external factor affecting head coaches. These
limitations in funds and resources were expressed to a greater degree by Division 111
participants who have nearly all of their ﬁmding for athletics tied into the budget of the
institution.

Some Division I Non-Revenue Coaches and one of its administrators mentioned a
lack of resources and budget concerns as an external factor for coaches as well. These
respondents were from an institution where the central administration provided

substantial subsidies to the athletic program. Revenue coaches from Division I

154

 

institutions were more likely to mention fundraising rather than budget constraints.
Oftentimes fundraising takes away from the time and focus that would be spent with
sport-related activities and preparation.

Some Division I administrators pointed out that an increase in rules and
regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the expectations
and perceptions of the public were also important external factors. Student-athlete
welfare was reported at both division levels as an important external factor. Respondents
in leadership roles had a reasonable idea of the external factors that coaches felt affected
their jobs. However, athletic directors and presidents could work to improve their
knowledge of key external inﬂuences such as recruiting. Recruiting was a top external
factor among coaches yet was hardly mentioned by administrators. This lack of
communication is problematic considering the national scandal and investigation
involving the University of Colorado that centered on major recruiting violations. As a
result of the ﬁndings at the University of Colorado the NCAA enacted legislation and
policy to safeguard against similar infractions. Administrators that stay in tune with the
external factors affecting coaches can work to prevent such factors from reaching such
intense levels.

Most Division III and Division I respondents believed that the collegiate setting
offered opportunities for growth and development for students. Participants also reported
that the college years were a period of growth and development. Respondent knowledge,
which was likely developed by years of experience, contributes to an ability to observe

the potential cause and effect of various situations met by student-athletes on the college

155

campus. Participants seemed to understand that they could either play an aggressive or a
passive role in the development of the student-athlete.

Participants’ perceptions of how athletics was viewed by the home institution
ranged from supportive to mixed to misunderstood. Respondents from each position
group at both division levels experienced this type of varied opinions. Reported feelings
of support were nearly equal by division level with 11 of 16 Division I respondents and
13 of 17 Division 111 respondents expressing positive perceptions. A variable exclusively
mentioned among Division III institutions was the recognition of athletics’ contribution
to enrollment totals of both Mountain and Center colleges. Some respondents identiﬁed
this situation as likely enhancing the perception of athletics and even improved relations
between the institution and athletics. Athletics is a considerable recruiting tool at both
Division III institutions.

Socialization

The most common characteristic reported by Division 111 participants tied success
to one’s work ethic and an ability to work hard. In contrast, Division I respondents did
not report this consistently.

This portion of the study brought to light that each coach believed and held
certain personal traits and characteristics higher than they do others. Socialization is the
key to successfully ﬁtting in with a group (Morgan, 1997). As members of an
organization, individual behavior is often molded and even modiﬁed to “ﬁt in”. As a
result, each coach will likely base his/her system of rewards and beneﬁts based upon the
display of the desired traits. Such a system establishes a clearer understanding as to what

one must do in order achieve a certain level of ﬁt. Socialization will likely reﬂect the

156

culture of the institution, the department, and each respective team. Providing this
knowledge and information to those involved with athletics might increase opportunities
for student-athletes to align their behavior with the advisement they receive.

The general inconsistency found among this group of research participants did not
provide speciﬁc information concerning the topic of socialization and student-athletes.
This ﬁnding does not mean that socialization is not occurring. This may reﬂect the
various sub-groups and the values of each sub-group along the sub-group criteria for
success in the athletic and academic environment (Schein, 1992; 2004).

Mission

The disclosed intent (mission) of the institution outlines an underlying principle,
as well as the criteria, for the development of a high quality curricular program
(Duderstadt & Womack, 2003; Tierney, 1988). A standard of measurement for evaluating
organizational effectiveness is often the mission. With the exception of one institution in
the study there was not a high level of consensus within institutions concerning the
institutional mission. Division III institutions found greater accuracy and consensus than
the broader descriptions of the mission found at the participating Division I schools.
Overall, this ﬁnding was rather disappointing and troubling since each member of the
institution is expected to operate in alignment with their respective institutional mission,
along with its goals and objectives. The lack of awareness of the athletic mission was just
as troubling.

The mission of any institution is in many respects the beginning of a contractual
agreement. The institution in essence is saying that “this is what we are going to do, or

this is what we are willing to provide to each and every student.” It becomes a tool to

157

evaluate the level and degree of success the institution is achieving with regards to its
consumers (students). The same can be said of the mission of an athletic program. In
either instance the knowledge and/or understanding of both missions could be improved
among most participants. If the mission is not known, then the Opportunity to drift and
“do one’s own thing” exists, and that can lead to undesirable outcomes, and can also
impact productivity and organizational effectiveness.

Intercollegiate athletics in general, and more speciﬁcally Division I athletics,
often serve as the public’s ﬁrst engagement with the institution. Often this connection
becomes part of the unspoken mission of an athletics program. As Gerdy (1997) notes,
athletics generate revenue, visibility, and prestige for the university. This is the ﬁrst
purpose given for maintaining collegiate athletics upon a college campus. This visibility
often occurs on the grandest of stages and creates opportunities for such ambassadorships
to develop.

Limitations of the Resgapch

A limitation of this study is the sample size of the population from which the
sample was drawn. The samples were drawn from a single state. Although the response
rate was very high, it is still not a wide enough sample to even consider generalizing the
data that were obtained.

The researcher selected multiple sites to study in an effort to gain greater insight
regarding the topic. There are advantages and disadvantages of selecting multiple sites:
Advantages:

a) A comparative type of study can be conducted in which many sites are compared for

similarities and differences.

158

 

b) One is more likely to be able to move in a direction of generalization with the results

from multiple sites than from a single site.

Disadvantage:

a) The depth of analysis will likely have to be sacriﬁced because of the breadth of the

analysis that must occur.

Implications for Research

The results of this study reveal a few unanswered questions for future research.

To better create positive and desirable outcomes the following research questions were

developed.

1.

What are faculty and staff perceptions, attitudes, and opinions regarding
intercollegiate athletics at their institution? Additionally, does athletics build
character?

What are the views of institutional faculty regarding student-athlete character
development? In particular, do they consider character development to be the

responsibility of everyone at the institution?

. Among faculty and staff what is the general understanding and articulation of the

institutional mission, and the mission of athletics?
Within various departments or units, among faculty and staff what is the general

understanding and articulation of the departmental and/or unit mission?

. Among faculty and staff is there knowledge of the key elements needed to

enhance character in students?
Do faculty and staff make an attempt to impact character? Why or why not?

What are the external factors that impact the role of faculty?

159

 

Recommendations for Higher Education Institutions

Character Development. It was clear that athletic participation was believed to
have an opportunity to create an impact, either positive or negative, for the student-
athlete. If the development of character is an important dynamic of the college student
experience, then institutional leaders must make a concentrated effort to develop and
establish a deﬁnition and/or set of terms to bring understanding to the term “character”.
This step can be achieved through sampling individuals across the institution to develop
consensus. Or the Board of the institution can set out to develop an understanding of what
is meant by the term “character”. It is important that efforts are initiated from the bottom
and fully supported at the highest levels.

It should also be recognized that independent attempts to deﬁne character will
likely result in continued ambiguity. This ambiguity is considered quite common when
addressing a term so laden with subjective perceptions (Boxhill, 2003; Lumpkin et al.,
1999; Sage, 1998; Schwartz, 2000; Shields & Bredemeier, 1985). Institutions may wish
to include, along with speciﬁc deﬁnition, a list of particular behaviors and characteristics
to be identiﬁed in coaches, administrators, faculty, and staff. In addition, a systematic
internal cultural assessment can be conducted in order to ensure that opportunities to
review and discuss the level of consensus (or lack thereof) found within each respective
unit.

With the aforementioned established, the following recommendations were
developed to best develop character in student-athletes. These recommendations are

borrowed in part from the Independent Investigative Commission and its 2004 report on

160

 

the University of Colorado. None of the participating institutions experienced any issues
similar to those at the University of Colorado.

1. Require every intercollegiate athletics coach to attend at least one character
development program each year.
Coaches are in a position to influence student-athlete behavior. Coaches are engaged
in character building activities and situations, both on and off the ﬁeld. Some may not
recognize the “teachable moments” that arise on a daily basis and such a program can
assist greatly. Coaches can assist student-athletes in solidifying their morals and
values. Coaches should be provided with on-going training that will be organized
through a local organization not afﬁliated with the institution. Such training would
also establish the coaches unique role in the character development process of
student-athletes.

2. Create a handbook for coaches and athletic department personnel.

A resources book should be developed‘for all coaches and athletic department
personnel that provides critical information on the essential elements that are
necessary to best develop character in student-athletes. A “how to” section will be
included with tips and suggestions for maximizing virtually all situations that might
arise during athletics participation. Also detail responsibilities of department
personnel with limited opportunities to affect character, and methods to assess efforts
within the department. This would work to improve communication between coaches
and student-athletes and can make the Department more responsive to the needs of
student-athletes.

3. Revise all student-athlete handbooks.

Most athletic departments have handbooks for student-athletes. Revisions should be
made to add a section detailing student—athlete character development for every sport.
Content should be developed that discusses the process, expectations of the student,
and what they should expect from coaches and athletic personnel. The handbook
should also explain the department’s character development initiative, its objectives
and anticipated short-term and long-term beneﬁts. Students should also be provided

with a list of contact information for key athletics personnel for questions. A

161

statement regarding strict conﬁdentiality if students so desire to keep their comments
personal.

Organizational Culture
1. Institutional leaders should seek to establish clear and operational pathways
between athletics and the institution. It must be brought to light the service and
beneﬁt of athletics to academia whenever possible. There is valuable knowledge
to be exchanged through collaboration and partnerships with other departments on
campus. This will serve to beneﬁt the student-athlete and enhance the support of
athletics, while building the collegiality of the campus.
2. As the life-blood of every academic institution, it is critical that the institutional
mission be clearly understood by every employed member of the institution. It is
the core and foundation upon which every other action at the institution has
developed. If this does not occur the corresponding goals and objectives are only
ink on paper. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of leadership to promote the
mission, but each employee must take ownership and be comfortable in their
knowledge of the mission. The same can be said of each departmental mission.
3. Institutional control and accountability should be clearly established and
maintained. Leadership must move swiftly to correct wrongs and improve
deﬁciencies as it relates to student-athlete character development.
Student-Athlete Development

In order to most effectively address the development needs of collegiate student-
athletes the student-athlete experience must be recognized as a set of unique challenges
that differ from the general student population. Parham (1993) lists these challenges as

learning to balance academics and athletics, adjusting to a degree of isolation, managing

162

success or failure, managing satisfying multiple relationships, being more cognizant of
their physical health, and termination of an athletic career.

In addition, an awareness and understanding of speciﬁc strategies must be
developed and then implemented in order to have the greatest impact upon members of
this unique population. As a result, attention must be properly given to the consequences
that will likely affect the various role groups interacting with student-athletes. Each one
must actively put into practice and become engaged in these strategies as they all aim to

impact the “total” development of the student-athlete.

163

APPENDICES

164

[APPENDIX A]
Interview Questions

Questions are numbered in the order that they were asked during the interview.

A. Mission

1. What do you understand to be the mission of the University?

2. What is the mission of the athletics department?

3. In what ways do you see the institutional mission articulated in athletics?

C. Environment
4a. What are the external factors that impact your role as a head coach at this institution?
Please explain.
b. What are the external factors that impact the role of a head coach at this institution?
5. What do you perceive to be the university’s attitude toward athletics?

6. How does the university setting impact student character development?

D. Character Development

7. How do you deﬁne character?

8. Based upon your experience, does student participation in intercollegiate athletics

build character? Explain. (If not, w build character? Explain)

9. What essential elements/components must be provided or must be present in order to
develop character in student-athletes?
(Elements = Moral Education/Moral Role Model/Moral Environment)

10. Can you list all who you perceive as responsible for addressing the issue of character
development among intercollegiate student-athletes?

13. Do you make a speciﬁc attempt to address character development among student-
athletes?

14. Reﬂecting upon your background and experiences (both professionally and
personally) what and/or who has inﬂuenced your current philosophy on student-
athlete character development?

E. Leadership

11. What role do presidents/athletic directors/coaches play in the building of character
among student-athletes?

12. Should character development be of concern for those heading intercollegiate
athletics at the institutional level (Athletic Directors and Presidents)?

B. Socialization
15. What does a student-athlete need to know in order to survive/excel as an athlete, as a
student, and also following their undergraduate experience?

Additional
16. Do you have a CHAMPS Life Skills Program?
How effectively does it address the issue of character development?

165

[APPENDIX B]

Dear Coach

You are invited to participate in a study of character development related to
intercollegiate athletes by Earnest M. Fingers, MA. The intent of this study is to gain a
better understanding of how coaches involved with intercollegiate athletics contribute to
the enhancement of character for student-athletes.

This study entails an oral interview that should take approximately 35 minutes to
conduct. The interview consists of ﬁve general areas. In order to gather sufﬁcient data I
am scheduling to interview other coaches of the Athletic program, as well as
your Director of Athletics, and your President. It will be most beneﬁcial to have all three
groups to participate.

The anticipated beneﬁt of your participation in this study is that the results will inform
coaches, athletic directors and university administrators about enhancing the development
of character of student-athletes. I do not anticipate any risks to you for participating in the
interview. '

All information collected in connection with this study will be kept strictly conﬁdential.
Code numbers will be assigned to all information for tracking purposes. At the
conclusion the coding information will be destroyed. Michigan State University’s
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved this study’s protocol
(IRB#:04-595). Data will be reported in aggregate form and no personally identiﬁable
information will be revealed, including the name of your institution or sport.

Obtaining high participation rates is vital to meaningful research; therefore, I hope you
will empathize with my position and elect to participate so that any results will be useful
to you and others involved in intercollegiate athletics. As stated, the President and
Director of Athletics have elected to participate. Please expect a follow-up phone call
within the next 5 days.

If you would like a summary of the results of this study, please send your name and
address to Earnest M. Fingers at ﬁngerse@msu.edu. If you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact me at (517) 410 4805 or via email. Thank you for
your much needed assistance.

Sincerely,

Earnest M. Fingers
Doctoral Candidate, Education Administration

166

 

[APPENDIX C]

Dear AD

In following up with my phone call/email, you are invited to participate in a study of
character development related to intercollegiate athletes by Earnest M. Fingers, MA. The
intent of this study is to gain a better understanding of how intercollegiate athletics
contributes to the enhancement of character for its student-athletes.

This study entails a brief oral interview that should take approximately 35 minutes to
conduct. The interview consists of six general questions and a small number of more
speciﬁc follow-up questions. In order to gather sufﬁcient data I am attempting to also
interview coaches, and the President of University. It will be most beneﬁcial to
have all three groups to participate.

The anticipated beneﬁt of your participation in this study is that the results will inform
coaches, athletic directors and university administrators about enhancing the development
of character of student-athletes. I do not anticipate any risks to you for participating in the
interview.

All information collected in connection with this study will be kept strictly conﬁdential.
Code numbers will be assigned to all information for tracking purposes. At the
conclusion the coding information will be destroyed. Michigan State University’s
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved this study’s protocol
(IRB#:O4-595). Data will be reported in aggregate form and no personally identiﬁable
information will be revealed.

Obtaining high participation rates are vital to meaningful research; therefore, I hope you
will empathize with my position and elect to participate so that any results will be useful
to yourself and others involved in intercollegiate athletics. Please expect a follow-up
phone call within the next 5 days.

If you would like a summary of the results of this study, please send your name and
address to Earnest M. Fingers at ﬁngerse@msu.edu. If you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact me at 517 410 4805 or via email. Thank you for
your much needed assistance.

Sincerely,

Earnest M. Fingers
Doctoral Candidate, Education Administration

167

 

[APPENDIX D]

Dear President

In following up with my phone call/email, you are invited to participate in a study of
character development related to intercollegiate athletes by Earnest M. Fingers, MA. The
intent of this study is to gain a better understanding of how intercollegiate athletics
contributes to the enhancement of character for its student-athletes.

This study entails a brief oral interview that should take approximately 25 to 30 minutes
to conduct. The interview consists of six general questions and a small number of more
speciﬁc follow-up questions. In order to gather sufﬁcient data I am attempting to also
interview coaches of the Athletic program, as well as the present Director of
Athletics. It will be most beneﬁcial to have all three groups to participate.

The anticipated beneﬁt of your participation in this study is that the results will inform
coaches, athletic directors and university administrators about enhancing the development
of character of student-athletes. I do not anticipate any risks to you for participating in the
interview.

All information collected in connection with this study will be kept strictly conﬁdential.
Code numbers will be assigned to all information for tracking purposes. At the
conclusion the coding information will be destroyed. Michigan State University’s
Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects approved this study’s protocol
(IRB#:O4-595). Data will be reported in aggregate form and no personally identiﬁable
information will be revealed.

Obtaining high participation rates are vital to meaningful research; therefore, I hope you
will empathize with my position and elect to participate so that any results will be useful
to yourself and others involved in intercollegiate athletics. Please expect a follow-up
phone call within the next 5 days.

If you would like a summary of the results of this study, please send your name and
address to Earnest M. Fingers at ﬁngerse@msu.edu. If you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact me at 517 410 4805 or via email. Thank you for
your much needed assistance.

Sincerely,

Earnest M. Fingers
Doctoral Candidate, Education Administration

168

 

[APPENDIX F]

Coaches Interview
Sport

 

1. Age
2. Gender

3. Are you a former collegiate athlete? Yesﬁ No_ Div. I II III (Circle
one)

4. # of Years at present Institution __ # years as current Head Coach
Total # of years as a Head Coach Collegiate __ H.S.
# of years as a collegiate Asst. Coach
(Including other institutions?)
5. What is your academic background?
Area of Study Institution

Bachelor’s

 

 

 

Master’s

 

 

Terminal

 

 

6. Have you held a role within athletics besides coaching?

If so, what is/was it?

 

For how long?

 

7. Are/were other non-coaching positions held at present institution?

 

 

 

169

[APPENDIX G]
Director of Athletics Interview
1. Age
2. Gender
3. # of Years in present position

4. Are you a former collegiate athlete? Yes_,__ No_
Div. I II III (Circle one)

5. Are you a former collegiate coach? Yes___ No_ // Head __ Asst. __
Div. I II III (Circle one)

6. What is your academic background?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Study Institution
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Terminal
6. How long have you been employed at this present institution? years

What are/were other positions held at present institution?

 

 

7. How many years have you been employed in a college or university athletic
department position? (At any institution?) years

8. Do you have the ability to make all personnel decisions regarding athletics?
Yes___ No_

Who do you report in the present organizational structure?

 

170

[APPENDIX H]
Institutional Administrator Interview
1. Age
2. Gender
3. # of Years in present position

4. Are you a former collegiate athlete? Yes_,__ No_
Div. I II III (Circle one)

5. Are you a former collegiate coach? Yesh No_
Div. I II III (Circle one)

 

6. What is your academic background?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Study Institution
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Terminal
7. How long have you been employed at this present institution? years

Were any other positions held at your present institution?

 

 

8. Have you been employed in a college or university athletic department position?
If yes, how long were you employed? years

At what divisional level?

What was the position(s) held?

 

 

171

[APPENDIX I]
Institutional President Interview
. Age
. Gender
. # of Years in present position

. Are you a former collegiate athlete? Yes_,__ No_
Div. I II III (Circle one)

. Are you a former collegiate coach? Yes___ No_
Div. I II III (Circle one)

. What is your academic background?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Area of Study Institution
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Terminal
7. How long have you been employed at this present institution? years

Were any other positions held at your present institution?

 

 

8. Have you been employed in a college or university athletic department position?

If yes, how long were you employed? years
At what divisional level?

What was the position(s) held?

 

 

172

IRB#:04-595 /ID# i020445
Consent Form
Character Development and Intercollegiate Athletics:
An Analysis of the Perceptions, Roles, Values and Behaviors of Collegiate Coaches,
Athletic Directors, and Presidents as Related to Student-Athlete Development

You are being invited to participate in a study. I am Earnie, a doctoral student at
Michigan State University, and I am greatly interested in the ﬁeld of intercollegiate
athletics. My doctoral program requires that I gain applied experience in designing and
conducting research. As such, I have designed a research project to study the impact
coaches have upon student-athlete character development.

During this study, you will be asked to participate in an interview. The interview
questions will seek to gather your perceptions related to your personal and professional
experiences regarding student-athletes and the institution. You will also be asked for
some demographic information (gender, age, etc). Your participation will require
approximately 35 minutes of your time. There are no known harms associated with your
participation in this research.

Your conﬁdentiality will be maintained throughout this study and you will not be
identiﬁable in the research write-up and discussion. The results from this study will be
reported in a written research report. Information about the project will not be made
public in any way that identiﬁes individual participants or institutions. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Participation is completely voluntary. It may be discontinued at any time for any reason
without explanation and without penalty. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect
of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair
of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by
phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email address: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular
mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I have read the above information, understand the information read, and understand that I
can ask questions or withdraw at any time. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the investigator (Earnie M. Fingers, xxxxx-, Lansing, MI 489--,

ﬁngerse@msu.edu, (5 17) 41 O-XXXX).

I voluntarily consent to participate in the research study.

 

Participant's signature

 

 

Investigator's signature Date

I also grant permission to be audiotaped? (Initials)

 

173

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://www.lesley.edu/libravaguides/citation/apa_basic.htrnl

Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1990). Backboards and blackboards: College athletes and role
engulﬁnent. NY: Columbia University Press.

Adler, P. & Adler, P. (1998). Intense Loyalty in organizations: A case study of college
athletics. In Van Maanen, J. (Ed.), Qualitative studies of organizations: The
administrative science quarterly series in organization theory and behavior.

Altbach, P. (1997). Conteporary Higher Education: College Stuent Developent and l
Acadeic Life. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York.

Andre, J. & James, D. (1991). Rethinking college athletics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.

 

Bailey, W. & Littleton, T. (1991). Athletics and academe: An anatomy of abuses and a
prescription for reform. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Bareﬁeld, S., McCallister, S., Bungum, T., Pate, R et a1. (1997). Sociocultural aspects of
physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. Vol. 68, Iss. 1; pg
A111.

Beller, J. & Stoll, S. (1992, Spring). A moral reasoning intervention program for Division
I athletes. Academic Athletic Journal, 43-57.

Beller, J. & Stoll, S. (1995). Moral reasoning of high school student-athletes and general

students: Empirical study versus personal testimony. Pediatric Exercise Science.
7(4) Nov. p.352-63.

Bennett, J. & Peltason, J. (1985). Contemporary issues in higher education: Self-
regulation and the ethical roles of the academy. New York: MacMillan Publishing
Company.

Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 4th Ed. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.

Boggan, D. (1999). Student-athlete welfare or “welfare”? In S. Robinson (Ed), Gaining
the competitive edge: Enriching the collegiate experience of the new student-
athlete. Monograph Series No. 27 (pp. 41-46). The National Resource Center for
the F irst-Year Experience & Students in Transition. The University of South
Carolina.

Bok, D. (1982). Beyond the ivory tower: Social responsibilities of the modern university.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

174

Boxhill, J .(Ed.) (2003). Sports ethics: An anthology. MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Bredemeier, B. & Shields, D. (1986). Moral growth among athletes and nonathletes: A
comparative analysis. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147, (1), 7-18.

Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., Petitpas, A. J., Bachman, A. D., & Weinhold, R A.
(1998). Newspaper portrayals of sport psychology in the United States, 1985-
1993. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 89-94.

Brooks, D. D., Etzel, E. F., & Ostrow, A. C. (1987). Job responsibilities and backgrounds
of NCAA Division I athletic advisors and counselors. The Sport Psychologist, 1,
201-207.

Broughton, E. (2001, March). Counseling and support services for college student
athletes. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American College
Personnel Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 449 460).

Carr, C. & Bauman, N. Life skills for collegiate student-athletes. In: Etzel EF, F errante
AP, Pinkney JW. , editors. Counseling College Student-Athletes: Issues and
Interventions. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Info Tech Inc; 1996. pp. 247—
308.

Chaffee, E., & Tierney, W. (1988). Collegiate culture and leadershtip strategies. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Chu, D. (1989). The character of American higher education and intercollegiate sport.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany.

Chu, D., Segrave, J & Becker, B. (1985). Sport and higher education. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Publishers.

Clifford, C & Feezell, R. (1997). Coaching for Character. Human Kinetics Publishers,
Inc.

Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., & Earley, P. (Eds) (2001). The intern_ation_al handboolgf
organizational culture and climﬂ New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dalton, J. (1997). Five educational approaches for promoting character development and
civic responsibility. The Educational Record. Vol. 78, 135. 3-4; pg. 53.

Danish, S. J., Petitpas, A., & Hale, B. D. (1995). Psychological interventions: A life

development model. In S. H. Murphy (Ed), Sport psychology interventions.
Champaign, IL: Human kinetics.

175

 

Dempsey, C. (2002). President to President: The Will To Act Project. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Indianapolis, IN.
http://www.ncaa.org/1ibrary/membership/will_to_act/willToAct.pdf.

Duderstadt, J. (2000). Intercollegiate athletics and the american university. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Duderstadt, J. & Woack, F. (2003). Beyond the Crossroads: The Future of the Public
University in Aerica. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltiore

Eastman & Beaudine. Broad range of talents required for today’s athletics directors.
NCAA News, 4 November 1994, Vol. 1, Iss. 13.

Eddy, E. (1959). The college inﬂuence on student character. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Etzel. E. (1989). Life stress, locus-of—control and sport competition anxiety patterns of
college student-athletes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Virginia
University, Morgantown.

Etzel, E. F., Ferrante, A. P., & Pinkney, J. W. (Eds). (1991). Counselingcollege student
athletes: Issues and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology. '

Etzel, E. F., Ferrante, A. P., Pinkney, J. W. Counseling College Student-Athletes: Issues
and Interventions. 2nd ed. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Info Tech Inc; 1996. pp. 3—
26.

Etzel, E. F., Pinkney, J. W., & Hinkle, J. S. (1994). College student- athletes and needs
assessment. In C.C. Thomas (Ed), Multicultural needs assessment for college and
university student populations. Springﬁeld, IL: C.C. Thomas.

Ewing, M. (1999). Sports can beneﬁt children. In Egendorf, L. (Ed), Sports and Athletes:
Opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc.

Ferrante, A. P., & Etzel, E., & Lantz, C. (1996). Counseling college student-athletes: The
problem, the need. In E. Etzel, A. P. Ferrante, & J. W. Pinkney (Eds.), Counseling
college student-athletes: Issues and interventions. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, Inc.

Frey, J. (1982). The govern_ance of intercollegiate athletics (Ed). West Point, NY:
Leisure Press.

Gibson, John H. (1993). Perforpnce Versus Results: A Critique of Values in Conteporary
Sport. State University of New York Press, Albany.

176

 

Garrod, A. (1993). Approaches to Moral Development - New Research and Emergipg
Themes. Teachers College Press. New York.

Gerdy, J. (1997). The successful colleaéathletic program: The new standard. Phoenix,
AZ: The Oryx Press.

Harris, M (1993). Developmental Beneﬁts of Athletics. In W. Kirk & S. Kirk (Eds),
Student Athletes: Shatteripjg the myths & sharing the realities. (pp. 3-11).
Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Hersh, R. (1999). Generating ideals and transforming lives: A contemporary case for the
residential liberal arts college. Damedalus. Vol. 128, Iss. 1; pg. 173.

Hinkle, J. S. (1994). Practitioners and cross-cultural assessment: A practical guide to
information and training. Measurement Ed Muation in Counselipg and
Develgment, 27, 103-115.

Humphrey, J ., Yow, D. & Bowden, W. (2000). Stress in college athletics: Causes
consepuences, coping. New York: The Haworth Half-Court Press.

Hultrnan, K. & Gellerman (2002). Balancing individual and organizational values:
Walking the tightrope to success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Independent Investigative Commission. (2004). Examining the university of colorado’s
athletic recruitment practices: Final report to the university of Colorado board of
regents.

Jones, C. & McNamee, M. (2003). Moral development and sport: Character and
cognitive developmentalism contrasted. Boxhill, J.(Ed.), grorts ethics: An
anthology (pp. 40-52). MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

King, P. (1997). Character and civic education: What does it take? The Educationpl
Record. Vol. 78, 185 3-4; pg. 87.

Kirk, D. & Kirk, S (1993). Student Athletes: Shattering the Myths and Sharing the
Realities. American Counseling Association. VA

Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (2001). A call to action:
reconnecting college sports and higher education.

 

 

Knowles, R. & McLean, G. (1986). Psychological foundations of moral education agl
character development: An integrated theory of moral development. Lanharn,
MD: University Press of America.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of mgal development: Moral stages and the idea of
justice. New York: Harper and Row.

177

 

 

Kuh, G. (Summer 1998). Shaping student character. Liberal Educator. Vol. 84, Iss. 3; pg.
18.

Lind, G., Hartmann, H. & Wakenhut, R. (1985). Moral development and the social

environment: Studies in the philosophy and psychology of moral judgment and
education (Ed). Chicago, IL: Precedent Publishing, Inc.

 

Linder, D., Pillow, D., Reno, R (1989). Shrinking jocks: Derogation of athletes who
consult a sport psychologist. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 11(3), 270-
280.

Lumpkin, A, Stoll, S. & Beller, J. (1999). Sports ethics: Applications for fair play. 2nd Ed.

Maniar, S. D., Curry, L. A., Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Walsh, J. A. (2001). Student-
athlete preferences in seeking help when confronted with sport performance
problems. The Sport Psychologist. 15, 205-223.

Masland, A. (1986). Organizational culture in the study of higher education. In M.
Peterson (Ed) ASHE Reader on Organization and Governance in Highg
Education (pp. 70-78). Third Edition. Washington, D.C.:ASHE.

McEwin, C. & Dickinson, T. (1996). Placing young adolescents at risk in interscholastic
sports programs. The Clearing House. Vol. 69, Iss. 4; pg. 217.

Miracle, A. & Rees, C. (1994). Lessons of the locker room: The myth of school sports.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Michaelis, V. Colorado's image now concern ; Students, alums, others fear bad effects of
allegations:[FINAL Edition]. USA TODAY. (Feb 20, 2004). pg. C.10

Moran, M & Jenkins, C. Georgia calls end to season ; School suspends Harrick after
'ﬁndings of most serious nature'. USA TODAY. (Mar 1 1, 2003). pg. C.01.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers.
Morrill, R. (1980). Teachi_ng values in collegg. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Moulton, J. (2003). Why everyone deserves a sporting chance: Education, justice, and
school sports. Boxhill, J .(Ed.), Sports ethics: An anthology (pp. 29-39). MA:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Murray, M. (1999). NCAA CHAMPS/life skills program: Results of the help-seeking
survey research project. In S. Robinson (Ed), Gaining the competitive edge:
EnrichinLthe collegiate experience of the new student-athlete. Monograph Series
No. 27(pp. 47-60). The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition. The University of South Carolina.

178

 

National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d.). Composition of the NCAA. Retrieved
March 11, 2003, from

http://wwwl .ncaa.org/membership/membership_svcs/membership_breakdown .html).

Nishimoto, Patricia Atsuko. Student athlete engagement: an examination of peer culture
in intercollegiate Division I football. Educational Administration: Thesis (Ed. D.)
University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1995; LBS .H28 no.112.

O'Driscoll, P. Colorado officials deny using sex in recruiting ; Boulder DA says school
ignored warnings about parties to lure prospective athletes:[FINAL Edition].
USA TODAY. Jan 30, 2004. pg. C.08

Parham, W. (1993). The intercollegiate athlete: A 1990's proﬁle. The Counseling
Ppychologist. 21, 411-429.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (vol 2): A third
decade of research. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pascarella, E. (1997). College’s inﬂuence on principled moral reasoning. The Educational
Record. Washington: Vol. 78, 135. 3-4; pg. 47.

Pedersen, J. & Sorensen, J. (1989). Organisational cultures in theory and practice.
Brookﬁeld, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

Peterson, M. (Ed) (1986). ASHE Reader on organization and governance in higher
education.

Pinkerton, R., Hinz, L., & Barrow, J. (1989). The college student athlete: Psychological
considerations and interventions. Journ_al of American College Health. 37, 218-
226.

Priest, R., Krause, J. & Beach, J. (1999). Four-year changes in college athletes’ ethical
value choices in sports situations. Research-quarterly-for-exercise-and-sport (Vol.

70, Iss. 2; pg. 170.

Rich, J., & DeVitis (1994). Theories of moral development. 2nd Ed. Springﬁeld, IL:
Charles C. Thomas, Publisher.

Rudd, A. & Stoll, S. (1998). Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance
Reston,-Va.) 69(9), Nov/Dec 1998, 38-42,

Sage, G. (1998). Does sport affect character development in athletes? Jourpal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance. Vol. 69, Iss. 1; pg. 15.

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadersﬂp. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

179

 

Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Schulman, M. (1995). Schools as moral communities: A framework and guide for school
administrators, principals, and teachers. Anti-Defamation League.

Schwartz, A. (2000). It’s not too late to teach college students about values. mg
Chronicle of Higher Education. Washington: June 9, vol. 46, Iss. 40; pg. A68.

Schwartz, A & Templeton, J. (1997). The Templeton honor roll: Recognizing exemplary
character development programs in higher education. The Educational Record.
Vol. 78, 135 3-4; pg. 95.

Shea, E. (1996). Ethical Decisions in sport. Springﬁeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Simon, R (2003). Sports, relativism, and moral education. In Boxhill, J. (Ed), Sports
ethics: An anthology (pp. 1628). MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Sperber, M. (1990). College sports inc.: The athletic department vs lsicl the university.
NY: H. Holt.

Sperber, M. (1998). Onward to victory: the crises that shaped college sports NY: H.
Holt.

Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and Circus: How big-time college sports is crippling
undergraduate education. NY: Henry. Holt and Company.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques apd

procedures for develgringgrounded theory. procedures and techniques.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Steitz, E. (1971). Administration of athletics in colleges and universities (Ed). Wash.,
DC: American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation.

Stoll, S & Beller, J. (1998). Can character be measured? Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance. Reston: Jan 1998. Vol. 69, Iss. 1; p. 19

Stoll, S.K., J .M. Beller, Cole, J ., Burwell, B. (1995). A comparison of moral reasoning
scores of student athletes in Division I and Division 111 NCAA member collegiate/
institutions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (suppl). 81.

Thelin, J. (1994). Games colleges play: scandal and reform in intercollegiate aﬂﬂetics.
Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, c1994

Thomas, M. (1997). An integrated theory of moral development. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.

180

 

Thompson, D. (Ed) (1991). Moral values and higher education: A notion 52p risk.
Brigham Young University.

Thompson, J. (1993). Positive Coaching: Building Ch_apacter and self-esteem through
sports. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Upcraft, M., Gardner, J. & Associates (1989). The Freshan Year Experience. Helping
Students Succeed in College. Josey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Valentine, J. J., & Taub, D. J. (1999). Responding to the developmental needs of student
athletes. Journal of College Counselirpg, 2, 164-179.

Vandervoot, D. J ., & Skorikov, V. B. (2002). Physical health and social network
characteristics as determinants of mental health across cultures. Current '
Psvpchology. 21, 50-67.

 

Walton, G. (1992). Be ond winnin : The timeless wisdom of reﬂhilosopher coaches. F;
Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Ward, E. (1999). History of the NCAA CHAMPS life skills program. In S. Robinson
(Ed), Gaining the competitive edge: Enriching the collegiate experience of the
new student-amlete. Monograph Series No. 27 (pp. 61-68). The National
Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition. The
University of South Carolina.

Wieberg, Steve. Graduation rates at top-tier football programs poor. USA Today;
McLean, Va.; Sept 19, 2001.

Wieberg, Steve. BCS schools don't measure up ; Athletes lag behind student body; non-
BCS schools do better. USA Today; McLean, Va.; Oct 18, 2002.

Windmiller, M., Lambert, N. & Turiel, E. (1980). Moral development and socialization.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Yeager, J .M., Buxton, J .N ., Baltzell, A.L., & Bzdell, W.B. Character and Coaching:
Building Virtue in Athletic Programs. Port Chester, NY: Dude Publishing. 2001.
13

Zwell, M. (2000). Creating a culture of competence. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

181

S

u[11Ill]][11|]]lj[[ll[l]]j1