DEFINING	SUCCESS:	STUDENT-ATHLETE	PERSPECTIVES	

By	

Christopher	M.	Kincaid	

A	DISSERTATION	

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

Higher,	Adult,	and	Lifelong	Education	–	Doctor	of	Philosophy	

2024	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
ABSTRACT	

With	numbers	over	half	a	million,	student-athletes	are	a	significant,	yet	unique,	

population	on	college	campuses.		They	encounter	unique	experiences	and	face	unique	

challenges,	not	the	least	of	which	is	navigating	the	competing	roles	of	student	and	athlete.		

Navigating	these	roles	within	the	high-stakes	and	competitive	world	of	collegiate	athletics	

is	the	context	in	which	student-athletes	must	develop	a	definition	of	success.	

	Based	on	the	theoretical	framework	of	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	(1993)	vectors	of	

establishing	identity	and	developing	purpose,	the	purpose	of	this	qualitative,	descriptive	

study	was	to	determine	how	student-athletes	define	success	from	their	personal	

perspective	and	move	toward	a	more	nuanced	understanding	of	how	the	development	of	

their	student-athlete	identity	and	perspective	on	career	transition	informed	their	definition	

of	success.		Seventeen	former	student-athletes	were	interviewed	utilizing	a	semi-

structured	format	with	open-ended	questions.		Themes	related	to	the	student-athletes’	

definitions	of	success,	how	the	definitions	changed	over	time,	and	how	their	definitions	of	

success	impacted	their	career	transition	were	identified	from	the	responses.			

The	results	of	the	study	suggest	student-athletes	participate	in	an	iterative	process	

of	developing	and	refining	their	definition	of	success	as	they	progress	through	various	

experiences	and	developmental	stages.		The	process	is	largely	reactive	and	highlighted	by	

an	overwhelming	lack	of	intentional	decision-making.		Recommendations	are	made	for	how	

institutions	can	more	fully	support	student-athletes	through	a	proactive	process	of	defining	

success.	

	
	
	
	
Copyright	by	
CHRISTOPHER	M.	KINCAID	
2024	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
This	dissertation	is	dedicated	to	H,	A,	and	E.	
You	are	‘mazing	and	I	love	you!	

iv	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	

Anyone	who	has	embarked	on	the	dissertation	writing	process	knows	that	it	cannot	

be	successfully	completed	alone.		I	discovered	this	truth	first-hand.	

To	my	committee	chair,	Dr.	Matthew	Wawrzynski,	thank	you	for	your	gracious	

spirit,	words	of	encouragement,	and	ethic	of	care.		It	has	been	a	long	road,	Matt,	and	I	truly	

believe	I	would	not	have	finished	without	your	support.		I	appreciate	your	constant	

reminder	to	look	forward,	not	back.			

Thank	you	to	my	committee	members,	Dr.	Marilyn	Amey,	Dr.	Roger	Baldwin,	and	Dr.	

Jeemin	Kim,	for	your	guidance	and	thoughtful	contributions	to	my	research.		Marilyn	and	

Roger,	I	learned	much	in	your	classes	that	shaped	me	as	a	young	professional	and	guided	

my	thinking	throughout	my	career.		Thank	you	for	picking	up	where	we	left	off	a	number	of	

years	ago.		Jeemin,	thank	you	for	your	willingness	to	join	my	journey.		Your	insights,	

particularly	related	to	the	student-athlete	populations	with	which	you	have	worked,	were	

invaluable.	

Thank	you,	to	each	of	the	participants,	for	taking	the	time	to	share	your	story	and	

perspective.		My	hope	is	your	collective	insight	will	make	a	difference	in	the	experience	of	

future	student-athletes	as	they	embark	on	their	journey	of	discovering	success.	

And	finally,	to	my	family,	thank	you	for	sticking	this	out.		I	know	we	thought	this	day	

would	never	come	and	“daddy’s	paper”	would	never	be	finished	–	but	WE	did	it!	

v	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
TABLE	OF	CONTENTS	

CHAPTER	1:	INTRODUCTION	………………………………………………………………………………………….1	

CHAPTER	2:	LITERATURE	REVIEW	……………………………………………………………………………….12	

CHAPTER	3:	RESEARCH	METHODOLOGY	………………………………………………………………………58	

CHAPTER	4:	FINDINGS	………………………………………………………………………………………………….73	

CHAPTER	5:	DISCUSSION	……………………………………………………………………………………………114	

REFERENCES.	……………...……………………………………………………………………………………………...136	

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..155	

vi	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
CHAPTER	1:		

INTRODUCTION	

As	an	administrator	in	higher	education,	I	work	directly	with	students	on	a	daily	

basis	and	have	for	over	20	years.		Each	meeting	and	interaction	is	unique	and	provides	

insight	into	the	students’	world.		Several	years	ago,	I	met	with	a	first-year	student	and	

asked	him	why	he	was	at	college	and	what	he	hoped	to	accomplish.		He	told	me	he	would	

like	to	participate	in	research	projects,	take	as	many	science-related	classes	as	possible,	

and	then	go	to	physical	therapy	school	immediately	after	graduation,	with	the	goal	of	

becoming	a	physical	therapist.		During	the	same	week,	I	sat	down	with	a	heavily	recruited	

first-year	gymnast	who	insisted	on	taking	courses	that	would	help	him	be	more	successful	

in	the	gym	and	ultimately	lead	to	a	spot	on	the	Olympic	team.		When	I	asked	him	what	

types	of	classes	he	meant,	the	only	example	he	could	provide	was	he	wanted	to	take	a	

psychology	class	that	would	help	him	focus	during	his	events.		A	few	weeks	later,	I	met	with	

a	third-year	hockey	player.		As	we	discussed	his	classes	for	the	next	semester,	I	asked	him	

what	he	wanted	to	do	after	college.		He	proceeded	to	explain	to	me	he	hoped	to	play	

professional	hockey	immediately	after	graduation.		After	a	minute	or	two	of	describing	

what	being	a	hockey	player	in	the	National	Hockey	League	(NHL)	might	be	like,	he	said,	

“But	after	a	few	years,	I	really	want	to	go	to	medical	school.”		I	knew	he	had	been	taking	

some	science	courses,	but	I	had	no	idea	this	was	the	path	he	hoped	to	follow.		The	rest	of	

our	conversation	revolved	around	organic	chemistry,	the	MCAT,	and	medical	school	

admissions.	

During	these	conversations,	I	did	not	directly	ask	any	of	the	students	about	their	

personal	definition	of	success.		However,	I	quickly	came	to	my	own	conclusions	about	what	

1	

	
success	meant	to	them.		I	determined	the	first	student	defined	success	according	to	his	

academic	performance	and	scholarly	work.		The	second	student	defined	success	based	

solely	on	his	athletic	performance	and,	ultimately,	his	ability	to	participate	in	the	Olympics.		

Academics	were	simply	an	afterthought.		I	then	made	an	initial	determination	the	hockey	

player	defined	success	based	on	whether	or	not	he	was	able	to	play	in	the	NHL.		While	I	

may	have	been	right	or	wrong	about	the	first	two	students,	I	was	definitely	wrong	about	

the	third.			

College	student	success	is	an	important	topic	in	higher	education	literature	and	in	

the	day-to-day	operation	of	colleges	and	universities.		Student	success	has	implications	for	

all	facets	of	the	institution	including	departments,	administrators,	faculty,	staff,	and,	

students	(Tinto,	1993).		Regarding	institutions	and	departments,	retention	and	graduation	

rates	are	oftentimes	used	as	benchmarks	to	evaluate	the	overall	effectiveness	of	academic	

instruction	and	student	services.		Administrators,	faculty,	and	staff	are	held	responsible	for	

retention	and	graduation	rates.		They	also	look	to	the	success	of	students	to	highlight	their	

achievements	and	validate	their	work	on	behalf	of	the	students.		As	Tinto	(2012)	notes,	

student	success	does	not	happen	by	accident	or	chance.		Instead,	“[I]t	is	the	result	of	

intentional,	structured,	and	proactive	actions	and	policies	directed	toward	the	success	of	all	

students”	(p.	117).			

Student	success,	and	specifically	student-athlete	success,	has	implications	for	

college	and	university	athletic	departments.		These	implications	are	particularly	salient	

regarding	academic	success	and	meeting	eligibility	criteria.		Both	the	National	Collegiate	

Athletic	Association	(NCAA	-	college	athletics’	governing	body)	and	regional	conferences,	

such	as	the	Big	Ten,	continue	to	increase	the	academic	criteria	for	student-athletes,	placing	

2	

	
pressure	directly	on	athletic	directors,	coaches,	and	academic	support	staff	to	keep	players	

progressing	toward	their	degree	and	eligible	for	competition.		These	criteria	affect	

individual	student-athletes	and	entire	teams.		The	NCAA	calculates	the	Academic	Progress	

Rate	(APR)	of	each	team	in	order	to	determine	eligibility	for	championship	participation	

(NCAA,	2014a).		This	attempt	at	reform	followed	the	now	two-decade	old	initiation	of	the	

minimum	SAT	score	(820)	required	for	eligibility	and	the	40-60-80	rule	related	to	progress	

toward	degree	(NCAA,	2015).		These	programs	were	instituted	in	an	attempt	to	raise	

retention,	academic	performance,	and	graduation	rates,	particularly	in	revenue	generating	

sports.		In	short,	failure	in	the	classroom,	individually	or	as	a	team,	could	lead	to	

ineligibility	on	the	athletic	field.		With	the	increasing	degree	of	accountability	and	visibility,	

a	greater	number	of	resources,	both	human	and	financial,	are	being	spent	on	the	academic	

and	athletic	success	of	student-athletes	–	particularly	at	Football	Bowl	Subdivision	(FBS)	

institutions	(Desrochers,	2013).			

In	recent	years,	the	NCAA	implemented	name,	image,	and	likeness	(NIL)	

opportunities	for	student-athletes,	which	allows	them	to	profit	financially	from	their	

personal	brand.		This	practice,	hitherto	prohibited	by	their	amateur	status	and	NCAA	

regulations,	has	provided	a	new	challenge	for	the	NCAA	and	its	member	institutions	to	

navigate.		NIL	will	also	likely	have	ramifications	on	the	real	and	perceived	perspectives	of	

success	for	individuals,	teams,	and	institutions.	

For	individual	students,	including	student-athletes,	success	has	educational,	

financial,	vocational,	emotional,	and	familial	implications	impacted	by,	but	not	solely	

defined	by,	persistence	and	graduation	(Tinto,	2012).		For	example,	failure	can	lead	to	

short-term	consequences	such	as	probation,	dismissal,	or	the	loss	of	scholarship	moneys.		

3	

	
Failure	can	also	have	long-term	effects	such	as	hindering	a	student’s	ability	to	enter	their	

chosen	vocation	or	impacting	them	emotionally	in	a	negative	way	(Bartels	&	Herman,	

2011).			

The	worlds	of	student	success	and	intercollegiate	athletics	collide	within	the	high-

stakes	context	of	being	a	student-athlete.		As	students	and	athletes,	they	must	engage	their	

academic	and	athletic	experiences.		Throughout	this	process	they	will	develop	their	own	

ideas	about	success	or	adopt	the	views	of	others	around	them.		The	unique	experiences	and	

challenges,	including	identity	development	and	career	transition	issues,	student-athletes	

encounter,	provide	the	context	in	which	this	research	is	conducted.		The	current	study	

focuses	on	this	unique	population	of	students	and	addresses	the	definition	of	success	from	

their	perspective.	

Statement	of	the	Problem	

The	following	sections	develop	the	context	for	the	research	problem	within	the	

current	higher	education	landscape	and	provide	a	framework	for	the	research	questions.		

First,	I	provide	a	brief	overview	of	student	success	as	defined	in	higher	education	research	

literature,	and	second,	I	identify	student-athletes	as	a	unique	population	on	college	and	

university	campuses	facing	challenges	related	to	their	identity	development	and	career	

transition.		These	topics	are	more	fully	developed	in	the	literature	review.			

Defining	College	Student	Success	

When	referring	to	student	success	in	the	context	of	higher	education,	the	most	

common	definition	is	related	specifically	to	academic	performance	and	achievement	

(Calfree,	2007).		In	fact,	the	ACT	(2007)	went	so	far	as	to	state,	“by	definition,	success	in	

4	

	
college	means	fulfilling	academic	requirements:	a	student	earns	a	degree	by	taking	and	

passing	courses”	(p.	1).	

While	passing	courses	and	earning	a	degree	are	certainly	a	large	part	of	academic	

success,	others	have	moved	beyond	these	strict	confines	to	define	student	success	based	on	

other	factors	such	as	persistence	and	retention	(Jones-White	et	al.,	2010;	Tinto,	1993).		

Tinto	(1993)	specifically	contends	integration	into	the	college	community	is	essential	to	

persistence	and,	therefore,	success.		Other	researchers	have	expanded	Tinto’s	theory	of	

persistence	to	include	such	indicators	of	success	as	academic	fit	(DeLong	et	al.,	2007;	

Radcliffe	et	al.,	2009);	background,	demographics,	and	incoming	academic	ability	(Ishitani,	

2003;	Ishitani	&	Snider,	2006;	Perkhounkova	et	al.,	2006;	Tinto,	1998);	social	fit	(Matthews,	

1996;	Tinto,	1998);	and	sense	of	belonging	(Gaston-Gayles,	et	al.,	2016).		These	concepts	

add	some	breadth	to	the	definition	of	persistence	and	success	because	they	are	not	strictly	

tied	to	academics.	

For	student-athletes,	success	on	the	athletic	field	is	a	major	priority.		This	

prioritization	can	be	true	both	as	an	individual	and	as	a	member	of	a	team.		The	research	

shows	student-athletes	tend	to	be	highly	motivated	(Gaston-Gayles,	2004),	which	can	

contribute	to	their	desire	for	success.		While	success	is	typically	associated	with	winning,	

the	fact	student-athletes	can	differ	in	their	perspective	of	what	actually	constitutes	success	

on	the	athletic	field	is	likely.		And	since	the	vast	majority	of	the	research	tends	to	focus	on	

one	of	two	definitions	of	success	–	either	academic	success	or	persistence	to	graduation	–	

the	perspective	of	the	student	has	been	missed.		This	missed	perspective	is	important	to	

consider	because	it	can	provide	insight	into	what	student-athletes	believe	they	need	to	do	

or	be	in	order	to	achieve	success.		Their	insight	can	subsequently	be	used	to	inform	and	

5	

	
shape	the	services	provided	to	student-athletes.		In	order	to	address	the	topic	of	college	

student	success	related	to	student-athletes,	highlighting	the	unique	nature	of	the	student-

athlete	role	is	important.		The	characteristics	setting	student-athletes	apart	from	other	

students	are	discussed	in	the	following	sections.	

Student-Athlete	Population	

The	relationship	between	higher	education	and	intercollegiate	athletics	is	a	dynamic	

unique	to	American	colleges	and	universities	(Chu,	1989).		Athletics	are	a	significant	part	of	

campus	culture	and	have	a	positive	influence	by	providing	a	unifying	experience	for	the	

student	body	and	community	(Thelin,	2004),	and	in	many	instances	providing	student-

athletes	with	educational	opportunities	they	may	not	otherwise	have	(Duderstadt,	2003).	

There	are	also	clear	challenges	accompanying	intercollegiate	athletics,	such	as	the	difficulty	

of	controlling	programs	and	maintaining	NCAA	compliance	and	eligibility	standards	

(Gurney,	Lopiano,	&	Zimbalist,	2017).		Further,	intercollegiate	athletics,	particularly	at	

schools	whose	teams	participate	in	the	Bowl	Championship	Series	(BCS),	are	considered	

big	business	(Desrochers,	2013;	Duderstadt,	2003;	Grant,	1979),	adding	a	complicated	

layer	to	the	challenges	already	existing.		With	athletic	department	budgets	in	the	tens	of	

millions	of	dollars,	programs,	coaches,	and	athletes	are	under	tremendous	pressure	to	

provide	a	successful	product	by	winning	games	on	the	field	or	court.	

Although	student-athletes	share	certain	characteristics	and	experiences	with	non-

athlete	students,	there	are	a	number	of	dynamics	that	set	them	apart	and	serve	to	frame	

their	unique	experiences.		Some	of	these	differences	include:	the	potentially	conflicting	

worlds	(i.e.,	academics	and	athletics)	in	which	they	must	operate	(Duderstadt,	2003;	

Hamilton	2005;	Shulman	&	Bowen,	2001;	Sperber,	2000);	the	significant	time	commitment	

6	

	
required	by	their	sport	(Comeaux	&	Harrison,	2011;	Maloney	&	McCormick	1992;	Storey,	

Hewitt,	&	Ogrodniczuk,	2022;	Wolverton,	2008);	the	unique	and	separate	culture	created	

by	their	time	together	as	a	team	(Eiche,	Sedlacek,	&	Adams-Gaston,	1997;	Sedlacek,	2004;	

Sowa	&	Gressard,	1983)	and	the	influence	of	the	coach	(Adler	&	Adler,	1991;	Raunig	&	

Coggins,	2018);	the	prejudice	and	discrimination	they	must	endure	from	other	students	

(Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	1989;	Simons	et	al.,	2007)	and	from	faculty	(Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	

1995);	and	their	classification	as	nontraditional	students	(Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	1991;	

Sedlacek,	2004).		

Immersion	in	all	of	these	specific	experiences	has	an	influence	on	two	

developmental	processes	further	contributing	to	the	uniqueness	of	student-athletes	–	

athletic	identity	development	(Brewer	et	al.,	1993;	Heird	&	Steinfeldt,	2013;	Melendez,	

2010;	Murphy	et	al.,	1996;	Steinfeldt	&	Steinfeldt,	2010;	Yopyk	&	Prentice,	2005)	and	

career	transition/retirement	development	(Huang	et	al.,	2016;	Kennedy	&	Dimick,	1987;	

Pearson	&	Petitpas,	1990;	Sandstedt	et	al.,	2004).		These	processes	are	foundational	to	how	

student-athletes	develop	their	perceptions	and	definition	of	success	and	are	used	to	frame	

the	discussion	surrounding	their	definition.	

To	summarize,	multiple	entities,	including	institutions,	researchers,	athletic	

organizations,	and	conferences	have	defined	success.		These	definitions	are	based	on	the	

traditional	definition	of	student	success	in	the	literature	and	have	not	taken	into	

consideration	the	unique	nature	of	the	student-athlete	experience,	as	described	above.		

While	these	traditional	definitions	may	include	aspects	of	success	espoused	by	student-

athletes,	there	is	a	distinct	possibility	student-athletes	operate	under	a	unique	definition	of	

success	throughout	their	collegiate	career.		The	literature	does	not	currently	address	the	

7	

	
perspective	of	the	student-athlete	in	relation	to	success	and	the	factors	contributing	to	

their	definition.		More	information	is	needed	to	identify	definitions	and	key	aspects	of	

success	as	defined	by	the	student-athletes.			

Purpose	of	the	Study	

In	the	scenarios	presented	at	the	beginning	of	this	chapter,	I	presumed	to	know	

what	success	meant	to	each	of	these	students.		Researchers	and	college	administrators,	

similarly,	tend	to	place	success	in	one	of	two	categories:	grades	and/or	persistence	to	

graduation.		The	purpose	of	this	study	was	to	define	success	from	the	student-athletes’	

perspective	and	gain	a	better	understanding	of	how	their	student-athlete	identity	and	

perspective	on	career	transition	informed	this	definition.		The	goal	of	this	research	was	to	

present	qualitative	data	that	will	help	universities	and	athletic	personnel	understand	

student	success	from	the	student-athlete’s	perspective	and	result	in	improvements	for	the	

student-athlete	experience.	

Given	the	pressure	to	succeed	and	the	unique	situation	in	which	student-athletes	

find	themselves	(e.g.,	competing	role	of	student	and	athlete;	demanding	schedules;	

treatment	by	faculty	and	other	students;	and	other	factors	discussed	in	Chapter	2),	as	well	

as	the	pressures	placed	on	universities	to	help	them	succeed,	this	group	of	students	

warrants	further	consideration.			

Research	Questions	

To	determine	how	student-athletes	define	success	and	the	factors	to	which	they	

attribute	their	current	and	future	success,	the	following	questions	were	used	to	guide	the	

research:	

1.  How	do	student-athletes	define	success?	

8	

	
	
	
2.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	identity	influenced	their	definition	of	success?	

3.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success	informed	their	career	

transition?	

Significance	of	the	Study	

Student-athletes	are	a	significant	group	to	study	for	several	reasons.		First,	they	are	

a	very	large	population	group	in	higher	education.		In	1981-1982,	when	participation	

statistics	were	first	tracked	on	an	annual	basis,	there	were	only	244,000	student-athletes	

participating	in	women’s	and	men’s	sports	across	all	three	divisions	of	the	NCAA.		In	the	

2021-2022	academic	year,	participation	increased	to	a	record	number	of	over	528,000	

student-athletes.		At	the	nearly	350	Division	I	schools,	there	are	approximately	6,600	

athletic	teams,	and	more	than	192,000	student-athletes	(NCAA,	2022).		Second,	student-

athletes	are	a	significant	population	group	because	they	are	some	of	the	most	visible	

students	on	campus,	particularly	in	the	revenue-generating	sports	like	men’s	basketball	

and	football.		And	third,	millions	of	dollars	are	spent	on	intercollegiate	sports	every	year.		

The	average	athletic	department	budget	at	Football	Bowl	Subdivision	schools	was	$65.9	

million	in	2016-2017	(NCAA,	2017a).		Millions	more	are	generated	through	athletics	–	

particularly	in	men’s	football	(Jessop,	2014).		This	trend	continues	to	rise	with	the	

increased	revenue	from	lucrative	television	contracts	and	the	subsequent	realignment	of	

athletic	conferences.		Some	of	this	revenue	is	invested	back	into	the	athletic	department	to	

support	programming	related	specifically	to	academic	success.		Some	of	the	money	is	

invested	into	practice	facilities	and	athletic	equipment	in	order	to	promote	athletic	success.		

These	investments	are	crucial	because	academic	success	can	have	a	direct	influence	on	

athletic	success	by	determining	player	eligibility.		All	of	the	money,	time,	and	effort	spent	

9	

	
on	ensuring	the	success	of	this	large,	highly	visible	student-athlete	population	raises	a	

fundamental	question	–	do	student-athletes	see	themselves	as	successful	if	and	when	they	

are	successful	by	the	athletic	program’s	standards?		By	asking	student-athletes	directly	

how	they	define	success	and	framing	it	within	their	student-athlete	identity	and	career	

transition,	I	provide	insight	into	their	experiences,	goals,	and	needs.		Therefore,	this	study	

is	significant	for	three	reasons.	

First,	this	study	fills	a	significant	gap	in	the	literature	by	providing	a	different	lens	

with	which	to	view	current	student-athlete	development	theory	and	practice.		Studies	have	

been	conducted	regarding	academic	success,	athletic	identity,	and	campus	engagement	of	

student-athletes,	most	of	which	are	quantitative	in	nature.		In	addition,	there	is	a	

substantial	amount	of	literature	related	to	student-athletes,	student	success,	and	the	theory	

surrounding	these	topics.		However,	no	current	research	identifies	how	the	student-

athletes	define	success	–	particularly	related	to	their	student-athlete	identity	and	career	

transition	–	via	a	qualitative	methodology.		Further,	Ronkainen,	Kavoura,	and	Ryba	(2016)	

identify	the	need	for	more	research	examining	the	personal	and	individual	meanings	

student-athletes	attribute	to	their	experiences.	

Second,	this	study	is	intended	to	encourage	the	use	of	a	holistic	developmental	

perspective	by	those	who	work	directly	with	student-athletes.		The	study	engaged	student	

affairs	professionals,	and	athletic	and	academic	administrators,	in	considering	how	

student-athletes	personally	define	success	and	influence	the	ways	in	which	they	relate	to	

and	motivate	student-athletes.		If	student-athletes	are	able	to	articulate	their	ideas	

regarding	success	and	the	specific	factors	influencing	their	definition,	the	programming	

through	which	they	are	advised	and	served	can	be	adapted	to	address	their	particular	

10	

	
needs	and	goals.		Specifically,	this	study	served	to	inform	student	affairs	personnel	and	

athletic	administration	regarding	the	structure	and	delivery	methods	of	programs	and	

services	available	to	student-athletes	and	consider	the	student-athlete	perspective.		This	

change	of	framework	encouraged	questions	to	be	considered,	such	as,	are	current	academic	

success	programs	effective	in	helping	student-athletes	achieve	success	as	the	student-

athlete	defines	it	or	as	the	school	defines	it	for	them?		And	are	all	of	the	services	offered	

necessary	or	could	they	be	reimagined	to	more	effectively	serve	the	student-athletes	and	

move	them	toward	their	goals?			Questions	like	these	can	foster	a	more	holistic	student-

athlete	service	model.	

And	third,	the	study	provided	students	with	an	opportunity	for	cognitive	and	

personal	development	since	many	student-athletes	have	not	consciously	given	thought	or	

actively	engaged	in	a	discussion	as	to	how	they	define	success.		Student-athletes	may	

operate	on	a	daily	basis	according	to	an	internal,	subconscious	understanding	of	what	it	

means	to	be	successful,	but	have	not	purposively	considered	their	own	philosophy.		As	

student-athletes	participated	in	this	study,	it	was	beneficial	for	them	to	intentionally	

consider	how	they	define	success	and	how	those	definitions	may	have	changed	over	time.		

This	study	also	provided	a	voice	for	the	student-athletes	to	express	their	perspective	and	to	

be	heard	regarding	their	experiences	as	a	student-athlete	and	the	potential	challenges	they	

have	faced.	

This	chapter	outlined	the	statement	of	the	problem,	the	purpose	and	significance	of	

the	study,	and	the	resulting	research	questions.		Chapter	2	provides	an	overview	of	the	

relevant	literature,	including	the	identification	of	the	theoretical	framework	around	which	

the	research	is	situated.	

11	

	
CHAPTER	2:	

LITERATURE	REVIEW	

The	relationship	between	intercollegiate	athletics	and	higher	education	is	a	dynamic	

unique	to	American	colleges	and	universities	(Chu,	1989;	Thelin,	2004)	causing	

controversy	regarding	the	positive	and	negative	influence	on	the	student-athletes	and	the	

institutions.		Bridging	the	gap	between	athletics	and	academics	is	becoming	increasingly	

difficult	for	colleges	and	universities	(Sharp	&	Sheilley,	2008).		Authors	such	as	Duderstadt	

(2003),	Gurney	et	al.	(2017),	Sperber	(2000),	Shulman	and	Bowen	(2001),	and	Zimbalist	

(1999)	have	addressed	the	dilemma	of	bridging	this	gap	and	acknowledged	the	difficulty	of	

merging	the	world	of	big-time	college	athletics	with	the	concept	of	educational	primacy.			

On	the	positive	side,	intercollegiate	athletics	provides	student-athletes	with	an	

educational	opportunity	they	might	not	otherwise	have	(Duderstadt,	2000).		Collegiate	

athletics	produce	greater	levels	of	self-confidence,	opportunities	for	social	interactions	

(Petitpas	&	Champagne,	1988),	development	of	leadership	skills,	and	stronger	institutional	

attachment	(Melendez,	2008)	for	student-athletes.		Other	positive	influences	of	

intercollegiate	athletics	include	its	influence	on	campus	culture	and	students’	campus	

involvement,	institutional	success,	and	the	local	community	(Chu,	1989).		These	are	the	

reasons,	Chu	argues,	the	relationship	between	higher	education	and	sports	should	be	

perpetuated	–	their	impact	on	campus	spirit	and	the	larger	culture	outside	of	the	university	

walls.		Collegiate	sports	act	as	a	system	of	symbols	used	to	bring	a	community	together	and	

make	sense	of	an	environment	made	up	of	diverse	individuals	and	groups.		Chu	says,	

“through	sport,	especially	the	seemingly	innocent	intercollegiate	variant,	we	see	what	we	

can	be	and	what	the	American	dream	says	we	are	capable	of	becoming”	(p.	182).			

12	

	
Student-athletes	also	face	challenges	contributing	to	a	more	negative	view	of	

intercollegiate	athletics.		These	challenges	include	increased	demands	on	their	time,	missed	

classes	due	to	travel	and	competition,	lower	grade	point	averages	and	graduation	rates,	

and	increased	scrutiny	of	misconduct	off	the	field.		Further,	the	complex	relationship	with	

policies	related	to	name,	image,	and	likeness	and	professional	agents	continues	to	increase.			

While	there	is	ongoing	discussion	and	research	results	related	to	the	positive	and	

negative	influences	of	intercollegiate	athletics,	there	is	substantial	research	suggesting	

student-athletes	are	a	unique	population	and	face	unique	challenges.		In	the	following	

review	of	the	literature,	I	examined	the	specific	factors	and	experiences	making	student-

athletes	unique.		Athletic	identity,	career	development	and	maturity,	and	athletic	

retirement	are	given	special	attention	since	they	provide	a	context	in	which	student-

athletes	must	decide	what	success	means	to	them.		I	also	present	the	theoretical	framework	

in	which	the	research	questions	are	situated.		The	framework	is	based	on	two	of	

Chickering’s	vectors	–	establishing	identity	and	developing	purpose.		Finally,	I	provide	an	

overview	of	services	typically	offered	by	student-athlete	success	programs	in	NCAA	

Division	I	athletic	departments.		Chapter	1	established	definitions	of	success	associated	

with	student-athletes	–	sufficient	grades,	persistence	to	graduation,	and	success	on	the	

field.		Throughout	the	literature	review,	these	themes	will	surface	as	they	relate	to	the	

various	topics	covered.	

Student-Athletes	as	a	Unique	Population	

During	the	2021-2022	academic	year,	a	staggering	528,000	student-athletes	

participated	in	sporting	events	sponsored	by	the	NCAA	(NCAA,	2022).		Each	of	these	

student-athletes	have	unique	experiences	and	face	unique	challenges	that	are	different	

13	

	
from	other	students	and	require	them	to	perform	a	delicate	balancing	act	between	what	

can	be	dueling	commitments	involving	many	facets	of	their	lives:	athletic,	academic,	social,	

physical,	relational,	and	vocational.	

There	are	significant	factors	contributing	to	the	overall	uniqueness	of	the	student-

athlete	population.		First	and	foremost,	student-athletes	are	required	to	navigate	the	

worlds	of	academics	and	athletics	and	are	often	caught	in	the	dilemma	of	trying	to	be	both	

a	student	and	an	athlete	(Hamilton,	2005;	Kamusoko	&	Pemberton,	2013;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	

&	Pierce,	2021).		“Indeed,	the	case	could	be	made	that	[first-year]	athletes	have	such	

different	experiences	from	mainstream	college	[first-year	students]	that	the	entire	context	

of	their	college	experience	is	qualitatively	different”	(Eiche,	Sedlacek,	&	Adams-Gaston,	

1997b).		Additionally,	the	identity	of	student-athletes	as	students	and	athletes	may	

oftentimes	come	into	conflict	with	each	other	(Adler	&	Adler,	1987;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	&	

Pierce,	2021).		Balancing	these	two	roles	is	necessary	to	successfully	meet	the	

simultaneous	demands	of	athletics	and	academics	(Aquilina,	2013).	

Due	to	their	dual	role,	the	time	commitment	required	of	being	both	a	student	and	an	

athlete	has	a	significant	impact	on	the	student-athlete	experience	(Carodine,	Almond,	&	

Gratto,	2001;	Gaston-Gayles,	2004;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	&	Pierce,	2021)	and	can	ultimately	

have	an	influence	on	their	academics,	resulting	in	underperformance	in	the	classroom	

(Comeaux,	2010)	and	moderate	levels	of	conflict	between	their	athletic	and	academic	goals	

(Healy	et	al.,	2016).		A	study	conducted	by	Maloney	and	McCormick	(1992)	found	when	

student-athletes	were	in-season,	particularly	in	men’s	basketball	and	football,	there	was	a	

drop	in	average	GPAs	due	to	the	significant	time	demands.		When	obtaining	a	measure	of	

first-year	student	athletes’	expectations,	attitudes,	and	needs	related	to	their	college	

14	

	
experience,	compared	to	a	random	sample	of	non-athlete	first-year	students,	Eiche,	

Sedlacek,	and	Adams-Gaston	(1997a)	discovered	time	demands	were	most	frequently	cited	

by	athletes	as	a	barrier	to	adjusting	to	college.		This	discovery	continues	to	be	true	more	

than	two	decades	later.		When	surveyed	in	2018,	NCAA	coaches	identified	time	

commitment	and	demands	on	time	as	the	leading	theme	for	what	they	want	faculty	to	be	

aware	of	regarding	their	student-athletes	(Raunig	&	Coggins,	2018).	

While	time	commitments	are	a	contributing	factor	to	academic	underperformance,	

student-athletes	demonstrate	other	characteristics	can	have	a	positive	impact	on	their	

academic	performance.		Bailey	and	Bhattacharyya	(2017)	utilized	the	Academic	Progress	

Rate	(APR)	to	compare	the	academic	performance	of	teams	who	performed	at	a	high	level	

athletically	(top	eight	teams	in	each	sport)	with	teams	who	performed	at	a	lower	level	

(bottom	eight	teams	in	each	sport).		Results	of	the	study	indicated	high	performing	athletic	

teams	also	perform	better	academically	than	their	less	athletically	successful	counterparts.		

Likely	characteristics	contributing	to	this	difference	in	performance	are	internal	and	

include	motivation,	work-ethic,	commitment,	determination,	and	confidence	(Giacobbi,	

2002).			

Also	resulting	from	the	significant	time	spent	in	their	sport,	student-athletes	tend	to	

have	their	own	unique	social	experiences	and,	consequently,	develop	a	distinct	culture	that	

further	distinguishes	them	from	other	students	and	groups	on	campus	(Sowa	&	Gressard,	

1983).		Studies	show	student-athletes	spend	much	of	their	social	time	with	teammates	and	

often	have	difficulty	engaging	in	social	relationships	outside	of	the	athletic	context	(Bell,	

2009;	Miller	&	Kerr,	2003).		Further,	these	unique	experiences	and	limited	relationships	

can	produce	like-minded	goals	and	values	among	the	student-athletes	(Sedlacek,	2004).		A	

15	

	
primary	contributor	to	the	experiences	forming	this	culture	is	the	coach.		Adler	and	Adler	

(1991)	identified	the	attitude	of	the	coach	as	a	significant	influence	on	the	student-athletes’	

perception	of	academics	as	important	and,	ultimately,	whether	or	not	they	were	

academically	successful.			

The	significance	of	the	time	commitment	required	of	student-athletes	cannot	be	

disputed;	however,	there	is	conflicting	evidence	regarding	the	experiences	of	student-

athletes	produced	over	the	last	three	decades.		The	following	studies	highlight	the	

conflicting	evidence.		Astin	(1984)	and	Ryan	(1989)	determined	being	a	student	athlete	is	a	

positive	predictor	of	overall	satisfaction.		Astin	(1984)	showed	four	areas	of	satisfaction	

particularly	high	in	student-athletes:	(a)	the	institution’s	academic	reputation,	(b)	the	

intellectual	environment,	(c)	student	friendships,	and	(d)	the	institutional	administration.		

This	satisfaction	may	be	due	to	the	fact	athletes	spend	much	more	time	on	campus	than	

traditional	student	and,	therefore,	have	increased	contact	and	interaction	with	the	

institution	and	administration.		Ryan’s	study	(1989)	revealed	four	different	positive	

outcomes	of	the	student	athlete	experience:	(a)	overall	satisfaction	with	college,	(b)	

motivation	to	complete	a	bachelor’s	degree,	(c)	an	increase	in	interpersonal	skills,	and	(d)	

an	increase	in	leadership	ability.		Pascarella	and	Smart’s	(1991)	study,	on	the	other	hand,	

was	inconclusive,	finding	no	evidence	for	correlation	among	overall	satisfaction,	

persistence,	and	participation	in	athletics.		Simons	and	colleagues	(1999)	found	

participation	on	a	collegiate	athletic	team,	coupled	with	the	time	commitment	and	fatigue	

experienced,	can	detract	from	the	student-athlete’s	satisfaction	and	educational	

experience.		More	recent	research	continues	to	show	varying	results,	particularly	related	to	

high-profile	student-athletes,	although	the	overall	experience	of	student-athletes	seems	to	

16	

	
be	positive.		Potuto	and	O’Hanlon	(2007)	found	student-athletes	have	an	overall	positive	

perspective	on	their	college	experience	and	value	commitment	to	sports	based	on	the	skills	

they	learn	and	the	values	they	acquire,	even	though	they	admit	to	missing	out	on	curricular	

and	co-curricular	aspects	of	college	life.		Rettig	and	Hu	(2016)	determined	student-athletes’	

overall	campus	engagement	is	similar	to	non-athlete	students.		However,	they	assert	high-

profile	student-athletes	have	a	lower	level	of	achievement	related	to	educational	outcomes	

than	their	non-athlete	counterparts,	suggesting	significant	challenges	within	the	culture	of	

revenue-generating	sports.		“Lower	overall	satisfaction	and	grades	for	high-profile	student-

athletes	further	supports	the	notion	that	high-profile	student-athletes	are	a	distinct	

subpopulation	of	college	students”	(p.	444).		Based	in	the	psychological	framework	of	

commitment	theory,	O’Neil	and	colleagues	(2021)	explored	the	commitment	level	of	

student	athletes	to	academics	and	sports	with	the	intention	of	identifying	the	extent	to	

which	the	two	are	compatible	or	in	conflict.			They	identified	four	unique	profiles	providing	

evidence	“for	both	compatibility	and	conflict	within	student-athletes’	dual	commitment	to	

school	and	sport”	(p.	7).		Interestingly,	they	did	not	find	a	group	following	an	“educational	

pathway,”	in	which	the	student-athletes	were	strongly	committed	to	academics	and	weakly	

committed	to	sports.			

In	spite	of	this	variation	in	the	research	related	to	the	student-athlete	experience,	

one	example	of	a	benefit	of	being	involved	in	intercollegiate	athletics	is	the	opportunity	for	

involvement	in	multicultural	interactions	(Hirko,	2009).		In	fact,	athletic	teams	are	an	ideal	

place	for	these	interactions	to	occur.		But	while	teams	might	be	a	natural	location	for	these	

types	of	interactions,	most	of	the	opportunities	happen	informally	and	without	specific	

17	

	
direction	from	coaches	or	administrators.		This	lack	of	intentionality	can	limit	the	

effectiveness	of	an	otherwise	ideal	situation.	

With	the	commercialization	of	college	sports	and	the	creation	of	celebrity	players	

(Duderstadt,	2003),	the	pressure	on	athletes,	particularly	in	revenue-generating	sports,	to	

perform	has	intensified	and	the	time	commitment	required	to	succeed	has	increased	

significantly.		Because	of	their	high-profile	position,	athletes	also	tend	to	be	some	of	the	

most	recognizable	students	on	campus.		As	a	result,	the	off-the-field	activity	of	student	

athletes	is	more	closely	scrutinized	than	for	other	students.		Student-athletes	are	

constantly	evaluated,	criticized,	and	praised	by	the	media,	student	body,	administration,	

and	public.	

Stereotypes	

The	negative	side	of	this	increased	attention	is	student-athletes	are	often	the	target,	

both	individually	and	collectively,	of	negative	stereotyping	(Engstrom	et	al.,	1995;	

Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	1989;	Haslerig,	2017;	Lawrence,	2009;	Simons	et	al.,	2007).		Negative	

stereotypes,	particularly	when	they	are	internalized,	can	lead	to	reduced	effort	and	

investment	(Massey	&	Owens,	2014;	Riciputi	&	Erdal,	2017).		Although	student-athletes	

tend	to	be	very	popular	on	the	athletic	field,	they	face	significant	resistance	and	opposition	

from	others	in	the	campus	environment,	even	beyond	the	“dumb	jock”	stereotype	(Simons	

et	al.,	2007).		Since	student-athletes	tend	to	be	stigmatized	in	higher	education	and	student-

athlete	identity	has	a	positive	correlation	to	stereotype	threat	(Feltz	et	al.,	2013),	their	

social	identity	is	devalued	in	a	very	specific	context.		Simons	and	colleagues	(2007)	

conducted	a	study	containing	data	related	to	the	treatment	and	perceptions	of	student	

athletes	by	faculty	and	non-athlete	students.		While	some	of	the	responses	to	the	survey	

18	

	
indicated	positive	comments	and	perceptions	related	to	student	athletes,	the	majority	were	

considered	negative	and	reinforcing	of	the	“dumb	jock”	stereotype.		Hawley	and	colleagues	

(2014)	found	non-athlete	students	judge	student-athletes	more	harshly	for	perceived	

negative	behaviors,	than	do	student-athletes.		Some	studies	indicate	the	experience	of	

being	negatively	stereotyped	can	be	significantly	increased	for	student-athletes	of	Color	

(Martin	et	al.,	2010;	Oseguara,	2010;	Stone	et	al.,	2012).		

Studies	using	the	Situational	Attitude	Scale	(SAS)	show	residence	hall	students	

(Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	1989)	demonstrate	a	negative	bias	toward	student-athletes,	

particularly	related	to	academic	performance	(Engstrom	&	Sedlacek,	1991).		For	example,	

students	are	more	concerned	when	a	student-athlete	receives	an	“A”	in	class,	than	when	a	

non-athlete	student	does.		This	particular	study	was	conducted	with	first-year	students,	

and	the	results	may	be	influenced	by	the	fact	first-year	students	are	more	prone	to	

stereotypical	thinking.		

Faculty	are	also	guilty	of	negatively	stereotyping	student-athletes	(Engstrom,	

Sedlacek,	&	McEwen,	1995;	Baucom	&	Lantz,	2001).		According	to	the	study	conducted	by	

Engstrom	and	her	colleagues	(1995),	faculty	perception	of	male	athletes	(in	both	revenue-

generating	and	nonrevenue-generating	sports)	is	negative	and	prejudiced,	specifically	

related	to	academic	competence.		For	example,	faculty	displayed	surprise	and	suspicion	

when	an	athlete	received	an	“A”	grade.		Additionally,	results	of	a	survey	of	over	2,000	

faculty	members	at	NCAA	Football	Bowl	Subdivision	schools	were	shared	at	the	Faculty	

Summit	on	Intercollegiate	Athletics,	held	by	the	Knight	Commission	in	2007.		Results	

indicated	61%	of	those	surveyed	thought	student-athletes	are	motivated	to	earn	their	

19	

	
degree	(Knight	Commission,	2007),	which	seems	to	infer	39%	do	not	think	student-athletes	

are	academically	motivated.			

Factors	further	influencing	faculty	perspective	on	intercollegiate	athletics	are:	

faculty	feel	disconnected	regarding	athletics;	faculty	are	largely	displeased	with	their	

governance	roles	in	athletics;	a	large	percentage	of	faculty	are	interested	in	governance	

issues	related	to	athletics,	but	rate	it	second	to	last	in	a	list	of	13	important	issues;	and	

many	facutly	lack	sufficient	knowledge	of	athletics	governance	issues	which	would	prohibit	

them	from	participating	in	reform	initiatives	(Lawrence,	2009).	

Regardless	of	the	source	or	intentionality,	this	negative	perspective	toward	athletics	

and	stereotype	toward	student-athletes	can	be	internalized	and	become	a	self-fulfilling	

prophecy	(Hamilton	&	Trolier,	1986).		Student-athletes	respond	to	this	type	of	treatment	in	

a	variety	of	ways,	including:	trying	to	hide	their	identity	as	an	athlete;	working	harder	to	

overcome	the	stereotype;	or	giving	in	to	the	stereotype	and	acting	accordingly	(Simons	et	

al.,	2007).			

Noncognitive	Variables	

There	is	a	considerable	amount	of	research	on	the	development	of	student-athletes,	

particularly	as	it	relates	to	noncognitive	development.		Rather	than	simply	relying	on	

traditional	cognitive	measures	(verbal	and	quantitative	reasoning),	noncognitive	factors	

relate	to	“adjustment,	motivation,	and	student	perceptions”	(Sedlacek,	2004,	p.	7).		The	

following	section	highlights	some	of	this	research.	

Sowa	and	Gressard	(1983)	conducted	a	study	based	on	Chickering’s	vectors	and	

found	there	was	no	difference	in	the	overall	achievement	of	athletes	and	non-athletes,	

although	some	developmental	tasks	proved	more	difficult	for	those	involved	in	athletics.		

20	

	
Student-athletes	showed	more	difficulty	developing	an	individual	purpose,	which	could	be	

a	result	of	their	“coachability”	and	orientation	to	team	mentality.		According	to	Eiche,	

Sedlacek,	and	Adams-Gaston	(1997b),	the	difficulty	in	developing	purpose	has	a	negative	

impact	on	a	student-athlete’s	ability	to	develop	well-defined	educational	goals	and	

vocational	plans,	as	compared	to	a	non-athlete	student.		This	difficulty	can	also	produce	a	

lack	of	satisfaction	in	the	educational	experience	and	limit	their	exploration	of	skills	

beyond	athletics.		In	addition	to	the	difficulty	in	defining	educational	and	vocational	goals,	

student-athletes	reported	difficulty	getting	good	grades,	were	less	concerned	with	paying	

for	school,	and	identified	a	lack	of	time	as	a	barrier	to	adjustment	to	college	life	(Eiche	et	al.,	

1997b).			

Student-athletes	scored	high	on	realistic	self-appraisal	when	tested	on	non-

cognitive	variables	(Eiche,	Sedlacek,	&	Adams-Gaston,	1997c).		Eiche	and	associates	

(1997c)	proposed	the	high	realistic	self-appraisal	may	be	because	they	are	constantly	

evaluating	and	assessing	their	physical	performance,	and	conversely,	having	it	evaluated	by	

others.		This	practice	could	translate	into	accurate	self-assessment	in	other	areas	of	life,	

including	academics.		Eiche	and	associates	(1997b;	1997c)	also	found	student-athletes	

reported	greater	leadership	scores	and	scored	higher	on	leadership	experience.		Two	

interesting	reasons	for	this	result	were	proposed.		On	the	one	hand,	student-athletes	may	

have	more	opportunities	to	participate	in	meaningful	leadership	as	a	result	of	their	

participation	in	sports.		On	the	other	hand,	students	with	an	affinity	for	leadership	may	

naturally	be	drawn	to	athletics	and	the	challenges	of	leadership	available	in	this	arena.		

Regardless	of	the	reason,	the	difficulty	student-athletes	face	is	they	may	over-commit	in	

their	leadership	roles.	

21	

	
Rather	than	focus	on	the	more	common	predictors	of	academic	performance	of	

student	athletes	such	as	high	school	GPA,	standardized	test	scores,	and	parental	education,	

Gaston	Gayles	(2004)	examined	athletic	and	academic	motivation	as	a	noncognitive	

variable	and	looked	at	its	influence	in	the	prediction	of	academic	performance.		This	study	

found	ACT	score,	ethnicity,	and	academic	motivation	were	significant	predictors	of	

academic	performance	and	contradicts	earlier	literature	(Sellers,	1992)	suggesting	

academic	motivation	is	unrelated	to	academic	performance.		Another	finding	that	does	not	

concur	with	earlier	studies	(Simons	et	al.,	1999)	is	athletic	motivation	and	the	desire	to	

pursue	a	career	in	professional	sports	does	not	detract	from	academic	success.		A	recent	

study	by	Hart	and	colleagues	(2024)	indicates,	“Athletes	pusuing	a	STEM	major	may	show	

higher	academic	motivation	than	athletes	pursing	non-STEM	majors”	(p.	196).		While	they	

recognize	further	study	is	required,	Hart	and	colleagues	(2024)	also	suggest,	“Encouraging	

student-athlete	learning	autonomy	via	education/intervention	could	improve	intrinsic	

motivation	in	sport	and	classes”	(p.	196).	

Sedlacek	and	Adams-Gaston	(1992)	also	argue	student-athletes’	academic	success	

can	be	much	more	accurately	predicted	by	noncognitive	variables	than	by	standardized	

tests.		Results	of	their	study	show	first	semester	grades	for	student-athletes	are	much	more	

highly	correlated	with	noncognitive	variables	than	SAT	scores		The	noncognitive	variables	

with	the	highest	correlation	to	first	semester	grades	were	self-concept,	realistic	self-

appraisal,	availability	of	a	support	person,	and	community.			

Noncognitive	variables	appropriately	identify	student-athletes	as	nontraditional	

students	by	both	predicting	their	abilities	(Sedlacek,	2004)	and	by	examining	their	unique	

culture,	experiences	that	are	different	from	other	students,	difficulty	relating	to	the	larger	

22	

	
campus	society,	and	the	less	stable	context	in	which	they	generally	operate	(Engstrom	&	

Sedlacek,	1991;	Sedlacek	&	Adams-Gaston,	1992).			

Comparing	more	traditional	predictors	of	success	with	noncognitive	variables,	

Sedlacek	and	Adams-Gaston	(1992)	studied	student-athletes	in	revenue	and	nonrevenue	

sports	at	the	University	of	Maryland.		First	semester	grades	were	not	correlated	with	SAT	

math	and	verbal	scores.		Conversely,	first	semester	grades	were	significantly	correlated	

with	noncognitive	factors	including:	strong	support	person,	self-concept,	realistic	self-

appraisal,	and	community	(Sedlacek,	2004).		All	of	these	variables	are	consistent	with	

nontraditional	student	groups.		Eiche	and	associates	(1997c)	also	“noted	that	using	

noncognitive	variables	taps	experiential	and	contextual	intelligence	which	is	important	in	

working	with	and	making	decisions	concerning	nontraditional	students”	(p.	5).		The	one	

other	identifier	that	placed	student-athletes	in	the	nontraditional	student	category	was	the	

prejudicial	attitudes	and	discrimination	against	them	(Sedlacek,	2004).	

Student-Athlete	Experience	

In	addition	to	the	factors	already	discussed,	the	overall	student-athlete	experience	is	

substantially	different	from	the	non-athlete	student.		The	following	section	highlights	

research	and	findings	related	to	this	experience	and	its	influence	on	the	student-athletes.	

There	are	varying	opinions	on	whether	or	not	the	experiences	of	student-athletes	

are	somehow	deficient	due	to	their	participation	in	athletics,	but	scholars	have	suggested	

the	experience	of	student-athletes	can	be	enhanced	when	both	their	personal	and	academic	

development	are	nurtured	(Gaston-Gayles	&	Hu,	2009;	Melendez,	2008).		Potuto	and	

O’Hanlon	(2007)	surveyed	over	900	student-athletes	regarding	their	experiences	as	college	

students	and	found	student-athletes	are	generally	positive	about	their	college	experience.		

23	

	
The	majority	of	student-athletes	surveyed	believed	participation	in	athletics	contributed	to	

a	rich	multicultural	experience	and	to	the	development	of	particular	skills	and	traits	that	

would	pay	off	upon	entering	the	work	force	after	college.		These	student-athletes	also	

indicated	a	strong	sense	of	support	throughout	their	time	in	college.			

These	findings	are	supported	by	a	recent	Gallup	(2020)	survey	of	almost	5,000	

individuals	who	participated	as	student-athletes	between	1975	and	2020.		Compared	to	

college	graduates	who	did	not	participate	as	student-athletes	(N=~69,000),	the	student-

athletes	were	more	likely	to	have	had	a	mentor	who	encouraged	the	pursuit	of	their	goals	

(27%	vs	23%)	and	were	also	more	likely	to	feel	their	instructors	cared	about	them	as	

people	(35%	vs	28%).	

Although	the	student-athletes	in	the	Potuto	and	O’Hanlon	(2007)	survey	reported	

an	overall	positive	experience,	they	consistently	felt	there	were	trade-offs	and	missed	

opportunities	as	a	result	of	their	participation	in	athletics,	including	not	majoring	in	what	

they	really	wanted,	not	taking	specific	courses	in	which	they	were	interested,	not	spending	

as	much	time	on	academics	as	they	would	like,	and	not	spending	sufficient	time	with	non-

athlete	students.		Further,	Foster	and	Huml	(2017)	noted	student-athletes	with	more	

prominent	athletic	identities	had	a	higher	likelihood	of	selecting	a	major	with	less	academic	

rigor.		And	while	these	trade-offs	are	significant,	the	student-athletes	surveyed	

overwhelmingly	concluded	the	trade-offs	were	acceptable	under	the	circumstances.	

How	actively	students	engage	in	the	college	experience	is	crucial	to	the	overall	

experience	and	is	no	different	for	student-athletes.		Stone	and	Strange	(1989)	found	first-

year	student-athletes	are	less	likely	to	be	involved	on	campus	than	nonathletes.		Umbach	et	

al.	(2006)	utilized	the	results	of	the	National	Survey	of	Student	Engagement		and	

24	

	
determined	student-athletes	are	as	involved	in	educationally	purposeful	activities	as	their	

peers;	report	more	support	(academic	and	social)	than	non-athletes;	and	report	greater	

gains,	particularly	in	practical	competence	and	personal/social	development	than	non-

athletes.		Brown	and	colleagues	(2015)	cited	time	management	as	a	challenge	to	balancing	

dual	roles	and	disengagement	from	academics	and	class	as	a	coping	strategy.	

Gaston-Gayles	and	Hu	(2009a)	utilized	the	Basic	Academic	Skills	Study,	specifically	

the	Progress	in	College	and	Social	and	Group	Experiences	subscales,	designed	by	the	NCAA,	

to	answer	research	questions	related	to	student	athletes'	background	characteristics	

influence	on	engagement	in	educationally	purposeful	activities;	the	extent	to	which	these	

activities	influence	their	cognitive	and	affective	outcomes;	and	whether	or	not	their	

engagement	is	influcenced	by	the	profile	(high	or	low)	of	their	particular	sport.		Four	areas	

of	student	engagement	(closely	related	to	what	are	generally	considered	educationally	

purposeful	activities)	were	studied	including	"(a)	interaction	with	faculty,	(b)	interaction	

with	students	other	than	teammates,	(c)	participation	in	student	groups,	organiztions,	and	

other	service	activies,	(d)	and	participation	in	academic	related	activies"	(p.	320).		Of	these	

four	measures,	the	study	found	student-athletes	most	frequently	interacted	with	students	

other	than	their	teammates,	counter	to	the	prevelant	criticism	related	to	a	strong	athletic	

sub-culture	on	college	campuses.		However,	male	and	high-profile	athletes	interact	less	

compared	to	female	and	low-profile	athletes.		The	background	of	students	was	not	

significantly	influential,	while	increased	engagement	in	educationally	purposeful	activities	

has	a	positive	and	significant	impact.		The	type	of	sport	(high	or	low	profile)	does	influence	

student	engagement	on	cognitive	outcomes.			

25	

	
In	1985,	Adler	and	Adler	conducted	a	study	examining	the	relationship	between	

academic	performance	and	athletic	participation	in	male	student-athletes.		They	found	

while	most	student-athletes	began	college	with	idealistic	attitudes	and	expectations	about	

their	academic	experiences,	most	eventually	transitioned	to	a	state	of	“pragmatic	

detachment,	”	as	well	as	“diminished	interest	and	effort”	(p.	248)	as	a	result	of	several	

experiential	factors.		These	factors	include:	the	demands	of	athletics	on	their	time,	social	

isolation,	and	the	gap	(perceived	or	real)	between	their	academic	ability	and	the	

university’s	requirements.		Meyer	(1990)	conducted	a	similar	study	with	female	collegiate	

athletes	regarding	their	academic	expectations,	athletic	experiences,	attitudes	of	self	and	

others,	and	classroom	and	academic	experiences.		She	compared	the	results	with	the	Adler	

Study	(1985)	and	the	comparison	indicated	the	women	generally	had	high	expectations	

and	positive	attitudes	that	persisted,	and	even	increased,	throughout	their	college	career,	

while	the	men	in	the	Adler	Study	started	positive,	but	quickly	lost	interest	and	became	less	

idealistic.		Meyer	(1990)	suggested	one	of	the	major	reasons	for	this	difference	was	the	

different	athletic	subcultures	that	exist	for	both	men	and	women.		While	men	and	women	

participate	and	operate	in	an	athletic	subculture,	the	female	subculture	seems	to	be	more	

pro-intellectual	and	academically	encouraging.			

More	recent	research	is	inconclusive	regarding	this	potential	difference	between	

male	and	female	student-athletes.		Some	studies	suggest	females	identify	more	strongly	

with	their	academic	identity	and,	therefore,	prioritize	academic	pursuits	more	so	than	their	

male	counterparts	(Fuches	et	al.,	2016;	Sturm	et	al.,	2011;	Tekavc,	Wylleman,	&	Erpic,	

2015).		Other	studies	did	not	reveal	these	gender-based	differences	(Beron	&	Piquero,	

2016;	Lupo	et	al.,	2017;	Yukhymenko-Lescroart,	2014).	

26	

	
There	has	been	inconsistency	in	the	research	related	to	determining	the	impact	of	

intercollegiate	athletics	on	standardized	measures	of	learning	and	cognitive	development.		

Pascarella	and	colleagues	(1995)	used	a	large	sample	(over	2,400)	to	address	this	

inconsistency.		The	authors	used	longitudinal	performance	(over	the	first	year)	in	reading	

comprehension,	mathematics,	and	critical	thinking	as	indicators	of	the	influence	of	athletics	

rather	than	grades/GPA,	since	there	are	so	many	additional	factors	related	to	GPA.		They	

also	controlled	for	pre-college	differences.		The	results	indicated	there	were	"significant	

consequences	for	the	general	cognitive	development	of	both	men	and	women	during	the	

first	year	of	college"	(p.	380).		Male	football	and	basketball	players	actually	showed	net	

losses	in	the	cognitive	dimensions	related	to	mathematics	and	reading	comprehension,	

while	non-athlete	students	and	non-revenue	student-athletes	showed	modest	gains.		

Female	student-athletes	showed	less	development	in	reading	comprehension	than	non-

athlete	students,	but	both	groups	were	similar	in	mathematics	and	critical	thinking.		The	

authors	suggest	the	choice	of	academic	majors	(applied/pre-professional	areas)	placing	

less	of	an	emphasis	on	reading	and	mathematics	may	play	a	role	in	this	disparity.		This	

effect	may	also	be	intrinsic	to	basketball	and	football	since	the	outcomes	were	consistent	

independent	of	institutional	type	(NCAA	Division	I,	II,	and	III).		The	authors’	concern	is	

these	disadvantages	are	easily	seen	in	the	first	year	and	may	be	cumulative	over	four	years.	

Having	established	the	student-athlete	population	is,	in	fact,	unique,	the	following	

sections	focus	on	additional	developmental	challenges	faced	by	student-athletes.		These	

challenges	include	identity	and	career	development.	

27	

	
	
	
Athletic	Identity	Development		

During	late	adolescence,	individuals	typically	engage	in	the	process	of	establishing	

their	personal	identity	(Chickering,	1969).		This	process	requires	“an	active	exploration	of	

possible	roles	and	behaviors,	followed	by	a	commitment	to	the	occupational	and	

ideological	options	that	are	most	consistent	with	an	individual’s	values,	needs,	interests,	

and	skills”	(Murphy,	Petitpas,	&	Brewer,	1996).		Identity	development,	consequently,	is	

essential	to	nurturing	the	development	of	college	students	(Torres,	Jones,	&	Renn,	2009).			

Student-athletes	encounter	this	process	too.		However,	they	face	the	added	layer	of	

athletic	identity	development.		Athletic	identity	is	defined	as	the	extent	to	which	an	

individual	identifies	with	the	role	of	athlete,	with	an	emphasis	on	membership	in	a	group	

and	social	relatedness	(Brewer,	Van	Raalte,	&	Linder,	1993);	that	is,	the	strength	and	

exclusivity	with	which	the	athlete	role	is	associated	with	identity	development	(Good	et	al.,	

1993).				

The	research	has	established	student-athletes	have	to	deal	with	competing,	and	

potentially	conflicting,	identities	(Cooper	&	Cooper,	2015).		Healy,	Ntoumanis,	and	Duda	

(2016)	suggest	the	academic	and	athletic	identities	necessarily	exist	in	competition	and	

commitment	to	both	roles	is	very	difficult	to	maintain.		Yopyk	and	Prentice	(2005),	in	their	

study	on	identity	salience	and	stereotype	threat	of	student-athletes	highlight	this	idea	of	

competing	identities.		“By	virtue	of	their	identity	as	college	students,	they	are	assumed	to	

be	high	in	academic	ability	and	motivation.		By	virtue	of	their	identity	as	athletes,	they	are	

assumed	to	be	somewhat	lacking	in	these	qualities”	(p.	329).		Lu	and	colleagues	(2018),	in	

their	study	on	identity	salience	and	conflict,	not	only	found	identity	conflict	in	student-

athletes	is	relatively	high,	but	it	is	likely	increasing	over	time.		However,	Lu	and	colleagues	

28	

	
(2018)	also	found	a	positive	correlation	between	performance	and	identity	salience,	

specifically	“academic	performance	was	a	positive	and	significant	predictor	of	student	

identity	salience,	and	that	athletic	performance	predicted	athlete	identity	salience”	(p.	

234).			

Over	half	of	the	student-athletes	surveyed	by	Potuto	and	O’Hanlon	(2007)	indicated	

they	viewed	themselves	more	as	athletes	than	as	students.		Antshel	and	colleagues	(2016)	

found	student-athletes	identified	more	with	their	athletic	role	than	with	their	academic	

role,	but	only	slightly	so.		Factors	contributing	to	this	identity	include	the	time	and	effort	

devoted	to	athletics,	the	financial	support	offered	by	athletics,	interactions	with	individuals	

or	groups	who	also	view	them	as	athletes	rather	than	students,	and	interactions	with	other	

athletes.		Further,	student-athletes	who	compete	at	an	elite	level	tend	to	report	a	higher	

connection	with	the	athletic	aspect	of	their	identity,	versus	those	who	compete	at	a	sub-

elite	level	(Lupo	et	al.,	2017;	van	Rens,	Ashley,	&	Steele,	2019;	Yukhymenko-Lescroart,	

2014).			

As	the	level	of	athletic	competition	increases	(i.e.,	high	school	to	college	and	college	

to	professional),	so	does	the	time	commitment	and	skill	level	required	to	remain	

competitive.		Student-athletes	who	dedicate	the	amount	of	time	necessary	have	made	

sports	a	central	and	prominent	part	of	their	lives.		“Subsequently,	for	most	elite	athletes,	

the	time	and	effort	dedicated	to	sport	comprises	a	significant	portion,	or	the	majority	of	

their	social	and	personal	identity”	(Harrison	et	al.,	2011,	p.	94).		Additionally,	research	has	

shown	many	student-athletes	describe	having	to	make	a	difficult	choice	between	their	

academic	and	athletic	responsibilities.		The	result	is	they	have	to	sacrifice	one	for	the	other.		

29	

	
This	sacrifice	not	only	promotes	identity	conflict,	but	also	increases	the	level	of	stress	

student-athletes	feel	(Lu	et	al.,	2018).	

The	opportunities	for	student-athletes	to	participate	in	the	exploration	of	possible	

roles	experienced	by	non-athlete	students	may	be	limited	due	to	the	commitment	level	

required	for	success	in	their	sport	(Chartrand	&	Lent,	1987;	Pearson	&	Petitpas,	1990)	and	

the	young	age	at	which	athletic	identity	is	often	developed	(Brewer	&	Petitpas,	2017).		This	

lack	of	opportunity	can,	consequently,	have	an	impact	on	their	personal	and	career	identity	

development	(Murphy,	Petitpas,	&	Brewer,	1996).		Identity	foreclosure	occurs	when	

commitment	is	made	to	a	role	without	engaging	in	the	exploratory	process	(Petitpas,	

1978).		Researchers	suggest	the	dynamics	of	the	student-athlete	role	along	with	a	very	

restrictive	athletic	program,	could	engender	identity	foreclosure	(Chartrand	&	Lent,	1987)	

and	result	in	underdeveloped	educational	and	career	planning	(Blann,	1985;	Kennedy	&	

Dimick,	1987;	Sowa	&	Gressard,	1983).		Additionally,	athletic	identity	is	a	contributing	

factor	to	the	student-athlete’s	career	decision-making	process	and	is	positively	associated	

with	identity	foreclosure	(Good	et	al.,	1993).			

Murphy	and	colleagues	(1996)	conducted	a	study	to	investigate	the	relationship	

between	identity	foreclosure	and	athletic	identiy,	and	career	maturity	(i.e.,	the	extent	to	

which	career	planning	has	taken	place).		The	measures	used	were	the	Foreclosure	subscale	

of	the	Objective	Measure	of	Ego-Identity	Status	(for	identity	foreclosure),	the	Athletic	

Identity	Measurement	Scale	(for	athletic	identity),	and	the	Attitude	scale	of	the	Career	

Maturity	Inventory	(for	career	maturity).		The	results	showed	both	identity	foreclosure	and	

athletic	identity	were	inversely	related	to	career	maturity.		The	highest	risk	for	impeded	

career	developement	is	for	male	varsity	athletes	who	participate	in	revenue-generating	

30	

	
sports.		Those	who	identify	most	strongly	with	the	role	of	athlete	are	much	less	likely	to	

explore	the	possibilities	of	non-sport	related	career	options.	

Research	shows	seniors	in	high	school	who	are	athletes	are	more	highly	developed	

in	desirable	social	and	personal	traits,	while	seniors	in	college	who	are	non-athletes	tend	to	

be	more	advanced	in	these	areas	(Petitpas	&	Champagne,	1988).		The	authors	suggest	

college	athletes	experience	identity	foreclosure,	as	discussed	above,	which	limits	

exploratory	behavior	related	to	occupation	and/or	identity.	

High	levels	of	athletic	identity	are	associated	with	both	positive	and	negative	

outcomes.		Positive	outcomes	of	athletic	identity	include	enhanced	athletic	performance,	

increased	body	image,	and	positive	psychological	outcomes	during	training	exercises	

(Horton	&	Mack,	2000).		According	to	English	and	Kruger	(2020),	student-athletes	score	

significantly	higher	on	academic	tests	when	they	display	higher	academic	self-concept.			

Conversely,	a	student-athlete’s	athletic	identity	is	negatively	related	to	multiple	

factors,	including	academic	and	personal-emotional	adjustment	(Melendez,	2009),	

academic	mastery,	academic	goals,	and	even	ethical	sporting	conduct	(Yukhymenko-

Lescroart,	2018).		Additional	negative	outcomes	include	academic	disengagement	(Adler	&	

Adler,	1985),	sacrifice	of	other	means	of	identity	development	and	self-fulfillment	(Webb	et	

al.,	1998),	decreased	career	maturity	attitudes	and	increased	identity	foreclosure	(Beamon	

&	Bell,	2006;	Linnemeyer	&	Brown,	2010),	increased	identity	depression,	and	difficulty	

disengaging	from	participation	in	athletics,	particularly	when	an	injury	is	involved	

(Brewer,	Raalte,	&	Linder,	1993;	Torregrosa	et	al.,	2015;	Tshube	&	Feltz,	2015).		Similarly,	

one	of	the	major	psychosocial	differences	between	student-athletes	and	non-athletes	is	

31	

	
student-athletes	indicate	a	lower	level	of	purpose	development	(Gaston-Gayles	&	Hu,	

2009b).			

Racial	identity	is	linked	to	both	athletic	identity	and	identity	foreclosure.		Harrison	

and	his	colleagues	(2011)	made	a	strong	case	for	a	relationship	between	athletic	identity	

development	and	racial	identity	development	in	Black	males.		Their	study	found	Black	

student-athletes	playing	Division	I	football	reported	much	higher	levels	of	athletic	identity	

than	White	student-athletes.		Bimper	(2014)	found	the	athletic	identity	of	African-

American	student-athletes	negatively	predicted	academic	outcomes.		Other	differences	

between	White	and	Black	student-athletes,	related	to	identity,	have	been	cited	–	Black	

student-athletes	felt	others	viewed	them	primarily,	and	sometimes	only,	as	athletes;	and	

felt	sports	were	more	central	to	their	lives	than	did	their	White	counterparts	(Harrison	et	

al.,	2011;	Murphy	et	al.,	1996).		Fuller	and	colleagues	(2017)	analyzed	the	impact	of	racial	

and	athletic	identity	on	educational	performance	and	found	student-athletes	who	identified	

strongly	with	their	racial	group	had	higher	levels	of	academic	self-concept.			

A	large	body	of	research	indicates	identity	development,	particularly	for	African	

American	males,	begins	at	a	young	age	and	is	influenced	and	nurtured	by	their	community	

(Beamon,	2008;	Beamon	&	Bell,	2002;	Beamon	&	Bell	2006;	Eitle	&	Eitle,	2002;	Harrison	&	

Lawrence,	2003;	Smith,	2007),	making	this	particular	group	highly	susceptible	to	identity	

foreclosure	at	an	early	age.	

Athletic	Career	Development,	Maturity,	and	Retirement	

According	to	the	NCAA	(2017)	and	others	(Coakley,	2009),	only	1	to	2%	of	student-

athletes	go	on	to	play	their	sport	at	the	professional	level,	and	their	average	professional	

career	lasts	approximately	three	and	a	half	years.		This	result	means	the	vast	majority	of	

32	

	
collegiate	student-athletes,	even	in	the	revenue-generating	sports,	will	need	to	identify	a	

career	other	than	professional	athlete.	

Beyond	the	decision	or	desire	to	play	professional	sports,	there	is	a	strong	

relationship	between	athletic	identity	and	career-related	decision-making,	career	maturity,	

and	retirement	from	athletics.		The	following	sections	review	the	literature	related	to	these	

relationships.	

Career	Development	and	Maturity	

Two	of	the	main	factors	influencing	career	decisions	are	identity	development	and	

involvement	in	activities	associated	with	future	career	choices.		These	processes	are	most	

influential	during	adolescence	and	between	the	ages	of	18	and	24	respectively	(Super,	

1990)	–	the	age	range	of	traditional	college	students	and	student-athletes.		Involvement	in	

these	activities	allows	the	individual	to	explore	and	develop	skills	related	to	their	potential	

future	occupation,	while	simultaneously	setting	goals	and	expectations	for	the	future	

(Cabrita	et	al.,	2014),	which	can	relate	to	profitability	of	the	career	(Saunders	&	Fogarty,	

2001)	and	the	emotional	value	the	career	holds	(Husman	&	Shell,	2008).		At	this	point,	

career	development	and	athletic	identity	development	collide.	

Since	athletic	identity	is	directly	related	to	the	amount	of	time	and	effort	devoted	to	

the	athletic	role	(Brewer	et	al.,	1993),	the	consistent	presence	of	athletics	in	an	individual’s	

life	can	result	in	the	athletic	identity	becoming	inseparable	from	the	athletic	role	(Cabrita	

et	al.,	2014).		This	inseparability	can	potentially	result	in	the	limitation	of	career	

development	to	include	only	careers	within	the	realm	of	sports	(Griffith	&	Johnson,	2002).		

Watson	and	Kissinger	(2007)	suggest	student-athletes	are	more	likely	than	their	non-

athlete	peers	to	struggle	with	developing	career	maturity	and	clear	educational	plans.	

33	

	
There	is	a	significant	amount	of	evidence	in	studies	looking	at	the	relationship	

between	athletic	identity	and	career	development	of	student-athletes	that	the	relationship	

between	the	two	is	inversely	correlated	–	the	greater	degree	to	which	a	student-athlete	

develops	their	athletic	identity,	the	higher	the	risk	of	underdeveloped	career	maturity.		

Below	are	examples	from	this	body	of	research.		There	are,	however,	at	least	two	studies	

that	contradict,	or	at	least	challenge,	the	notion	there	is	a	direct	correlation	between	

athletic	identity	and	career	maturity.			

First,	I	address	the	studies	indicating	higher	levels	of	athletic	identity	are	associated	

with	lower	levels	of	career	maturity	and	development.		Gaston-Gayles	and	Hu	(2009)	

report	“[S]everal	studies	have	focused	on	the	career	maturity	of	athletes	relative	to	their	

non-athlete	peers,	and	the	evidence	in	general	suggests	that	athletes	tend	to	differ	from	

their	non-athlete	peers	in	their	levels	of	career	maturity	and	psychosocial	development”	(p.	

35).		That	is,	they	demonstrate	a	lower	level	of	career	maturity.		Others	have	also	suggested	

student-athletes,	especially	those	in	revenue-generating	sports,	have	been	identified	as	

being	slower	to	develop	in	regard	to	career	planning	than	are	their	non-athlete	peers	

(Blann,	1985;	Kennedy	&	Dimmick,	1987;	Sowa	&	Gressard,	1983).	

Kennedy	and	Dimick	(1987)	used	the	Career	Maturity	Inventory	to	look	at	the	

career	maturity	of	college	football	and	basketball	players	who	were	on	scholarship	and	

compared	them	to	nonathletes.		Findings	indicated	student	athletes	were	much	lower	in	

career	maturity	than	nonathletes,	although	there	was	no	significant	difference	between	

Caucasian	and	African	American	athletes.		About	48%	of	athletes	expected	to	play	their	

sport	professionally,	while	statistics	show,	and	the	NCAA	(2017)	confirms,	only	

approximately	2%	will	actually	achieve	this	goal.	

34	

	
Further	evidence	higher	levels	of	athletic	identity	are	associated	with	lower	levels	of	

career	development	and	maturity	is	provided	by	Blann	(1985)	who	starts	with	the	premise	

"sport	participation	over	an	extended	time	can	be	dysfunctional	to	the	individual"	(p.	115).		

He	collected	data	from	student-athletes	who	participated	in	high-level	(scholarship)	

athletics	and	low-level	(non-scholarship)	athletics,	as	well	as	non-athletes,	based	on	the	

Student	Developmental	Task	Inventory	-	specifically	task	2,		"Developing	Purpose."		In	

general,	juniors	and	seniors	scored	higher	than	first-year	students	and	sophomores,	and	

low-level	athletes	scored	higher	than	high-level	athletes.		Specifically,	results	indicated	

underclass	male	athletes	who	participate	in	both	high-	and	low-level	athletics	did	not	score	

as	high	(i.e.,	had	not	formulated	educational	and	career	goals	to	the	extent)	as	underclass	

male	non-athletes.		Upperclass	athletes	(at	both	competitive	levels)	and	non-athletes	

scored	similarly.		These	results	indicate	either	male	athletes	become	more	focused	on	

career	and	educational	goals	after	their	sophomore	year	or	those	who	do	not	focus	on	these	

goals	do	not	persist	to	their	junior	and	senior	year.	

The	following	two	studies	provide	evidence	there	may	not	always	be	a	direct	

correlation	between	high	athletic	identity	and	low	career	maturity.		Brown	and	Hartley’s	

(1998)	research	indicated	a	specific	sub-population	of	student-athletes	who	were	more	

susceptible	to	lower	levels	of	career	maturity	–	student-athletes	whose	preference	in	

career	choice	was	to	participate	in	professional	sports	were	more	likely	to	have	lower	

career	maturity	levels	than	their	peers	who	indicated	interest	in	other	occupations.		They	

suggest	the	level	to	which	the	student-athlete	identifies	as	a	student	(i.e.,	the	student	

idenity)	could	be	a	moderating	variable	and,	as	a	result,	a	direct	relationship	between	

athletic	identity	and	career	maturity	might	not	exist.		Brown	continued	to	posit	this	idea	in	

35	

	
later	research	(Brown,	Glastetter-Fender,	&	Shelton,	2000),	saying,	“it	is	possible	for	a	

student-athlete	to	express	high	athletic	identity	while	also	possessing	a	strong	commitment	

to	his/her	student	role	identity.		Doing	so	would	likely	allow	for	exploration	in	other	life	

and	career	domains”	(p.	60).			

Similarly,	Kornspan	and	Etzel	(2001)	looked	at	both	demographic	and	psychological	

variables	and	how	they	relate	to	career	maturity.		They	found	while	career	locus	of	control	

(the	extent	to	which	an	individual	believes	outcomes	of	career	choices	result	from	their	

own	choices	and	behaviors	[internal]	or	from	outside	forces[external]),	gender,	and	career	

self-efficacy	were	the	three	most	significant	predictors	of	career	maturity,	athletic	identity	

was	not	a	predictor.		This	study	was	conducted	with	junior	college	student-athletes,	and	the	

authors	suggest,	consistent	with	Brown	and	Hartley	(1998),	future	research	account	for	the	

student	identity	level	of	the	student-athletes,	since	this	level	could	be	a	mitigating	factor.	

Two	possiblities	for	why	there	are	varations	in	the	research	related	to	the	

relationship	between	athletic	identity	and	career	development	are	described	below.	

First,	one	of	the	distinguishing	factors	these	studies	highlight	is	the	difference	

between	looking	strictly	at	athletic	identity	as	it	relates	to	career	development	and	looking	

at	whether	or	not	the	student-athlete	believes	there	is	a	high	probablility	of	advancing	to	

the	professional	level	(Linnemeyer	&	Brown,	2010).		Student-athletes	who	possess	a	

relatively	high	athletic	identity,	but	who	do	not	believe	they	will	play	their	sport	

professionally,	may	be	forced	to	identify	alternative	career	choices;	whereras,	those	who	

do	intend	to	play	professionally	are	more	prone	to	identity	and	career	foreclosure.			

Second,	although	much	of	the	research	points	to	the	fact	there	is	at	least	a	moderate	

inverse	correlation	between	athletic	identity	and	career	development,	the	variations	in	the	

36	

	
results	of	these	studies,	at	the	very	least,	“impl[ies]	that	some	athletes	may	be	less	prepared	

than	others	to	make	career	choices	and	will	consequently	perform	more	poorly	on	tasks	

assessing	career	choice	exploration”	(Cabrita	et	al.,	2014,	pp.	473-474).		Cabrita	and	

colleagues	(2014)	use	Taylor	and	Betz’s	(1983)	model	of	career	decision-making	self-

efficacy	(CDMSE)	to	explain	the	discrepancy	in	research	results	related	to	athletic	identity	

and	career	development.		Taylor	and	Betz	(1983)	define	CDMSE	as	an	individual’s	belief	in	

his	or	her	ability	to	be	successful	in	completing	the	tasks	essential	to	making	a	career	

decision	and	include	five	specific	competencies:	(a)	the	ability	to	accurately	self-appraise,	

(b)	the	ability	to	gather	appropriate	occupational	information	(related	to	professions	being	

considered),	(c)	the	ability	to	select	goals,	(d)	the	ability	to	make	plans	for	the	future	in	

order	to	attain	goals,	and	(e)	the	ability	to	problem	solve.		Therefore,	student-athletes	who	

are	able	to	master	these	competencies,	regardless	of	their	level	of	athletic-identity,	can	

develop	a	higher	level	of	career	maturity.			

Athletic	Retirement	

Athletes	have	a	tendency	to	experience	events	and	issues	different	from	the	typical	

transitions	faced	during	adolescence.		Pearson	and	Petitpas	(1990)	focus	on	three	specific	

transitions	frequently	faced	by	athletes:	not	making	the	team,	injury,	and	retirement	from	

sport.		Athletes	are	particularly	vulnerable	to	these	transitions	because	they	have	

potentially	narrowed	their	focus	and	found	their	sense	of	identity	only	in	athletics.		This	

narrowing	of	focus	happens	through	increasing	levels	of	athletic	competition	and	shifting	

developmental	tasks	away	from	those	typically	experienced	by	college	age	students,	such	

as:	discovery	of	a	personal	identity,	exploratory	behavior,	and	learning	life	skills.		Common	

barriers	to	successful	transitions	include	the	unpredictability	of	injury,	lack	of	supportive	

37	

	
relationships,	and	individual	attitude	(i.e.,	willingness	to	ask	for	help).		When	a	student-

athlete	is	almost	solely	focused	on	athletics,	the	transition	to	retirement	can	result	in	

burnout	and	psychological	distress	(Wylleman,	Rosier,	&	De	Knop,	2015).	

Chartrand	and	Lent	(1987)	identified	a	need	for	more	research	on	the	long-term	

impact	of	participation	in	athletics	on	the	psychological	development	of	student-athletes.		

In	addition	to	the	conflict	in	roles	student-athletes	face	(i.e.,	student	vs.	athlete),	the	other	

significant	problem	they	identified	was	the	idea	of	retirement	from	athletics,	noting	the	

distress	evident	in	student-athletes	when	sports	end	and	it	is	necessary	to	move	on.		These	

results	relate	very	closely	to	Sowa	and	Gressard’s	(1983)	findings	regarding	the	difficulty	

of	athletes	finding	individual	purpose	beyond	the	sports	in	which	they	are	involved.		In	her	

ethnographic	study,	Beamon	(2012)	found	former	student-athletes	who	participated	in	

Division	I	basketball	and	football	(some	played	sports	professionally),	had	a	very	difficult	

time	with	athletic	retirement	due	to	their	extremely	high	level	of	athletic	identity.		

Alternatively,	some	student-athletes	choose	to	re-prioritize	academics	after	suffering	a	

career	ending	injury,	making	it	easier	to	transition	out	of	sports	(Stoltenburg	et	al.,	2011)	

and	away	from	their	athletic	identity.	

Three	theoretical	models	are	discussed	as	potential	interventions	and	options	for	

counseling	student-athletes	who	find	this	transition	challenging.		First,	the	

psychoeducational	model	(Danish	&	Hale,	1981;	Guerney	et	al.,	1971)	offers	a	holisitic	

approach	emphasizing	the	acquisition	of	a	broad	range	of	skills	and	the	development	of	

personal	competencies.		Second,	the	Integrative-Behavioral	Model	(Brown	&	Heath,	1984)	

focuses	on	the	emotional	and	behavioral	responses	to	major/critical	life	events,	such	as	

athletic	retirement.		According	to	this	model,	an	adequate	coping	strategy	includes	

38	

	
expectedness	and	preparedness	for	these	events.		Third,	the	conflict	theory	(Janis	&	Mann,	

1977)	promotes	"proactive	decisional	behavior"	(p.	165)	encouraging	a	commitment	to	the	

development	of	nonathletic	skills	without	undermining	the	student-athletes	commitment	

to	sport.	

Since	the	transition	from	the	role	of	athlete	to	non-athlete	can	be	difficult	for	many	

student-athletes	and	because	previous	career	inventories	were	designed	for	the	general	

public,	Sandstedt	and	colleagues	(2004)	developed	the	Student-Athlete	Career	Situation	

Inventory	(SACSI)	specifically	for	student-athletes	in	order	to	gage	their	attitudes,	beliefs,	

and	interests	related	to	career	preparation.		They	identified	five	factors	found	to	be	

significant:	(a)	Career	Development	Self-efficacy	–		"the	degree	to	which	a	student-athlete	

feels	confident	in	his	or	her	ability	to		engage	in	career	development	tasks"	(p.	90);	(b)	

Career	versus	Sport	Identity	Factor	–	the	"propensity	to	see	himself	or	herself	more	as	a	

student	seeking	academic	and	career	achievement	as	opposed	to	athletic	achievement"	(p.	

90);	(c)	Locus	of	Control	–	"the	degree	to	which	a	student-athlete	feels	that	he	or	she	has	

the	power	to	make	decisions	regarding	his	or	her	career	development"	(p.	90-91);	(d)	

Barriers	to	Career	Development	–	"the	numerous	aspects	that	are	inherent	within	the	role	

of	a	student-athlete	that	may	hinder	career	development"	(p.	91);	and	(e)	Sport	to	Work	

Relationship	–	the	"ability	to	recognize	valuable	skills	that	can	be	taken	from	their	sport	

experience	and	used	in	career	settings"	(p.	91).		These	five	factors	are	consistent	with	the	

athletic	retirement	literature	and	make	the	SACSI	a	reliable	tool.	

Theoretical	Framework	

This	study	generally	relies	on	student	development	theory	and	more	specifically	on	

the	theory	espoused	by	Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	in	their	collective	work	on	the	seven	

39	

	
	
vectors	of	student	development.		Chickering	and	Reisser’s	work	was	selected	as	the	general	

theoretical	framework	of	the	study	because	it	not	only	provides	a	holistic,	whole-person	

perspective	on	student	development,	but	also	engages	readers	and	practitioners	in	a	deep-

dive	into	seven	highly	specific	aspects	of	the	developmental	experience.			

Two	of	the	vectors	–	establishing	identity	and	developing	purpose	–	serve	as	the	

primary	theoretical	foundation	for	the	analysis	of	defining	student-athlete	success.		While	

all	of	the	vectors	are	present	to	some	extent	during	college,	these	two	resonate	the	most	

with	the	focus	of	this	study	and	are	most	salient	as	they	relate	to	developing	and	identifying	

a	definition	of	success.		Within	this	broader	context,	certain	aspects	of	identity	theory	

(Heird	&	Steinfeldt,	2013)	offer	a	more	focused	perspective	on	the	experience	of	student-

athletes	and	the	creation	of	their	success	definition.		The	following	section	provides	context	

for	the	theoretical	framework	by	outlining	brief	history	of	student	development	theory,	

detailing	an	analysis	of	the	work	of	Chickering	and	Reisser,	and	introducing	identity	and	

purpose	development.	

Student	Development	Theory	

Student	development	theory,	in	general,	describes	how	students	make	meaning	of	

their	individual	and	collective	experiences	and	encompasses	specific	areas	such	as	

intellectual,	spiritual,	psychosocial,	sexual,	and	racial	development	(Wilson	&	Wolf-Wendel,	

2005).		As	with	other	theoretical	frameworks,	student	development	theory	has	its	roots	in	

the	theory	of	other	disciplines	and	has	evolved	over	the	years.		Prior	to	the	work	of	early	

student	development	theorists,	it	was	Erik	Erikson’s	work	in	psychology	(Pascarella	&	

Terenzini,	1991)	and	his	development	of	the	psychosocial	stages	that	helped	explain	the	

progressive	change	and	development	of	college	age	individuals.		Nevitt	Sanford	(1962,	

40	

	
1966)	was	one	of	the	first	individuals	to	consider	the	connection	between	the	development	

of	individual	students	and	the	role	colleges	could	play	in	their	development.		He	suggested	

colleges	foster	an	environment	of	challenge	and	support.		“Sanford	knew	that	

disequilibrium	was	an	essential	catalyst	for	learning	new	skills	and	knowledge,	for	

differentiation	and	integration”	(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993,	p.	1).		After	Sanford,	student	

development	theorists	began	to	posit	their	ideas	through	a	variety	of	lenses.			

Pascarella	and	Terenzini	(1991)	outlined	many	of	these	theories,	categorizing	them	

into	four	major	clusters:	(1)	psychosocial,	(2)	cognitive-structural,	(3)	typological,	and	(4)	

person-environment	interaction.		The	psychosocial	theories	are	those	that	see	

development	as	a	sequential	process	through	which	individuals	progress	as	they	

accomplish	certain	“developmental	tasks”	(p.	19).		Examples	of	psychosocial	theorists	are	

Chickering	(seven	vectors)	and	Marcia	(ego	identity	status).			

For	the	purposes	of	this	study,	the	psychosocial	theory	of	Chickering	and	Reisser	

(1993)	is	used	as	a	lens	through	which	to	view	student-athlete	development	and	their	

definition	of	success.					

Chickering	and	Reisser’s	Student	Development	Theory	

Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	identified	seven	“vectors”	providing	a	theoretical	

model	designed	to	educate	the	whole	student,	stating,	“colleges	must	hire	and	reinforce	

staff	members	who	understand	what	student	development	looks	like	and	how	to	foster	it”	

(p.	44).		Without	this	holistic	perspective	on	student	development,	institutions	“can	become	

a	dispensary	of	services,	a	training	ground	for	jobs	that	may	not	exist,	or	a	holding	tank	for	

those	not	sure	what	to	do	next”	(p.	44).		With	these	warnings	in	mind,	the	seven	vectors	

play	a	significant	role	in	framing	the	development	of	the	whole	student.		Developing	

41	

	
competence	(Vector	1)	is	practical	in	nature,	highlighting	the	need	for	intellectual,	

interpersonal,	and	physical	skill	competence.		Managing	emotions	(Vector	2)	helps	the	

student	navigate	the	educational	process	while	dealing	with	negative	and	positive	

emotions.		Moving	through	autonomy	toward	interdependence	(Vector	3)	describes	the	

process	through	which	students	become	appropriately	independent	while	recognizing	

their	need	for	new	and	iterative	relationships.		Developing	mature	interpersonal	

relationships	(Vector	4)	means	students	are	able	to	not	only	tolerate,	but	appreciate,	

differences	with	others	and	increase	in	their	capacity	for	intimate	relationships.		

Establishing	identity	(Vector	5)	is	the	complex	process	of	developing	a	sense	of	self	in	a	

variety	of	areas	including	body	image,	sexuality,	social	settings,	and	self-acceptance.		

Developing	purpose	(Vector	6)	is	the	establishment	of	an	intentional	plan	of	action	

regarding	vocational,	personal,	and	interpersonal	priorities.		Developing	integrity	(Vector	

7)	is	the	process	of	evaluating	blindly	held	beliefs,	affirming	core	beliefs,	and	“matching	

personal	values	with	socially	responsible	behavior”	(pg.	51).				

While	each	of	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	vectors	have	significant	application	for	an	

individual	student’s	development,	and	each	emerged	to	a	limited	extent	in	the	interviews,	

two	of	the	vectors	–	establishing	identity	and	developing	purpose	–	are	of	particular	

importance	to	this	study.		These	two	specific	vectors	were	selected	as	the	context	for	this	

study	for	several	reasons.			

First,	a	theme	surfacing	over	and	over	again	in	the	literature	is	the	centrality	of	the	

development	of	the	athletic	identity	for	student-athletes.		There	is	a	social	aspect	to	

identity,	but	it	can	also	become	a	cognitive	structure	operating	within	a	student	and	can	

have	a	significant	impact	on	other	aspects	of	identity,	depending	on	how	deeply	it	is	

42	

	
engaged	and	ingrained.		Additionally,	the	vector	of	establishing	identity	is	important	due	to	

the	complexity	of	the	student-athlete	identity.		There	is,	at	best,	a	duality	to	the	identity,	

and	at	worst,	a	conflict	within	the	identity	–	being	both	a	student	and	an	athlete.			

The	vector	of	developing	purpose	is	closely	tied	to	establishing	identity	and	brings	

other	aspects	of	the	individual	into	play,	including	their	aspirations	and	priorities,	that	are	

central	to	this	study.		According	to	Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993),	these	aspirations	and	

priorities	can	be	personal	(recreational	and	avocational),	vocational	(educational	and	

career),	and	interpersonal	(relational).			This	vector	is	important	as	a	measure	of	how	the	

student-athlete	identity	manifests	itself	in	the	individual’s	life	and	goals	and	contributes	to	

their	definition	of	success.		

The	following	sections	describe	these	two	vectors	in	greater	detail,	provide	a	

framework	for	understanding	the	context	of	the	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success,	

place	them	in	the	larger	context	of	identity	and	purpose	development,	and	explain	how	

these	concepts	apply	specifically	to	student-athletes.	

Establishing	(Athletic)	Identity	

Identity	theorists	view	a	person’s	self-concept	or	identity	as	“a	multidimensional	

structure	that	is	composed	of	his	or	her	feelings	and	thoughts	about	the	self	within	various	

aspects	of	life”	(Heird	&	Steinfeldt,	2013,	p.	143).			Since	identity	is	multidimensional,	

individuals	process	these	feelings	and	thoughts	through	different	perspectives,	and	at	

different	times,	in	order	to	make	sense	of	them.		Identity	salience	occurs	when	a	particular	

dimension	of	the	identity	is	activated	and	reinforced	over	time.		Heird	and	Steinfeldt	

(2013)	state,		

“identity	salience	can	be	conceptualized	as	the	probability	that	a	given	identity	will	
be	activated	in	a	given	situation.		The	importance	of	a	given	role	begins	to	define	

43	

	
	
people’s	core	identity	through	with	they	interpret	most,	if	not	all,	situations”	(p.	
144).		

College	provides	a	unique	opportunity	for	students	to	develop	their	identity	in	many	

ways,	including	personally,	socially,	and	psychologically.		Chickering	and	Reiser	(1993)	

describe	identity	as,	

	“that	solid	sense	of	self,	that	inner	feeling	of	mastery	and	ownership	that	takes	

shape	as	the	developmental	tasks	for	competence,	emotions,	autonomy,	and	relationships	
are	undertaken	with	some	success,	and	that,	as	it	becomes	firmer,	provides	a	framework	
for	purpose	and	integrity”	(p.	181).			

Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	go	on	to	identify	specific	components	contributing	to	

the	“solid	sense	of	self.”		First	are	students’	comfort	with	their	body	and	appearance.		While	

self-consciousness	is	an	issue	that	can	be	perpetuated	on	a	college	campus,	there	are	many	

opportunities	for	growth	and	the	acceptance	of	one’s	body.		With	an	intense	focus	on	health	

and	fitness,	student-athletes	can	be	extremely	successful,	but	also	very	vulnerable,	

regarding	the	acceptance	of	their	physical	characteristics.		The	second	component	of	

establishing	identity	moves	beyond	the	physical,	to	a	student’s	comfort	with	gender	and	

sexual	orientation.		For	many	students	comfort	involves	a	process	of	awareness,	

exploration,	and,	ultimately,	acceptance	of	both	gender	and	sexual	orientation.			Developing	

a	sense	of	self	in	social,	historical,	and	cultural	contexts	is	the	third	component	of	

establishing	identity.		Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	suggest	a	positive	identity	requires	“a	

sense	of	one’s	roots	in	a	particular	cultural,	historical,	and	social	context”	(p.	194)	so	they	

are	able	to	value	their	own	values	and	traditions,	and	those	of	others.		Another	component	

of	identity	development	is	the	ability	to	clarify	self-concept	through	roles	and	lifestyle.		

Students	have	many	opportunities	to	try	out	different	lifestyles	and	roles	in	an	effort	to	

clarify	who	they	are.		Student-athletes	take	on	a	role	and	lifestyle	particular	to	their	set	of	

44	

	
	
circumstances	and	that,	many	times,	are	established	by	the	culture	of	intercollegiate	

athletics	(Kamusoko	&	Pemberton,	2013;	Meyer,	1990).		The	next	component	of	identity	

development	Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	propose	is	the	establishment	of	a	sense	of	self	

in	response	to	feedback	received	from	those	we	value.		The	feedback	allows	students	to	

form	a	picture	of	how	others	perceive	them.		Again,	this	component	is	relevant	to	student-

athletes	who	constantly	receive	feedback	from	academic	staff	regarding	their	grades	and	

eligibility	and	from	athletic	staff	regarding	performance	in	their	particular	sport.		A	

student-athlete’s	perception	of	how	the	coach,	in	turn,	perceives	them	is	especially	

impactful	(Adler	&	Adler,	1991).		The	next	component	in	the	identity	development	process	

involves	self-acceptance	and	self-esteem.		Students	begin	to	develop	greater	confidence	and	

a	stronger	sense	of	self-worth	based	on	their	own	personal	standards,	rather	than	always	

comparing	themselves	with	others.		The	final	component	of	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	

(1993)	identity	development	is	a	sense	of	stability	and	integration,	which	means	the	

student	has	a	“sense	of	balance	and	perspective”	(p.	201)	regarding	their	identity	and	

values	and	are	aware	of	the	systems	and	communities	of	which	they	are	a	part.	

As	a	result	of	considering	these	seven	components	of	identity	development,	

questions	can	be	posed	such	as,	“What	roles	best	fit	my	sense	of	self?...What	roles	are	

genuine	expressions	or	extensions	of	myself,	helping	me	to	define	more	sharply	who	I	

am?...How	stable	and	clear	am	I	about	who	I	am	and	what	is	important?”	(Chickering	&	

Reisser,	1993,	p.	182).		Students	answer	these	types	of	identity-related	questions	as	they	

navigate	their	way	through	college	and	progressively	develop	their	own	sense	of	identity.		

While	identity	development	is	a	complicated	process,	dealing	with	multiple	

identities	and	their	potential	conflicts	can	be	even	more	challenging.		Watt	and	Moore	

45	

	
(2001)	point	out	participation	in	intercollegiate	athletics	can	add	a	layer	of	complexity	to	

the	identity	development	process	that	is	many	times	unanticipated	by	student-athletes.		In	

its	broadest	senses,	athletic	identity	is	a	social	role	student-athletes	assume.		In	its	most	

narrow	sense,	athletic	identity	becomes	a	cognitive	structure	(Brewer,	Van	Raalte,	&	

Linder,	1993).		Some	research	points	to	the	fact	student-athletes	can	develop	such	strong	

athletic	identities	(Adler	&	Adler,	1991;	Sparkes,	1998)	they	have	a	“tendency	to	commit	

exclusively	to	a	single	athletic	role	at	the	expense	of	meaningful	exploration	of	other	

available	roles”	(Lally	&	Kerr,	2005,	p.	276).		Development	of	such	a	strong	athletic	identity	

can	potentially	have	a	negative	influence	on	their	academic	performance	(Pearson	&	

Petitpas,	1990)	and	their	career	development	(Chartrand	&	Lent,	1987;	Lally	&	Kerr,	2005;	

Martens	&	Cox,	2000).		Many	student-athletes,	particularly	in	revenue-generating	sports,	

identify	so	exclusively	with	their	sport	they	are	much	less	likely	to	explore	the	possibilities	

of	non-sport	related	career	options	(Murphy,	Petitpas,	&	Brewer,	1996).			

Newton,	Gill,	and	Reifsteck	(2020)	identified	three	broad	themes	that	help	explain	

how	student-athletes	ascribe	meaning	to	their	athletic	identity.		First,	student-athletes	

weave	their	athletic	identity	with	their	personality	over	time,	so	they	see	their	athletic	

identity	as	“Part	of	Me”	(Newton,	Gill,	&	Reifsteck,	2020,	p.	73).		There	is	an	ownership	of	

the	role	fostered	through	continued	involvement	in	athletics	and	the	central	place	this	

involvement	occupies	in	their	lives.		Second,	student-athletes	see	their	commitment	to	this	

identity	as	occurring	throughout	a	journey.		The	journey	includes	both	long-	and	short-

range	experiences,	negative	and	positive,	with	a	particular	focus	on	their	daily	routine	and	

athletic	performance.		And	third,	student-athletes	recognized	their	identity	was	socially	

reinforced,	describing	their	athletic	community	as	family.			

46	

	
Such	a	strong	connection	to	identity	development,	and	the	related	impact	on	career	

development,	are	important	foundational	concepts	in	how	student-athletes	define	success.	

Chapter	2	provides	further	consideration	to	student-athlete	identity	development,	

including	research	on	positive	and	negative	outcomes,	competing	identities,	identity	

foreclosure,	racial	identity,	and	intersectionality.	

Developing	Purpose	

As	college	students	progress	in	their	development	of	identity,	they	also	begin	to	

develop	an	increasing	sense	of	purpose,	defined	as	the	“ability	to	be	intentional,	to	assess	

interests	and	options,	to	clarify	goals,	to	make	plans,	and	to	persist	despite	obstacles”	

(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993,	p.	209).		Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	state	in	order	to	clarify	

purpose,	it	is	essential	students	develop	action	plans	and	priorities	related	to	vocational	

plans	and	aspirations,	personal	interests,	and	interpersonal	and	family	commitments.		

Vocational	plans	are	not	simply	about	finding	a	job	or	career.		Students	“discover	

[their]	vocation	by	discovering	what	[they]	love	to	do…and	what	actualizes	[their]	potential	

for	excellence”	(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993,	p.	212).		This	concept	can	be	difficult	to	master	

since	many	students	entering	college	are	doing	so	with	the	goal	of	getting	a	job	and	making	

money.		But	this	concept	resonates	with	many	student-athletes	since	they	would	love	for	

their	passion,	sports,	to	also	be	their	vocation.		However,	the	number	of	student-athletes	

who	ultimately	progress	to	the	paid,	professional	level	of	their	sport	is	minimal	(Coakley,	

2009;	NCAA,	2013).	

Building	on	vocational	plans	and	aspirations,	personal	interests	shape	each	

student’s	decisions	regarding	time	spent	on	avocational	and	recreational	activities	

(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993).		When	a	student	discovers	a	new	interest	or	chooses	to	

47	

	
	
	
	
	
continue	an	existing	interest,	the	time	spent	on	other	activities	tends	to	decrease.		This	

decrease	is	highly	relevant	to	student-athletes	who	want	to	excel	in	their	sport	and	must,	

therefore,	intentionally	dedicate	more	and	more	time	to	it	–	oftentimes	at	the	expense	of	

other	interests	(Carodine	et	al.,	2001;	Eiche	et	al.,	1997a).	

The	final	piece	of	developing	purpose	is	the	consideration	of	interpersonal	and	

family	commitments	(Chickering	and	Reisser,	1993).		These	commitments	provide	an	

added	layer	of	complexity	to	a	student’s	decision	of	where	to	spend	their	time	and	effort.		

As	students	progress	through	college,	they	make	choices	such	as	whether	or	not	to	pursue	

a	romantic	relationship	and	whether	or	not	to	move	home	after	graduation.		They	must	also	

make	compromises	in	order	to	allow	for	the	implications	of	these	and	other	decisions	

related	to	the	people	in	their	life.					

Developing	intentional	action	plans	around	vocational	aspirations,	personal	

interests,	and	interpersonal	commitments,	coupled	with	the	establishment	of	identity	

discussed	above,	can	be	used	as	a	framework	for	identifying	and	explaining	the	

development	of	a	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success.		This	theoretical	model	is	

highlighted	in	the	next	section.			

Theoretical	Model	

Based	on	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	(1993)	vectors	of	establishing	identity	and	

developing	purpose,	the	model	below	(Figure	1)	outlines	the	iterative	process	students,	

and	student-athletes	in	particular,	follow	in	the	development	of	their	definition	of	success.	

48	

	
	
	
Development	of	Success	Definition

Development	of	Identity

General
Athletic	Identity
Identity	Salience/Conflict

Development	of	
Purpose
Vocational
Personal
Interpersonal	and	Family

Figure	1:	Theoretical	Model	

The	literature	cited	above	provides	extensive	examples	of	the	centrality	of	student	

development	to	the	overall	student	experience.		As	such,	establishing	identity	and	

developing	purpose,	the	two	most	salient	developmental	processes	for	student-athletes	at	

this	stage,	provide	a	framework	for	understanding	the	context	of	the	student-athlete’s	

definition	of	success.		First,	student-athletes	engage	the	process	of	establishing	their	own	

identity,	as	a	person	and	as	a	student-athlete,	while	navigating	the	potential	conflict	these	

multiple	identities	present.		Second,	the	process	of	developing	purpose	emerges	as	their	

identity	informs	vocational	aspirations,	personal	interests,	and	interpersonal	relationships.		

While	these	processes	are	occurring,	the	student-athlete’s	personal	definition	of	success	is	

changing	and	adjusting	as	they	make	intentional	choices	regarding	their	developed	identity	

and	purpose.	

For	the	purposes	of	this	study,	success	defined	relative	to	vocational	purpose	

includes	both	educational	(e.g.,	grades,	graduation,	and	credentialing)	and	career	related	

49	

	
	
	
goals	(e.g.,	athletic	career,	non-athletic	career,	or	a	combination	of	both).		Success	defined	

relative	to	purpose	in	personal	interests	includes	avocational	and	recreational	goals.		And	

success	defined	relative	to	purpose	in	interpersonal	and	family	commitments	includes	

relational	goals.		While	purpose	related	to	personal	and	interpersonal	development	is	

important,	this	study	focused	on	the	vocational	purpose,	which	provides	a	framework	for	

assessing	and	categorizing	how	student-athletes	define	success.	

Academic	Success	Programs	

Other	factors	that	contribute	to	the	uniqueness	of	student-athletes	are	the	multi-

million-dollar	practice	facilities	and	academic	buildings	built	and	devoted	solely	to	the	

athletic	and	academic	success	of	student-athletes.		In	addition	to	these	brick	and	mortar	

structures,	programs	such	as	the	NCAA’s	Life	Skills	(NCAA,	2017c;	Ward,	1999)	have	been	

created	to	increase	the	overall	success	of	student-athletes.		A	partnership	between	the	

NCAA’s	national	office	and	its	member	institutions,	the	Life	Skills	program	was	established	

to	emulate	Dr.	Homer	Rice’s	“Total	Person	Project”	at	Georgia	Institute	of	Technology.		The	

program	provides	student-athletes	with	leadership	development	and	skills	to	assist	them	

in	college	and	beyond	through	annual	conferences,	internship	opportunities,	test	prep	

services,	and	behavior	assessments.		While	much	of	the	focus	of	the	literature	is	on	a	pre-

defined	definition	of	success,	which	includes	academic	success	or	persistence	to	

graduation,	programs	such	as	NCAA	Life	Skills	begin	to	move	beyond	this	definition	to	a	

more	comprehensive	understanding	of	success.	

In	recent	years,	institutional	programs	devoted	specifically	to	the	support	and	

success	of	student-athletes	have	become	increasingly	prevalent	on	university	campuses,	

particularly	Bowl	Championship	Series	Division	I	schools	with	large	athletic	programs	and	

50	

	
budgets.		These	programs	are	referred	to	by	different	names	on	each	campus,	but	their	

titles	typically	refer	to	the	program’s	focus	on	student-athlete	academic	success;	therefore	I	

refer	to	them	as	Student-Athlete	Success	Programs,	or	SASPs.	

One	of	the	main	reasons	for	the	initial	growth	of	SASPs	was	the	ever-increasing	

standards	of	requirement	for	athletic	eligibility	imposed	by	the	NCAA	and	the	individual	

athletic	conferences.		And	while	eligibility	continues	to	be	a	major	driving	force	(Broughton	

&	Neyer,	2001),	many	programs	are	looking	at	student-athlete	success	and	development	

from	a	more	holistic	perspective	–	and	developing	programming	to	match	this	perspective.		

This	type	of	programming,	though,	requires	certain	components	in	order	to	be	successful.		

Based	largely	on	the	research	of	Gunn	and	Eddy	(1989),	Hollis	(2001)	suggests	SASPs	

“need	specifically	trained	personnel,	services,	and	university	presidential	support	to	

effectively	create	equal	opportunity	for	student	athletes”	(pp.	271-272).	

The	specific	services	offered	by	SASPs	vary	from	program	to	program,	but	

oftentimes	include:	academic	support	services	and	advising,	orientation,	career	

development	(planning	and	placement),	life	skills	development,	academic	advising,	and	

eligibility	monitoring.	The	following	sections	provide	a	brief	overview	of	these	services	

offered	to	student-athletes	through	SASPs.	

Academic	Support,	Advising,	and	Eligibility	Monitoring	

Central	to	most	SASPs	is	the	broad	range	of	academic	support	services	offered	to	

student-athletes.		These	services	can	include:	advising,	study	skills	development,	tutoring,	

group	study	sessions,	mentor	programs,	assessment,	and	eligibility	monitoring.		Due	to	the	

high	priority	of	maintaining	eligibility	and	academic	standards,	these	services	are	not	

51	

	
	
optional	for	student-athletes	at	many	institutions.		In	fact,	each	athlete’s	participation	and	

attendance	is	very	closely	monitored	by	coaches	and	athletic	support	staff.	

Academic	advisors	and	academic	support	staff	must	work	together	to	be	sure	

student-athletes	remain	academically	eligible	for	competition.		Course	load,	term	and	

cumulative	grade	point	averages,	graduation	requirements,	and	satisfactory	academic	

progress	must	all	be	monitored	so	NCAA	and	conference	regulations	can	be	maintained.	

Orientation	

Tinto	(1993)	highlighted	the	value	of	new	student	orientation	and	transition	

program	for	all	students.		Benefits	include	meeting	other	students,	learning	to	navigate	

campus,	and	experiencing	the	school’s	culture.		To	take	advantage	of	these	benefits,	most	

universities	require	their	student-athletes	to	participate	in	the	standard	orientation	

programming	along	with	the	non-athlete	students.		This	collaboration	is	designed	to	foster	

retention	and	graduation	of	student-athletes	(Tinto,	1993).		

Student-athletes,	however,	need	additional	information	related	specifically	to	

athletics	and	are	generally	required	to	attend	a	separate	orientation	(or	series	of	events),	

sponsored	by	the	SASP,	designed	to	help	them	navigate	the	complex	world	of	

intercollegiate	athletics,	including	NCAA	and	conference	rules,	regulations,	and	eligibility	

requirements.			

Some	have	recommended	athletic	programs	partner	with	academic	departments	

and	offer	credit-bearing	courses	covering	topics	related	to	current	events	in	athletics	

(Gerdy,	1997).		Michigan	State	University,	for	example,	offers	a	one	semester	hour	course	

every	fall	titled,	“KIN	171:		Athletics	in	Higher	Education.”		The	course	is	described	as	

covering,	“Philosophy	and	organization	of	athletics.		Athletics	and	academic	achievement.		

52	

	
	
	
	
	
Ethical	issues,	legal	issues,	social	conduct,	eligibility,	athlete’s	rights	and	responsibilities”	

(Michigan	State	University,	2023).	

Career	Development	

The	research	showing	the	importance	of	career	development	and	maturity	has	been	

highlighted	above.		Since	student-athletes	will	likely	not	seek	out	the	services	of	university-

related	career	services	on	a	voluntary	basis	(Martens	&	Lee,	1998),	and	since	these	career	

centers	may	not	have	the	expertise	to	assist	student-athletes	with	their	specific	needs	

(Martinelli,	2000),	SASPs	have	been	increasing	their	focus	on	career	development	and	

career	decision-making	programming,	rather	than	just	academics.		SASPs	have	

accomplished	this	increase	by	implementing	career	development	programs	and	

interventions	within	the	SASPs.		The	purpose	of	these	programs	is	to	“enhance	student-

athletes’	understanding	of	the	range	of	their	abilities	and	the	opportunities	available	to	

them	outside	of	athletics”	(Brown	&	Glastetter-Fender,	2000,	p.	59).					

Also	discussed	above,	career	decision-making	self-efficacy	has	been	shown	to	be	a	

key	factor	in	developing	career	maturity	and	a	skill	with	which	student-athletes	tend	to	

find	challenging.		Research	has	shown,	though,	career	decision-making	self-efficacy	is	able	

to	be	increased	with	the	help	of	workshops	designed	to	assist	students	with	their	career	

decision-making	processes	(Fouad,	Cotter,	&	Kantamneni,	2009;	Scott	&	Ciani,	2008).		

Gaps	in	the	career	maturity	of	student-athletes	and	non-athlete	students	have	been	

decreasing,	suggesting	this	closing	of	the	gap	may	be	due	to	the	increased	level	of	

programming	offered	by	academic	and	career	support	centers	for	student-athletes	(Rivas-

Quinones,	2003).		

53	

	
	
Life	Skills	Development	

While	career	development	is	an	essential	skill,	SASPs	also	assist	students	with	

valuable	skills	such	as	leadership	and	financial	literacy,	and	provide	opportunities	for	

service	and	community	outreach,	as	well	as	experiences	focused	on	multiculturalism	and	

diversity.	

Many	SASPs	offer	student-athletes	the	opportunity	to	participate	in	leadership	

councils,	serve	as	representatives	on	various	advisory	boards	and	assemblies,	and	attend	

conferences	focused	on	leadership	development	and	application.		For	example,	two	

student-athletes	from	each	varsity	team	at	the	University	of	Michigan	are	selected	to	sit	on	

the	Student-Athlete	Advisory	Council	(SAAC).		These	representatives	have	“an	opportunity	

to	shape	the	landscape	of	intercollegiate	athletics,	through	communication	with	each	other,	

the	Big	Ten	Conference,	and	the	NCAA.”		Further,	the	“aim	is	to	improve	student-athletes’	

experience	and	promote	growth	and	education	through	sports	participation”	(University	of	

Michigan,	2023).		At	Duke	University,	student-athletes	participate	in	a	leadership	program	

extending	throughout	all	four	years.			During	year	one,	the	student-athletes	are	required	to	

participate	in	the	1st	Year	Action	Program.		This	program	has	a	variety	of	foci:	effective	

transition	skills,	role	acceptance,	being	a	good	teammate,	and	initial	leadership	

development	(Duke	University,	2015).	

With	the	continued	increase	in	student	debt	(Chen	&	Wiederspan,	2014),	some	

SASPs	are	beginning	to	include	financial	literacy	as	part	of	their	program.		In	fact,	in	2014	

the	University	of	Texas	at	Austin	launched	The	Center	for	Sports	Leadership	and	

Innovation,	in	order	to	“develop	leaders	and	cultivate	integrity”	(University	of	Texas	at	

54	

	
	
	
	
Austin,	2014)	within	the	athletic	program.		A	major	piece	of	the	Center’s	programming	is	

financial	literacy.	

Service	and	community	outreach	are	essential	pieces	of	many	SASPs,	providing	

students	with	the	opportunity	to	move	outside	their	comfort	zone	and	experience	events	

promoting	multiculturalism	and	celebrate	diversity.		An	example	of	a	community	outreach	

opportunity	can	be	found	at	the	University	of	Southern	California	(University	of	Southern	

California,	2015).		Student-athletes	at	the	University	of	Southern	California	are	encouraged,	

but	not	required,	to	participate	in	at	least	five	hours	of	community	service	each	academic	

year.		Community	service	provides	“an	opportunity	to	give	back	to	the	greater	community,	

while	simultaneously	providing	invaluable	life	opportunities.	Many	Student-Athletes	do	not	

get	the	chance	to	maintain	a	job	or	internship	during	their	college	career.	Giving	back	

through	community	service	helps	Student-Athletes	gain	crucial	volunteer	experience	and	

provides	great	resume	building	opportunities”	(University	of	Southern	California,	2015).	

Conceptualized	in	1991,	and	operationalized	in	1994,	the	Challenging	Athletic	Minds	

for	Personal	Success	(CHAMPS)/Life	Skills	Program	was	designed	“to	create	a	total	

development	program	for	student-athletes”	(NCAA,	2008,	p.	3)	centered	around	five	key	

commitments:	academic	excellence,	athletic	excellence,	personal	development,	career	

development,	and	service.		This	holistic	approach	was	modeled	after	Dr.	Homer	Rice’s	

“Total	Person	Project”	(NCAA,	2017b)	and	was	focused	on	enhancing	the	quality	of	the	

student-athlete	experience.		Dr.	Rice,	a	former	athletic	director	at	Georgia	Tech	University,	

believed	excellence	was	the	result	of	a	life	in	balance,	encompassed	by	academic	excellence,	

athletic	achievement,	and	personal	well-being	(Georgia	Tech	website,	2015).		Specific	

outcomes	of	the	program	were	to	encourage	student-athletes	to	take	greater	ownership	of	

55	

	
	
	
their	responsibilities;	identify	and	meet	the	changing	needs	of	student-athletes;	promote	a	

healthy	respect	for	and	dialogue	around	issues	of	diversity	and	inclusion;	help	student-

athletes	to	identify	and	utilize	the	transferable	skills	they	obtain	through	their	participation	

in	athletics;	enhance	connections	with	the	community	for	educational	purposes;	and	create	

an	environment	encouraging	student-athletes	to	effectively	seek	out	and	utilize	campus	

resources	(NCAA,	2008).	

										To	accomplish	these	goals,	the	NCAA	provided	member	institutions	with	instruction	

materials	and	supplemental	resources,	including	a	needs	assessment	instrument,	a	

program	administration	guide,	supplemental	materials	to	accompany	the	instructional	

materials,	as	well	as	access	to	the	CHAMPS/Life	Skills	list-serv	and	online	resource	room.		

While	membership	continued	to	grow,	the	NCAA	determined	the	program	needed	to	be	

overhauled	and,	in	2014,	renamed	it	the	NCAA	Life	Skills	program.		Administrators	were	

recruited	to	join	three	action	teams	(Yearly	Initiatives,	Life	Skills	Academy,	and	Mental	

Health)	tasked	with	“defining	the	profession,	bettering	the	emerging	lives	of	NCAA	student-

athletes,	supporting	membership	professionals,	as	well	as	providing	both	student-athletes	

and	administrators	with	tools	to	be	successful”	(NCAA,	2014a).			

Summary	

The	recent	literature	suggests	student-athletes	are	a	unique	population	facing	a	

variety	of	unique	experiences	and	challenges,	particularly	related	to	their	identity	and	

career	development.		Athletic	departments	have	attempted	to	address	these,	and	other,	

challenges	by	establishing	elaborate	student-athlete	success	programs.			

These	challenges	and	programs	provide	a	unique	context	in	which	student-athletes	

attempt	to	be	successful	–	academically,	athletically,	personally,	and	vocationally.		This	

56	

	
	
qualitative	study	was	an	initial	attempt	to	bridge	the	gap	between	what	the	researchers	

and	administrators	have	declared	is	important	and	what	student-athletes	personally	

believe	is	important.		Further,	it	utilized	a	model	based	on	student	development	theory,	

particularly	related	to	student-athlete	identity	and	purpose.	The	study	provided	an	

opportunity	for	student-athletes	to	share	their	thoughts	and	opinions	on	what	it	meant	to	

them	to	be	successful	in	these	areas	and	what	adjustments	can	be	made	to	the	services	and	

programming	offered	in	order	to	make	the	impact	more	personal,	relevant,	and	effective.		

The	following	chapter	outlines	the	methodology	used	for	this	study.	

57	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
CHAPTER	3:	

RESEARCH	METHODOLOGY	

The	purpose	of	this	study	was	to	identify	how	student-athletes	define	success.		The	

framework	within	which	this	topic	was	addressed	was	the	student-athletes’	perspective	on	

their	establishment	of	identity	and	purpose	and	how	these	processes	informed	their	

definition	of	success	related	to	vocational,	personal,	and	relational	goals.		The	goal	of	the	

research	was	threefold:	(1)	to	highlight	the	student-athlete	perspective	by	providing	them	

with	the	opportunity	to	discuss	their	success	definition;	(2)	to	identify	specific	ways,	

including	structure	and	programming,	by	which	student-athlete	support	services	can	more	

effectively	serve	the	student-athlete	population;	and	(3)	to	encourage	cognitive	and	

personal	development	through	the	process	of	considering	their	success	definition.		As	

noted	in	Chapter	1,	the	following	three	questions	guided	the	research:	

1.  How	do	student-athletes	define	success?	

2.  How	has	the	student-athletes’	identity	influenced	their	definition	of	success?	

3.  How	do	the	student-athletes	anticipate	their	definition	of	success	will	inform	

their	career	transition?	

As	demonstrated	in	Chapter	2,	a	significant	amount	of	research	is	devoted	to	the	

student-athlete	population,	covering	a	variety	of	topics.		In	the	early	years	of	research	

involving	sport	and	exercise	psychology,	the	studies	were	predominantly	quantitative	in	

nature	(Van	Etten	et	al.,	2008).		However,	over	the	last	couple	of	decades,	the	number	of	

studies	utilizing	qualitative	research	methods	related	to	sports	and	student-athletes	has	

increased	significantly	(Smith	&	McGannon,	2018).		In	a	similar	vein,	this	study	was	

58	

	
	
	
	
	
conducted	using	qualitative	methods	to	establish	a	richer	understanding	of	how	student-

athletes	define	success.	

The	following	sections	outline	the	research	methodology	utilized	for	this	study.		

First,	I	discuss	the	overall	research	design,	including	the	unique	characteristics	of	

qualitative	research	and	the	specific	research	paradigm	and	interpretive	framework	used.		

Second,	I	identify	and	define	the	research	participants	and	explain	the	rationale	and	

process	through	which	the	sample	was	selected.		Third,	I	cover	the	data	collection	via	

interviews	and	subsequent	analysis.		Fourth,	I	highlight	issues	of	trustworthiness,	including	

credibility,	transferability,	dependability,	and	confirmability,	as	well	as	the	limitations	of	

the	study.		Finally,	I	provide	a	brief	summary	of	this	chapter.	

Research	Design	

The	following	section	outlines	the	rationale	for	the	use	of	qualitative	descriptive	

research	methods	as	the	foundation	for	this	study.		I	describe	the	constructivist	

interpretive	framework	utilized	to	gather	and	share	the	experiences	of	student-athletes	

related	to	their	definition	of	success	and	I	further	discuss	my	role	as	the	researcher.	

Qualitative	Research	

Interest	in	conducting	qualitative	research	has	significantly	increased	in	recent	

decades	due	to	the	pluralization	of	the	world	and	a	“growing	sensitivity	to	the	empirical	

study	of	issues”	(Flick,	2006,	p.	12).		As	methodologies	continue	to	develop	to	

accommodate	these	changes,	several	unique	characteristics	defining	qualitative	research,	

and	distinguishing	it	from	quantitative	research,	have	emerged.			

First,	qualitative	research	is	contextual	(Mertens,	1998),	whereby	data	tend	to	be	

collected	in	the	participant’s	natural	setting,	rather	than	in	a	lab	or	other	unnatural	

59	

	
	
location.		This	collection	allows	the	researcher	an	opportunity	for	face-to-face	contact	and	

the	ability	to	observe	behavior	while	gathering	data	within	the	natural	context	including	

the	subjects	sociological,	economic,	cultural,	and	political	milieu	(Creswell	&	Poth	2018;	

Glesne,	2006).			

Second,	the	researcher	plays	an	integral	role	in	the	research	as	the	instrument	

through	which	data	are	collected,	documents	are	examined,	and	words	and	behaviors	are	

documented	and	observed.		As	a	result,	the	qualitative	researcher	should	have	a	process	

through	which	they	reflect	on	their	assumptions,	biases,	and	beliefs,	so	they	are	accounted	

for.		This	process	is	typically	accomplished	through	journaling	or	debriefing	with	a	peer	

(Creswell	&	Poth,	2018;	Mertens,	1998).			

Third,	qualitative	researchers	many	times	utilize	more	than	one	source	of	data	(e.g.,	

observations,	documents,	or	interviews)	that	can	be	organized	into	categories	or	themes	by	

employing	both	inductive	and	deductive	analysis	of	the	data.		The	inductive	approach,	in	

particular,	allows	the	researcher	to	develop	general	patterns,	analytic	categories,	and	

themes	developed	from	specific	observations	(Mertens,	1998),	which	is	demonstrative	of	

the	variation	in	perspectives	of	the	problem	and	the	subjective	meanings	related	to	it.		In	

short,	the	strategy	of	an	inductive	approach	“is	to	allow	the	important	analysis	dimensions	

to	emerge	from	patterns	found	in	the	cases	under	study	without	presupposing	in	advance	

what	the	important	dimensions	will	be”	(Patton,	1990,	pg.	44).			

Fourth,	qualitative	research	is	not	strictly	prescribed,	that	is,	it	does	not	necessarily	

“begin	from	a	predetermined	starting	point	or	proceed	through	a	fixed	sequence	of	steps,	

but	involves	interconnection	and	interaction	among	the	different	design	components”	

(Maxwell,	2005,	p.	3).		As	such,	qualitative	research	is	emergent	and	reflexive.		An	emergent	

60	

	
research	design	allows	for	changes	and	adjustments	to	the	process	after	the	collection	of	

data	has	begun	so	the	researcher	can	“learn	about	the	problem	or	issue	from	the	

participants,”	and	“address	the	research	to	obtain	that	information”	(Creswell,	2014,	p.	

186).		Reflexive	research	provides	an	opportunity	for	the	researcher	to	reflect	on	how	their	

own	experiences	and	background	may	shape	the	direction	and	interpretation	of	the	study	

and	even	become	part	of	the	research	process.			

And	finally,	qualitative	research	develops	a	holistic,	complex	perspective	of	the	issue	

or	problem	because	most	phenomena	are	complex	and	are	not	able	to	be	explained	in	

isolation	(Flick,	2006).		The	goal	of	quantitative	research	“is	less	to	test	what	is	already	

known	(for	example,	theories	already	formulated	in	advance),	but	to	discover	and	develop	

the	new…”	(Fick,	2006,	p.	15).			

Research	Design	

Multiple	approaches	to	qualitative	research	exist	and	are	utilized	by	researchers	for	

a	variety	of	reasons.		For	the	purposes	of	this	study,	a	qualitative,	descriptive	approach	was	

selected	as	the	optimal	way	to	learn	about	the	experiences	of	the	selected	student-athletes.			

The	purpose	of	qualitative	description	research	is	to	provide	rich	description	of	a	

particular	experience	leading	to	an	understanding	of	the	perspective	or	worldview	of	the	

people	involved	(Caelli	et	al.,	2003).		“The	focus	on	producing	rich	description	about	the	

phenomenon	from	those	who	have	the	experience	offers	a	unique	opportunity	to	gain	

inside	or	emic	knowledge	and	learn	how	they	see	their	world”	(Bradshaw,	Atkinson,	&	

Doody,	2017,	Methodological	Assumptions	section,	para.	3).		Although	interpretation	is	

unavoidable,	“qualitative	description	is	not	highly	interpretive	in	the	sense	that	a	

researcher	deliberately	chooses	to	describe	an	event	in	terms	of	a	conceptual,	

61	

	
philosophical,	or	other	highly	abstract	framework	or	system.		The	description	in	qualitative	

descriptive	studies	entails	the	presentation	of	the	facts	of	the	case	in	everyday	language”	

(Sandelowski,	2000,	p.	336).	

Surveys,	including	personal	interviews,	are	a	common	way	to	conduct	descriptive	

research.		Data	were	collected	via	open-ended	questions	in	personal	interviews	with	each	

participant.		These	data	were	analyzed	to	identify	specific	statements	or	phrases	from	

individual	participants	pointing	the	researcher	to	themes	or	“clusters	of	meaning”	

(Creswell,	2006,	p.	61).		These	themes,	in	turn,	help	provide	the	researcher	with	an	

understanding	of	the	shared	experience	related	and	allow	them	to	write	a	description	of	

these	experiences.		Data	collection	and	analysis	are	discussed	in	further	detail	below.			

As	a	complementary	lens	through	which	to	view	this	study,	a	social	constructivist	

paradigm	was	used	as	an	interpretive	framework.		Creswell	and	Poth	describe	social	

constructivism	as	the	way	in	which	“individuals	seek	understanding	of	the	world	in	which	

they	live	and	work.		They	develop	subjective	meanings	of	their	experiences	–	meanings	

directed	toward	certain	objects	or	things”	(2018,	p.	23).		The	result	of	using	this	paradigm	

is	multiple	meanings	are	constructed	from	the	interviews,	rather	than	a	very	narrow	

meaning,	since	the	interpretation	relies	heavily	on	the	interviewee’s	perspective.	

Providing	a	window	into	the	individual	experiences	of	the	student-athlete	

population,	particularly	as	they	relate	to	their	definition	of	success	and	career	transition,	is	

crucial	to	developing	a	deeper	understanding	of	the	shared	experiences	common	within	the	

student-athlete	population.		Understanding	these	shared	experiences	is	also	important	for	

the	development	of	institutional	interventions,	policies,	and	procedures	that	can	positively	

impact	the	student-athlete	experience.			

62	

	
Role	of	the	Researcher	

In	qualitative	research,	the	researcher	plays	a	critical	role	in	the	collection	and	

interpretation	of	data.		In	order	to	best	convey	how	individuals	experience	a	particular	

phenomenon,	as	discussed	above,	the	researcher	should	bracket	out	their	own	experiences,	

to	the	extent	possible	(Creswell	&	Poth,	2018).		Creswell	explains	the	concept	of	epoch	as	

the	process	by	which	“investigators	set	aside	their	experiences,	as	much	as	possible,	to	take	

a	fresh	perspective	toward	the	phenomenon	under	examination”	(2006,	pp.	59-60).		Epoch	

as	bracketing	is	further	defined	by	Tufford	and	Newman	as	“a	method	used	by	some	

researchers	to	mitigate	the	potential	deleterious	effects	of	unacknowledged	preconceptions	

related	to	the	research	and	thereby	to	increase	the	rigor	of	the	project”	(2012,	p.	80).	

For	the	purposes	of	being	forthright	regarding	how	I	am	situated	as	a	researcher,	I	

provide	the	following.		I	am	a	White,	cis-gendered	man	and	higher	education	administrator	

with	over	two	decades	of	experience	in	student	and	academic	affairs.		While	I	did	not	

participate	in	college	athletics,	I	have	worked	extensively	with	student-athletes	at	both	

public	and	private	institutions	in	settings	related	to	academic	advising,	disciplinary	

procedures,	and	success	programming.		I	have	also	spent	a	significant	amount	of	time	

building	out	student	success	and	intervention	programs	for	non-athlete	students.		In	order	

to	bracket	my	own	assumptions	and	experiences,	I	kept	a	reflective	journal	to	note	my	

assumptions	and	biases	related	to	the	study.	

Research	Sample	

Participants	in	this	qualitative	study	were	identified	via	purposeful	selection	(Light	

et	al.,	1990;	Maxwell,	2005).		Also	referred	to	as	purposeful	sampling	(Patton,	1990),	this	

process	allows	individuals	to	be	deliberately	selected	in	order	to	provide	specific	

63	

	
	
information	that	cannot	be	retrieved	from	other	sources.		According	to	Patton	(1990),	

“[t]he	logic	and	power	of	purposeful	sampling	lies	in	selecting	information-rich	cases	[italics	

the	author’s]	for	study	in	depth.		Information-rich	cases	are	those	from	which	one	can	learn	

a	great	deal	about	issues	of	central	importance	to	the	purpose	of	the	research”	and	“whose	

study	will	illuminate	the	questions	under	study”	(p.	169).			

Maxwell	(2005)	suggests	four	possible	reasons	for	employing	purposeful	selection.		

For	the	scope	of	this	study,	the	reason	that	resonated	was	purposeful	selection	helps	to	

attain	representativeness	–	deliberately	selecting	individuals	who	“adequately	represent	

the	average	members	of	the	population”	(p.	89).		Since	time	and	resources	did	not	allow	me	

to	study	a	large,	randomly	sampled	group,	I	wanted	to	be	confident	typical	members	of	the	

population	were	exemplified	in	the	small	group.		

For	this	particular	study,	participants	were	selected	using	the	typical	case	sampling	

strategy	(Patton,	1990)	of	purposeful	selection.		Due	to	the	nature	of	the	research	

questions,	specifically	related	to	student-athlete	identity	and	career	development,	

participants	in	this	study	were	former	student-athletes	who	attended	a	variety	of	NCAA	

Division	I,	Division	II,	and	Division	III	universities.		These	student-athletes	were	ideal	for	

this	study	for	several	reasons.		First,	they	had	the	time	during	college	to	utilize	and	

experience	student-athlete	support	services.		Second,	they	had	the	time	since	graduation	to	

obtain	a	broader	perspective	and	reflect	on	their	personal	experiences	in	relation	to	the	

resources	and	programming	offered	to	student-athletes	through	the	student-athlete	

support	services.		And	third,	they	had	a	greater	amount	of	time	to	progress	in	their	identity,	

purpose,	and	career	development	and	to	potentially	develop	a	more	refined	definition	of	

success.	

64	

	
	
To	recruit	participants,	an	email,	briefly	explaining	the	study	and	highlighted	the	

purpose	and	goals,	was	distributed	to	a	targeted	group	of	administrators	for	distribution	to	

potential	participants.		Those	who	participated	also	assisted	with	identifying	and	recruiting	

additional	participants.		Gift	cards	with	a	value	of	$25	were	offered	upon	completion	of	the	

interview.		Each	of	the	respondents	who	met	the	criteria	listed	above	were	contacted	and	

scheduled	for	an	online	interview.		The	student-athletes’	names	were	changed	to	protect	

their	identities.			

The	sample	size	was	not	pre-determined,	but	was	instead	decided	by	information	

redundancy	(Lincoln	&	Guba,	1985),	also	known	as	data	saturation.		Sample	size	is	

discussed	in	further	detail	in	the	section	below	focused	on	data	analysis.	

Data	Collection	and	Analysis	

Using	qualitative	analysis,	the	focus	of	this	study	was	on	establishing	a	more	in-

depth	understanding	of	how	student-athletes	define	success.		The	research	spanned	an	

eight-week	period	during	which	individual	interviews	were	conducted	in	an	online	format	

with	each	of	the	participants.		The	following	section	explains	the	interview	process	and	

briefly	addresses	the	advantages	and	challenges	associated	with	the	virtual	nature	of	the	

interviews.		

Interviews	

Individual,	semi-structured,	online	interviews	were	conducted	with	each	of	the	

respondents.		According	to	Charmaz	(2015),	interviews	are	the	most	common	method	to	

collect	qualitative	data.		Interviews	are	also	generally	thought	to	have	the	most	potential	to	

produce	rich,	thick	descriptions	of	the	subject	at	hand.			

65	

	
	
	
The	utilization	of	remote	interviews	expanded	even	prior	to	the	Covid-19	pandemic	

(Lee	et	al.,	2017).		However,	the	isolation	and	social	distancing	brought	about	by	the	

pandemic	increased	the	use	and	highlighted	the	advantages	of	remote	interviewing.		Online	

interviews	are	accessible,	cost-	and	time-effective,	and	allow	research	to	be	conducted	

across	great	geographical	distances.		Recent	studies	indicate	there	are	additional	

advantages	to	online	interviews.		Howlett	(2022)	suggests	interviewees	are	more	

comfortable	in	a	location	of	their	choice	and	the	sense	of	intimacy	is	enhanced	by	seeing	

into	their	personal	space.		Others	posit	interviewees	have	a	greater	feeling	of	agency	and	

the	online	setting	creats	a	more	equal	power	dynamic	(Hanna	&	Mwale,	2017).		Virtual	

interviews	also	carry	inherent	challenges.		These	challenges	include	basic	technological	

issues,	such	as	lack	of	a	reliable	internet	connection,	and	more	substantive	issues,	such	as	

difficulty	establishing	rapport	through	an	electronic	medium	(Deakin	&	Wakefield,	2014).		

Taking	all	of	this	information	into	consideration,	in	particular	the	geographic	distance	

between	myself	and	the	interviewees,	I	elected	to	conduct	this	study	using	virutal	

interviews.			

Utilizing	semi-structured	interviews	allowed	me	to	maintain	a	particular	set	of	

questions	asked	in	each	interview,	for	consistency	(Johnson	&	Christensen,	2020),	while	

also	providing	respondents	with	latitude	to	expound	on	particular	answers	and	speak	in	

more	depth	about	what	was	important	to	them	(Hesse-Biber	&	Leavy,	2006).		This	

methodology	was	preferred	because	it	allowed	the	opportunity	to	engage	with	the	student-

athletes	regarding	self-perceptions	of	their	identity	and	to	more	fully	explain	their	

definition	of	success.		Individual,	in-depth	interviews	provide	the	opportunity	to	capture	an	

interviewee’s	perspective	of	an	event,	and	also	gain	access	to	their	individual	experiences	

66	

	
and	feelings	(Bloomberg	&	Volpe,	2019;	Marshall	&	Rossman,		2016).		Additionally,	Patton	

(1990)	summed	up	the	advantages	of	in-depth	interviews	nicely	when	he	said,	

“The	purpose	of	interviewing	is	to	find	out	what	is	in	and	on	someone’s	mind…We	
cannot	observe	feelings,	thoughts,	and	intentions…We	cannot	observe	how	people	
have	organized	the	world	and	the	meanings	they	attach	to	what	goes	on	in	the	
world.		We	have	to	ask	people	quesitons	about	those	things”	(p.	278).			

A	standardized	open-ended	interview	format	was	selected	for	several	reasons.		

First,	this	method	allowed	me	to	keep	the	interview	systematic	and	focused	without	being	

overly	rigid.		Second,	this	format	provided	consistency	in	the	material	covered	and	

questions	asked.		With	a	small	sample	size,	asking	the	same	questions	of	each	interviewee	

was	important	in	order	to	gather	comparable,	credible	data.		“When	using	qualitative	data-

collection	procedures	for	evaluation	purposes,	it	can	be	helpful	to	minimize	issues	of	

legitimacy	and	credibility	by	carefully	collecting	the	same	information	from	everyone	who	

is	interviewed”	(Patton,	1990,	p.	286).		And	finally,	standardized	open-ended	interviews	

were	used	in	order	to	reduce	the	need	for	judgment	on	my	part	in	the	middle	of	the	

interview.		While	follow-up	questions	were	asked	in	certain	cases,	the	overall	structure	of	

the	interview	was	set	and	the	questions	were	worded	exactly	as	they	were	written.		Each	

interview	utilized	the	interview	guide	in	Apendix	A.	

Once	the	participants	were	identified,	remote,	synchronous,	video	interviews	were	

scheduled	with	each	student-athlete	via	email.		Prior	to	each	interview,	I	provided	

participants	with	the	consent	form	stating	the	purpose	and	structure	of	the	study,	along	

with	a	brief	summary.		I	also	provided	them	with	a	demographic	questionnaire	collecting	

basic	personal	and	athletic-related	information.		With	the	permission	of	each	interviewee,	

interviews	were	recorded	for	later	transcription	and	evaluation.			

67	

	
	
	
Data	Analysis	

The	number	of	participants	in	this	study	was	determined	by	information	

redundancy	(Lincoln	&	Guba,	1985),	also	known	as	data	saturation.		Data	saturation	is	

considered	the	point	at	which	the	data	does	not	produce	any	new	information	or	themes.		

Constantinou	and	colleagues	(2017),	reflect	Guba’s	work	by	stating	saturation	has	occurred	

when,	“the	appropriate	depth	has	been	reached	and	therefore	it	is	there	for	the	social	

scientist	to	make	sense	and	describe”	(p.	573).			

Since	saturation	cannot	be	predetermined,	it	is	very	difficult	to	determine	sample	

size	prior	to	conducting	the	research	(Sim	et	al.,	2018).		Although	a	specific	number	of	

participants	for	this	study	was	not	targeted	ahead	of	time,	17	student-athletes	were	

interviewed.					

The	process	by	which	I	reached	data	saturation	involved	the	transcription	and	

analysis	of	each	interview.		Specifically,	each	of	the	video	interviews	was	transcribed	by	

Zoom.		I	double-checked	each	transcript	for	accuracy	by	reading	alongside	the	recording.		

Following	this	check,	the	process	of	data	analysis,	as	outlined	by	Creswell	and	Roth	(2018),	

was	commenced	to	identify	themes	identified	throughout	the	interviews.		First,	I	reviewed	

the	interview	transcripts	for	significant	statements	highlighting	each	student-athlete’s	

experience	related	to	their	definition	of	success.		I	grouped	these	statements	into	“clusters	

of	meaning”	(Creswell	&	Roth,	2018,	p.	79)	to	determine	constructed	themes	and	

significant	differences	in	responses.		I	then	reported	the	“essence”	(p.	79)	of	the	resulting	

common	experiences	by	writing	a	narrative	description	of	both	what	the	student-athletes	

experienced	and	how	they	experienced	it.		The	clusters	of	meaning	and	the	essence	of	the	

constructed	themes	are	detailed	in	Chapter	4.		Once	I	determined	no	new	themes	were	

68	

	
identified,	I	stopped	conducting	interviews.		While	clusters	of	meaning	were	constructed	

for	most	of	the	topics	covered	in	the	interviews,	there	were	responses	to	some	questions	

that	garnered	much	more	individualistic	responses.		Where	the	highly	individualized	

responses	occurred,	and	no	clear	themes	were	identified,	I	reported	on	the	experiences	of	

each	participant.	

Trustworthiness	

Quantitative	studies	have	long	used	the	concepts	of	validity	and	reliability	to	

support	the	quality	of	research	results.		They	are	not,	however,	a	good	fit	for	qualitative	

research.		Parallel	criteria	for	evaluating	the	trustworthiness	of	qualitative	studies	

including	credibility,	transferability,	dependability,	and	confirmability,	were	suggested	by	

authors	such	as	Guba	and	Lincoln	(1989,	2000)	and	Stainback	and	Stainback	(1988).		The	

concept	of	rigor	in	qualitative	research	(Tracy,	2010)	is	a	similar	idea	incorporating	each	of	

these	categories.		This	section	addresses	how	trustworthiness	and	rigor	were	

demonstrated	in	this	study	and	concludes	with	a	description	of	the	limitations	of	the	study.	

Credibility	

Credibility	corresponds	with	internal	validity	in	quantitative	research.		“The	

credibility	test	asks	if	there	is	a	correspondence	between	the	way	the	respondents	actually	

perceive	social	constructs	and	the	way	the	researcher	portrays	their	viewpoints”	(Mertens,	

1998,	p.	181).		The	method	of	member	checking	was	made	popular	by	Lincoln	and	Guba	

(1985)	but	has	more	recently	been	called	into	question	due	to	its	epistemological	and	

ontological	underpinnings	(McGannon	&	Smith,	2015)	–	researchers	cannot	achieve	theory-

free	knowledge	and	therefore	“…cannot	deliver	objective	knowledge.		Nor	can	it	provide	an	

independent	foundation	to	adjudicate	valid	research	from	less	valid	research”	(Smith	&	

69	

	
	
McGannon,	2018,	p.	104).		Other	practical	problems	with	member	checking	include	

determining	who	is	right	when	contradictions	occur	and	dealing	with	power	dynamics	

leading	the	participant	to	simply	agree	with	the	researcher	(Smith	&	McGannon,	2018).			

Braun	and	Clarke	(2013)	offer	a	reframed	version	of	member	checking	referred	to	

as	member	reflection.		Member	reflections	allow	an	opportunity	for	the	researcher	to	work	

with	the	interviewee	and	“facilitate	the	inclusion	of	complementary	or	contradictory	

results	so	that	a	meticulous,	robust,	and	intellectually	enriched	understanding	of	the	

research	might	be	further	developed”	(Smith	&	McGannon,	2018,	p.	108).		Additionally,	

member	reflections	can	contribute	to	a	more	ethical	approach	to	qualitative	research	by	

promoting	mutual	respect	and	dignity	between	the	researcher	and	interviewee.			

In	this	study	I	utilized	member	reflection	as	a	means	of	displaying	credibility.		I	

emailed	a	copy	of	the	interview	transcript	and	results	to	each	participant	to	allow	them	the	

opportunity	to	review	my	results	and	offer	additional	insights	or	explore	contradictions.		

They	had	the	opportunity	to	email	me,	or	set	up	a	further	time	to	meet	online,	to	discuss	

questions	or	concerns	regarding	the	transcripts	and	my	observations.		The	insights	and	

contradictions	provided	by	the	participants	were	included	in	the	final	version	of	the	

results.		As	a	further	measure	to	ensure	credibility,	I	also	engaged	in	peer	debriefing	

(Creswell,	2018)	with	my	dissertation	advisor	to	be	sure	my	observations	resonate	with	

other	readers.	

Transferability	

Transferability	corresponds	with	the	concept	of	external	validity	in	quantitative	

research	and	highlights	the	degree	to	which	the	results	of	a	qualitative	study	can	be	

generalized	to	similar	circumstances	(Mertens,	1998).		One	of	the	goals	of	qualitative	

70	

	
research	is	“to	develop	descriptive	context-relevant	findings	that	can	be	applicable	to	

broader	contexts	while	still	maintaining	their	content-specific	richness”	(Bloomberg	&	

Volpe,	2019,	p.	205).		Yin	(2009)	highlighted	the	importance	of	documenting	as	much	of	the	

research	procedures	as	possible	and	in	as	much	detail	as	possible,	which	is	also	referred	to	

as	rich	or	thick	description.			

In	the	study,	I	used	rich,	thick	descriptions	to	provide	as	much	detail	as	possible	and	

an	in-depth	description	of	the	context	and	culture	within	which	the	study	was	conducted.		

Purposeful	sampling	provided	additional	transferability	by	allowing	readers	to	have	an	

idea	of	the	participants	as	well	as	their	experiences.	

Dependability	and	Confirmability	

Dependability	corresponds	with	qualitative	reliability	(Mertens,	1998)	in	

quantitative	research	and	is	essential	for	tracking	the	processes	utilized	for	collecting	and	

interpreting	qualitative	data.		Confirmability	parallels	the	qualitative	concept	of	objectivity	

(Guba	&	Lincoln,	1989),	which	means	there	is	a	significant	effort	to	minimize	the	

researcher’s	judgment.		“Qualitative	data	can	be	tracked	to	its	source,	and	the	logic	that	is	

used	to	interpret	the	data	should	be	made	explicit”	(Mertens,	1998,	pg.	184).		To	achieve	

dependability	and	confirmability,	I	provided	an	“audit	trail”	(Lincoln	&	Guba,	2000)	

including	detailed	explanations	of	how	I	collected	the	data,	as	well	as	available	copies	of	

detailed	notes	and	interview	transcripts.	

Limitations	of	the	Study	

One	of	the	limitations	of	this	study	was	the	result	of	the	methodology	used	for	

selecting	participants	–	purposeful	selection.		Because	the	sample	size	utilized	in	

purposeful	selection	tends	to	be	small,	they	“are	likely	to	be	too	small	for	generalization	or	

71	

	
	
statistical	representativeness”	(Patton,	1990,	p.	174).		And	while	caution	must	be	exercised	

in	generalizing	the	results	of	this	study	to	a	larger	population,	purposeful	selection	

provides	the	benefit	of	deliberatively	selecting	the	participants	in	order	to	collect	specific	

information	that	could	not	be	retrieved	from	other	sources.	

Another	limitation	of	the	study	was	the	use	of	online	interviews.		While	online	

interviews	provide	a	level	of	convenience,	using	technology	as	a	medium	may	have	placed	a	

barrier	between	myself	and	the	interviewees.	

Summary	

This	chapter	outlined	the	research	design,	the	research	sample,	and	the	data	

collection	and	analysis	processes	of	this	study.		I	utilized	a	qualitative,	descriptive	

methodology	incorporating	a	semi-structured	approach	to	17	interviews.		The	data	was	

analyzed	using	significant	statements	grouped	into	themes	and	common	experiences.		My	

role	as	the	researcher,	as	well	as	factors	contributing	to	trustworthiness	and	the	limitations	

of	the	study	were	also	addressed.			

72	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
CHAPTER	4:	

FINDINGS	

This	chapter	provides	the	findings	of	the	research	designed	to	identify	how	student-

athletes	define	success.		The	following	sections	provide	an	overview	of	the	participants	and	

a	detailed	accounting	of	their	responses	to	a	semi-structured	interview	comprised	of	open-

ended	interview	questions	(see	Appendix).		The	interview	questions	were	situated	around	

the	central	research	questions	and	the	findings	are	presented	utilizing	the	framework	of	

these	questions:	

1.  How	do	student-athletes	define	success?		

2.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	identity	influenced	their	definition	of	success?	

3.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success	informed	their	career	transition?	

Overview	

Participants	

A	total	of	17	former	student-athletes	participated	in	the	study	(see	Table	1).		

Graduation	years	spanned	over	the	last	six	years,	with	the	most	recent	graduating	this	past	

academic	year	(Spring	2024).		Six	student-athletes	identified	as	male	and	11	identified	as	

female.		Seven	played	basketball	(five	female	and	two	male),	one	played	football	(male),	

one	played	soccer	(female),	five	participated	in	swimming	(three	female	and	two	male),	

one	played	tennis	(female),	one	played	volleyball	(female),	and	one	participated	in	track	

and	cross-country	(male).		Eight	of	the	student-athletes	attended	NCAA	Division	I	schools,	

one	attended	an	NCAA	Division	II	school,	and	eight	attended	an	NCAA	Division	III	school.		

Two	student-athletes	transferred	to	a	different	school,	while	the	other	15	played	their	

entire	career	at	their	original	institution.	

73	

	
	
	
Table	1:	Participant	Information	

Name	

Sex	

Sport	

Years	played	before	
college	

Years	played	in	
college	

Blake	

Male	

Basketball	

Scott	

Male	

Football	

Chloe	

Female	 Basketball	

Zoe	

Female	 Basketball	

Travis	 Male	

Basketball	

Amelia	

Female	 Basketball	

Layla	

Female	 Basketball	

Riley	

Male	

Track/CC	

Jasmine	 Female	 Basketball	

Callie	

Female	 Soccer	

Jenny	

Female	 Swimming	

George	 Male	

Swimming	

Addy	

Female	 Swimming	

Iris	

Female	 Tennis	

Sophie	

Female	 Swimming	

Jake	

Male	

Swimming	

Macy	

Female	 Volleyball	

-	

9	

13	

14	

12	

10	

10	

6	

14	

14	

13	

11	

10	

12	

10	

11	

-	

4	

4	

4	

4	

4	

5	

2	

5	

5	

4	

4	

3	

4	

4	

4	

4	

4	

Many	of	the	participants	played	multiple	sports	growing	up	before	choosing	to	focus	

on	one	sport	in	high	school	or	college	–	playing	their	chosen	sport	between	six	and	14	years	

74	

	
	
	
prior	to	matriculating	into	college.		Several	participants	described	being	recruited	to	play	

other	sports	due	to	their	overall	athletic	ability	or	physical	traits.		When	asked	to	share	

highlights	of	their	athletic	career	at	the	beginning	of	the	interview,	responses	included	both	

individual	and	team	accomplishments;	memories	from	all	levels	of	sport	including	junior	

high,	high	school,	and	college;	and	a	combination	of	winning	and	losing	seasons.	

The	student-athletes	played	a	variety	of	roles	on	their	respective	teams.		Eleven	

identified	as	holding	leadership	positions	on	their	team	by	being	named	a	captain	or	

assistant	captain,	one	was	involved	in	leadership	but	not	as	a	captain,	and	seven	did	not	

hold	a	formal	leadership	role.		Of	those	who	did	not	participate	in	swimming,	10	of	the	

student-athletes	held	the	status	as	a	starter	at	some	point	in	their	college	career.		

Additionally,	fifteen	of	the	participants	played	their	sport	between	four	and	five	years	in	

college.		One	of	the	student-athletes	played	for	two	years	and	was	forced	to	retire	prior	to	

their	junior	year	due	to	ongoing	injuries.	

Meaning	of	Being	a	Student-Athlete	

As	an	entry	point	into	their	experiences	as	a	student-athlete,	and	to	provide	

overarching	context	to	our	discussion,	I	asked	the	participants	what	being	a	student-athlete	

meant	to	them.		Their	responses	varied	significantly	and	represented	multiple	categories,	

including	the	overall	significance	of	being	a	student-athlete,	the	qualities	represented	by	

student-athletes,	the	benefits	and	expectations	experienced	by	student-athletes,	the	

commitment	required	of	student-athletes,	and	the	culture	and	relationships	developed	by	

student-athletes.		Each	of	these	categories	is	summarized	below.	

75	

	
	
	
	
	
General	Significance	

Several	responses	highlighted	general	feelings	about	being	a	student-athlete	which	

were	all	positive	in	nature.		Scott	summed	it	simply	when	he	said,	“It	meant	a	lot.”		George	

went	even	further	and	said,	“It	really	meant	everything…I	feel	like	I	wouldn’t	have	been	as	

successful	just	as	a	student.”		Other	similar	responses	included	they	had	been	student-

athletes	in	one	way	or	another	virtually	their	entire	life,	which	provided	them	with	a	

unique	identity	and	meant	something	very	special.			

There	was	also	a	reflective	nature	to	the	responses,	looking	back	with	fondness	and	

recognizing	how	much	they	appreciate	the	experience	–	more	so	now	than	in	the	moment.		

Blake	said,	looking	back,	“it	was	the	best	thing	I’ve	done	in	my	life.”		Amelia	highlighted	the	

uniqueness	of	the	experience	saying	she	is	“blessed”	because	others	do	not	have	the	same	

opportunities.		In	the	same	vein,	multiple	participants	talked	about	the	pride	they	felt	and	

the	privilege	it	was	to	be	recognized	for	their	athletic	and	academic	achievements.		For	

example,	Travis	indicated	it	was	an	honor	to	be	a	student-athlete	because,	so	few	athletes	

are	selected	to	play	at	the	college	level	and	receive	scholarships.		

To	Macy,	being	a	student-athlete	meant	excelling	at	her	highest	potential	as	both	a	

student	and	athlete.		She	also	highlighted	the	importance	of	going	to	college	for	the	purpose	

of	going	to	school	and	focusing	on	academic	success.		

Addy	and	Iris	both	shared	unique	perspectives	on	how	they	felt	about	being	a	

student-athlete.		Addy	indicated	she	differentiated	her	experiences	in	high	school	and	

relied	on	the	role	in	which	she	was	not	immediately	situated	to	give	her	confidence	and	feel	

accomplished.		Specifically,	she	gravitated	toward	her	student	identity	when	swimming,	to	

distinguish	herself	from	those	around	her,	and	relied	on	her	athletic	identity	in	school,	

76	

	
	
again,	to	distinguish	herself	from	those	around	her.		Addy	shared,	“So	in	college…I	didn’t	

feel	as	much	of	the	‘athlete	part’	of	being	a	student-athlete.”		Her	perspective	changed	in	

college	due	to	health	challenges	and	not	being	able	to	train	like	she	wanted	to.					

Iris	was	the	only	student-athlete	interviewed	who,	when	asked	what	being	a	

student-athlete	meant	to	her,	expressed	being	a	student-athlete	is	not	how	she	always	

identified.		She	said,	“I	didn’t	always	fully	identify	as	a	student-athlete.		I’m	very	much,	like	

I’m	just	me,	and	this	is	what	I	do.		But	this	isn’t	who	I	am	per	se.		Like	it’s	not	all	of	me.”		All	

of	the	other	participants	very	explicitly	identified	as	student-athletes.	

Qualities	

The	participants	identified	a	variety	of	qualities	that	had	meaning	for	them	as	

student-athletes.		Among	these	qualities	were	versatility;	a	strong	work	ethic;	leadership	

traits,	including	being	vocal	and	leading	by	example;	and	the	ability	to	take	on	significant	

responsibility.			

Callie	and	Iris	found	being	a	student-athlete	instilled	in	them	a	sense	of	discipline	

and	provided	them	with	multiple	skills,	such	as	organization	and	time	management,	that	

can	be	applied	to	everyday	life.		To	George,	being	a	student-athlete	meant	keeping	things	

balanced,	which	meant	if	he	was	stressed	in	one	area,	academics	or	athletics,	he	had	the	

opportunity	to	focus	on	the	other	to	relieve	the	stress.		Similarly,	Jake	identified	time	

management	as	central	to	what	it	meant	to	be	a	student-athlete,	suggesting	an	individual	

cannot	be	successful	in	both	roles	without	it.			

Benefits	

There	were	also	certain	benefits	to	being	a	student-athlete	mentioned.		Several	

spoke	of	the	financial	importance	of	being	on	scholarship	and	having	college	tuition	and	

77	

	
	
	
fees	paid.		Additionally,	being	a	student-athlete	meant	having	a	certain	amount	of	public	

exposure	and	a	platform	from	which	to	express	particular	views.		Jasmine	was	grateful	for	

this	opportunity	“to	glorify	God	and	show	his	love	as	a	Christian.”		Others	expressed	similar	

views	related	to	their	faith	and	religious	beliefs,	which	will	be	addressed	more	fully	when	

discussing	the	definitions	of	success.			

Having	a	team	and	network	immediately	in	place	when	arriving	at	college	was	

helpful	for	Jenny.		She	said,	“I	couldn’t	have	imagined	succeeding	the	way	that	I	did	without	

that	support	system.		So,	I	think	the	biggest	part	of	being	a	student-athlete	was	just	having	

that	support	system	already	in	place.”		Jenny	was	able	to	step	into	her	new	environment	

with	an	added	layer	of	confidence	due	to	the	built-in	system	of	supportive	teammates	and	

resources.	

Finally,	several	spoke	generally	of	the	lessons	they	learned;	the	values	instilled,	and	

the	challenges	that	ultimately	helped	them	grow	personally,	academically,	and	athletically.	

Expectations	

Being	a	student-athlete	brought	with	it	certain	expectations.		These	expectations	

surface	throughout	the	following	sections,	particularly	when	talking	about	the	potential	

conflict	between	the	student	and	athlete	roles.		One	example	of	internal	expectations	and	

one	example	of	external	expectations	were	raised	when	talking	about	what	being	a	

student-athlete	meant	to	the	participants.		Scott	shared	he	felt	a	very	strong	external	

expectation	to	perform	at	a	high	level	both	on	and	off	the	field.		Layla	indicated	she	was	

very	hard	on	herself	as	a	player	and	became	easily	frustrated	during	practice	and	games,	to	

the	point	of	these	expectations	being	detrimental.	

78	

	
	
	
	
Commitment	

Similar	to	the	expectations	felt	by	the	participants,	the	commitment	necessary	to	

being	a	student-athlete	was	a	thread	running	throughout	the	entirety	of	each	interview.		

Described	as	“huge”	and	a	“sacrifice”	by	Riley,	others	highlighted	the	time	commitment	by	

discussing	how	hard	they	had	to	work,	oftentimes	without	any	kind	of	extended	break.		The	

hard	work	related	to	their	athletic	endeavors	and	to	their	academics	as	well.			

Taking	a	positive	approach,	Chloe	and	Amelia	thought	the	commitment	required	for	

being	a	student	and	an	athlete	prepared	them	for	adulthood	and	the	real	world.		Chloe	

commented,	“Student	athletics	and	college	is	your	job	before	you	get	a	job…so	it	prepares	

you	for	what	you	should	expect	in	the	workforce	and	things	of	that	nature.”		Blake	felt	

similarly	and	said,	“I	was	proud	of	myself…but	having	that	student-athlete	sash…I	went	

through	stuff	that	not	a	lot	of…regular	college	students	go	through.		It’s	that	day	in,	day	out,	

grind	of	having,	I	would	say,	a	full	job	of	college	sports,	but	having	also	classes	and	being	

able	to	keep	up	with	those.”		Experiencing	what	amounted	to	a	full-time	job	helped	Chloe	

and	Amelia	feel	more	adequately	prepared	for	life	after	college.	

Culture	and	Relationships	

Finally,	to	many	of	the	participants,	the	meaning	of	being	a	student-athlete	was	

synonymous	with	the	culture	and	relationships	of	which	they	were	a	part.		Being	a	member	

of	a	team	was	described	as	being	part	of	a	family,	participating	in	a	unique	fellowship,	and	

being	part	of	something	bigger	than	yourself.			

Blake	said,	“It’s	the	family	aspect	of	being	with	them	every	single	day…It	was	being	

part	of	a	team,	being	part	of	a	family…And	I	miss	it	every	single	day,	of	just	being	with	the	

team.		And	it’s	something	I	really…appreciate	now	more	than	I	was	in	the	moment.”		George	

79	

	
	
	
shared	he	was	inspired	by	the	hardworking	people	on	his	team,	and	it	caused	him	to	“up	

[his]	game.”		He	went	on	to	say,	“the	main	takeaway	I’m	gonna	have,	like	for	the	rest	of	my	

life,	is	just	like	being	a	part	of,	I	know	it’s	cliché,	but	it’s	something	bigger	than	myself.”		Jake	

appreciated	the	built-in	community	of	others	with	shared	experiences	available	as	soon	as	

he	arrived	on	campus	his	first	year.	

The	student-athlete	culture	also	encompassed	being	a	good	teammate.		The	role	of	

teammate	meant	a	shared	sense	of	accountability;	treating	others	with	kindness	and	

respect,	while	still	being	honest	and	pushing	them	to	their	full	capabilities;	and	not	being	

focused	solely	on	the	on-court	successes,	but	the	off-court	as	well.		As	an	example,	several	

participants	brought	up	the	sense	of	pride	they	felt	in	their	high	team	GPA.			

Conflict	Between	the	Role	of	Student	and	Athlete	

To	garner	understanding	of	the	participants’	unique	experiences	as	student-

athletes,	I	asked	them	if	their	role	as	student	and	role	as	athlete	came	into	conflict	with	

each	other	and	why	or	why	not.		If	a	conflict	was	identified,	I	also	inquired	about	whether	

the	conflicting	priorities	increased,	decreased,	or	remained	consistent	during	their	time	in	

college.	

Five	of	the	former	student-athletes	felt	these	roles	did	not	conflict.		Layla	recounted	

she	was	used	to	the	pull	of	academics	and	athletics	from	high	school	and	found	it	

manageable	to	balance	so	academics	were	not	compromised	by	sports.		Riley	indicated	

practice	for	his	sports,	track	and	cross	country,	was	able	to	be	arranged	so	it	did	not	get	in	

the	way	of	classes.		Amelia	brought	the	conversation	to	faith,	stating	she	did	not	feel	a	

conflict	because	family	and	faith	in	God	were	at	the	top	of	her	priority	list,	not	student	or	

80	

	
	
	
	
athlete.		Interestingly,	the	only	conflict	she	felt	was	when	coaches	would	say	the	right	

things	about	priorities	but	would	not	act	as	though	student	came	before	athlete.	

Two	of	the	student-athletes,	Jenny	and	Iris,	explained	attending	an	NCAA	Division	III	

school	contributed	to	the	lack	of	conflict.		In	fact,	Iris	stated	that	is	why	she	chose	a	Division	

III	school	–	to	fully	experience	being	a	student	and	an	athlete,	and	not	feel	like	one	was	

ruining	the	other.	

Twelve	of	the	former	student-athletes	shared	they	felt	a	definite	conflict	between	

their	roles	as	student	and	athlete.		For	some	the	conflict	was	overwhelming,	while	for	

others	it	varied	in	magnitude.		Trying	to	balance	the	two	distinct	roles	was	cited	as	being	

very	difficult	and	the	athlete	role,	more	often	than	not,	was	prioritized.			

Sophie	shared	she	always	felt	in	conflict	and	her	focus	on	swimming	was	greater	

than	her	focus	on	academics	because	she	was	always	pushing	herself	to	the	next	level	in	the	

pool.		Her	perspective	was	not	conducive	to	her	academics	because	she	did	not	put	in	the	

same	level	of	effort.	

Jake	and	Macy	felt	a	similar	pull	and	tried	to	bring	balance	to	their	lives.		Macy	

pointed	out	the	obligations	and	duties	required	to	fulfill	both	roles	and	the	resulting	

demand	on	time	and	energy.		Jake	echoed	the	balancing	act	could	be	tough,	particularly	

with	coaches	focused	on	athletics,	faculty	focused	on	academics,	and	the	student-athlete	

stuck	in	the	middle.		

Two	of	the	participants,	Scott	and	Travis,	said	balancing	school	and	sports	was	

especially	challenging	during	their	first	year	in	college	as	they	tried	to	make	their	

respective	teams	and	find	a	balance	with	everything	else.		Callie	echoed	these	sentiments	

saying	the	first	two	years	involved	learning	about	the	transition	from	high	school	to	college	

81	

	
	
	
	
and	understanding	the	athletics	were	at	a	completely	different	level.		Jasmine	and	Scott	

indicated	the	student	role	was	on	the	“back	burner”	when	trying	to	balance	studies	and	

social	opportunities.	

George	and	Addy	felt	there	was	a	conflict,	but	not	as	much	as	others.		George	

indicated	he	felt	his	athletics	and	academics	balanced	out	most	of	the	time,	but	when	

classes	got	really	busy,	“it	was	hard	to	be	mentally	present	on	the	pool	deck	for	practice	

and	some	of	the	meets.”		Addy	shared	while	she	did	not	have	scheduling	conflicts,	there	

were	times	when	it	was	both	physically	and	mentally	exhausting	to	put	energy	into	both	

practice	and	classes.	

The	student-athletes	were	open	about	the	fact	the	conflict	was	real	to	them,	not	just	

perceived.		Chloe	highlighted	this	conflict	by	saying,		

“You’re	supposed	to	say	that,	you	know,	your	academics	come	before	
athletics…Your	academics	do	ride	on	your	athletics	so,	or	vice	versa,	in	the	sense	of	
you	can’t	really	play	without	having	at	least	bare	minimum	academics;	however,	in	
actual	practice,	they	conflict	each	other	a	lot.		And	ten	times	out	of	ten,	athletics	will	
always	win.”			

Summing	up	the	conflict	that	extended	throughout	her	career,	Zoe	said,		

“So,	you	have	these	responsibilities	and	obligations,	and	at	the	very	least,	even	if	it’s	
not,	you	know,	written	in	black…it’s	this	concept	and	idea,	and	this	sort	of	internal	
pressure,	or	external	too,	but	that	there’s	supposed	to	be	a	certain	amount	of	time	
that	you’re	dedicating	to	your	craft,	which	as	athletes,	we	all	understand.		That’s	
part	of	our	job…to	be	honing	our	craft	at	all	times…There’s	only	so	much	time	to	
dedicate	to	all	of	those	things,	and	for	me,	my	internal	compass	was	pointed	towards	
being	a	student,	and	externally	it	was	supposed	to	be	being	pointed	towards	being	
an	athlete.		So,	there	was	conflict	all	of	the	time.”	

While	many	of	the	student-athletes	tried	to	mitigate	the	conflict	by	staying	ahead	on	

their	homework,	taking	tests	on	the	team	bus,	and	taking	the	same	classes	as	a	team,	they	

also	discussed	a	variety	of	practical	implications	of	the	conflict.		These	implications	

included	failing	courses	due	to	prioritizing	athletics,	not	going	to	class	regularly	or	putting	

82	

	
	
	
	
in	the	necessary	study	time,	not	being	able	to	take	specific	courses	or	declare	the	first-

choice	major	due	to	scheduling,	and	professors	not	demonstrating	an	understanding	of	

their	schedule.		The	prioritization	of	athletics	extended	beyond	the	classroom	and	into	their	

social	lives	as	well.		Zoe	and	Travis	shared	they	did	not	have	a	social	life	and	there	was	no	

time	to	develop	one.			

One	interesting	observation	was	shared	by	Zoe	regarding	the	political	aspect	of	

making	choices	between	academics	and	athletics.		She	indicated	not	meeting	the	coaches’	

expectations	regarding	participating	in	additional	lifting	and	practice	resulted	in	reduced	

playing	time	and	a	lack	of	trust.		This	mistrust,	in	turn,	changes	the	overall	dynamics	with	

the	coaches	and	teammates	and	you	are	considered	“cancerous,”	even	if	it	is	not	true.	

As	a	follow	up	to	the	question	regarding	conflict,	I	asked	the	participants	if	the	

conflict	increased	or	decreased	throughout	their	time	in	college.		Interestingly,	no	one	said	

it	solely	increased	over	time.		Addy	recalled	it	remained	relatively	stable	during	her	first	

three	years,	but	the	conflict	increased	during	her	senior	year	because	she	was	named	

captain	of	her	team.		The	unexpected	result	of	this	leadership	role	was	the	time	dedicated	

to	being	a	line	of	communication	between	teammates	and	coaches	and	taking	on	the	

emotional	stress	of	teammates.			

Callie	talked	about	the	transition	from	high	school	to	college	and	then	the	difference	

between	her	first	two	and	last	two	years	of	college.		She	recalled	the	conflict	of	academics	

and	athletics	decreased	throughout	high	school	and	increased	in	college	as	she	tried	to	sort	

out	priorities	before	it	started	to	decrease	again.	

Blake,	Zoe,	Sophie,	and	Iris	expressed	the	conflict	stayed	about	the	same	for	them.		

Specifically,	the	conflict	did	not	decrease,	but	their	ability	to	handle	it	increased.		They	

83	

	
	
	
stated	they	were	able	to	better	manage	the	internal	conflict	and	stop	feeling	as	much	

external	pressure.			

The	other	respondents	found	the	conflict	decreased	over	time.		Jake	highlighted	

clear	communication	as	one	key	to	this	conflict	–	making	sure	he,	his	coaches,	and	

instructors	were	all	on	the	same	page	made	a	different	in	his	experience.		When	he	did	have	

to	decide	between	academics	and	athletics,	his	decision-making	matrix	was	to	consider	the	

long-term	impact	of	the	choice	and	minimize	regrets.	

Other	student-athletes	shared	being	able	to	work	out	their	priorities	and	

understand	the	importance	of	their	studies	made	a	difference	in	the	level	of	conflict.		The	

experience	was	particularly	salient	for	Sophie	who	shifted	her	thinking	during	her	third	

and	fourth	year	to	focus	more	on	academics	and	career	decisions	while	keeping	athletics	in	

proper	perspective.			

Enhanced	time	management	and	study	skills	were	cited	as	the	most	common	reason	

for	reducing	conflict.		Blake	said	he	had	to	develop	these	skills	quickly	to	stay	on	top	of	his	

classes	and	not	let	the	work	snowball.		For	many	of	the	participants,	not	letting	the	work	

build	up	meant	doing	homework	on	the	bus	or	late	at	night,	learning	how	to	study	outside	

of	class,	and	taking	advantage	of	the	mandatory	study	hours.		Beyond	time	management,	

Macy	recalled	her	increased	knowledge	of	campus	resources,	such	as	study	groups	and	

office	hours,	as	central	to	her	ability	to	manage	the	stress	and	emotions	of	the	conflict	more	

effectively.	

Having	established	the	meaning	of	being	a	student	athlete	and	the	potential	conflict	

existing	for	the	participants,	the	following	sections	will	focus	on	their	definition	of	success	

and	how	it	changed	along	their	collegiate	journey.	

84	

	
	
	
Defining	Success	

This	section	focuses	on	answering	the	first	research	question	at	the	heart	of	the	

study:	How	do	student-athletes	define	success?		Additionally,	I	address	how	the	student-

athletes’	definitions	changed	as	they	progressed	through	college	and	how	they	changed	

further	following	graduation.			

Definitions	

Four	themes	were	identified	in	the	participants’	definitions	of	success:	winning,	

improvement,	finding	balance,	and	receiving	approval.	

Winning	

Eight	of	the	student-athletes	identified	winning,	or	some	aspect	of	winning,	as	

central	to	their	success	definition	at	some	point	during	college.		When	asked	the	question,	

Zoe	said,	“Of	course,	winning.”		Riley	responded	similarly	saying,	“To	me,	as	a	student-

athlete,	I	had	thought	success	would	only	mean	winning.”		Others	added	personal,	

measurable	aspects	to	their	perspective	on	winning,	including	increased	performance	in	

practice	and	games,	dropped	time	in	practice	and	races,	higher	statistics,	breaking	school	

records,	participation	in	regional	and	national	championships,	and	increased	playing	time.	

While	defining	success	as	winning	was	the	first	thing	these	participants	cited,	they	

were	quick	to	add	how	the	centrality	of	winning	shifted	as	they	grew	and	matured	as	

individuals.		These	changes	are	discussed	in	more	detail	below.	

Improvement	

Closely	related	to	winning,	several	of	the	student-athletes	referenced	the	idea	of	

improving	in	a	particular	area,	skill,	or	character	trait	as	central	to	their	definition	of	

success.			

85	

	
	
	
	
	
Sophie	summed	improvement	up	nicely	when	she	said,	“I	had	to	be	better	than	I	was	

the	day	before.”		George	felt	improvement	demonstrated	individual	success.		He	said,	“I	

guess	individual	success	for	me,	it	all	came	down	to	improvement…if	I	improved	on	

something,	whether	it	was	going	a	lifetime	best	time,	or	executing	like	a	certain	detail	in	the	

race	that	I	was	really	focused	on.		Even	if	I	improved	on	one	thing…that	is	success.		Because	

for	me,	that	was	what	kept	me	motivated,	was	always	finding	ways	to	improve.”		

Conversely	George	stated	if	he	did	not	improve	on	anything	in	a	particular	practice	or	race,	

he	felt	unsuccessful.		Layla	said,	“...But	also	as	I	practice	on	my	own,	was	I	like	getting	

quicker?		Was	I	getting	faster?		Were	my	skills	becoming	more	refined	and	consistent	over	

time?”		Improvement	for	this	group	of	student-athletes	was	tightly	connected	to	

performance.	

Several	of	the	participants	highlighted	improvement	in	personal	character	traits.		

The	first	of	these	traits	was	taking	the	focus	off	self	and	putting	it	on	others.		In	this	vein,	

Jasmine	wanted	to	be	a	servant	to	those	around	her.		In	addition	to	defining	success	as	

improvement,	as	referenced	above,	Layla	said,	“but	also	being	a	good	role	model	for	my	

teammates	and	trying	to	help	them	out	in	any	way	I	could.”		Callie	similarly	defined	success	

as	being	a	good	teammate	and	being	encouraging	to	those	around	her.			

The	second	characteristic	was	developing	a	strong	work	ethic.		Amelia	was	

concerned	with	playing	hard	and	giving	her	all	on	and	off	the	court.		Jenny	shared	success	is	

having	something	to	show	for	all	of	the	training	and	hard	work	she	put	in.		Iris	felt	success	

was	attaining	a	goal	as	the	result	of	hard	work.		She	expressed	this	perspective	is	applicable	

to	both	large	and	small	achievements	–	like	winning	an	NCAA	championship	or	doing	well	

on	an	exam.	

86	

	
Finding	Balance	

Finding	a	balance	between	success	on	the	court	or	field	and	in	the	classroom	was	

cited	by	several	student-athletes	as	how	they	defined	success.		In	addition	to	winning	and	

playing	at	a	high	level,	maintaining	a	high	GPA,	making	the	dean’s	list,	learning	

continuously,	and	earning	a	degree	were	mentioned	as	equally	important.		Blake	

highlighted	this	balance	with	his	comments,	

“I	think	it’s	a	balance	between	having	success	on	the	court	and	off	the	court.		
Obviously,	success	on	the	court,	you	know,	going	to	the	NCAA	tournament…it	was	
unbelievable.		But	I	think	another	part	of	success	was	walking	across	the	stage	on	
graduation,	saying	I	did	it…I	think	it’s	a	blend	of	all	those	things	while	just	being	a	
normal	kid	at	the	same	time.		So,	I	think	if	you’re	able	to	balance	those	things…that’s	
what	I	would	define	as	a	successful	student-athlete.”	

Similarly,	Jake	stated	balance	was	the	ability	for	him	to	engage	in	swimming,	academics,	

and	his	personal	life	in	a	manner	he	wanted,	without	feeling	overwhelmed.		He	said,	“I	

definitely	think	I	was	doing	too	much	at	the	beginning.		And	then	I	was	able	to	do	almost	as	

much	later	on,	but	with	a	much	happier	mindset.”		Jake	and	Blake	defined	success	as	the	

progression	to	a	more	balanced	life.			

Receiving	Approval	

Three	of	the	student-athletes	cited	the	external	motivation	of	having	the	approval	of	

others,	particularly	parents	and	coaches,	as	part	of	their	definition	of	success.		Chloe	said,	“I	

defined	success	by	the	approval	of	people	I	held	in	high	regard.		So,	what	I	mean	by	that	is,	

if	my	dad	and	my	mom	were	proud	of	me,	I	was	successful.		If	my	coaches	were	proud…I	

was	successful…If	they	were	proud	of	me,	and	they	thought	that	I	was	being	successful,	

then	I	thought	I	was	successful.”		Travis	tied	external	approval	to	his	desire	to	be	successful	

in	the	classroom.		He	shared,	“I	think	the	ultimate	goal	is	getting	a	degree…So	mine,	you	

know,	I	just	wanted	to	make	my	mom	proud	about	going	to	school	for	free,	getting	a	degree,	

87	

	
	
	
	
and	stuff	like	that.”		Early	in	her	athletic	career,	Macy	sought	external	validation,	which	

meant	winning,	being	a	starter,	and	receiving	both	academic	and	athletic	accolades.		In	

short,	she	defined	success	as	“being	the	best”	and	being	recognized	for	your	abilities.	

Changing	Definitions	During	College	

The	previous	section	focused	on	the	initial	definition	of	success	as	described	by	the	

participants.		This	section	accounts	for	the	changes,	if	any,	occurring	in	their	definitions	as	

they	progressed	through	their	college	careers.		While	two	student-athletes	indicated	there	

was	very	little	change,	the	others	described	alterations	in	their	definitions	resulting	from	

the	amount	of	time	and	work	involved	in	being	a	student	and	athlete,	change	in	

circumstances,	change	in	goals,	and	change	in	perspective.	

No	Change	

Two	participants,	Amelia	and	Chloe,	stated	over	the	course	of	their	college	career	

they	did	not	experience	any	significant	changes	in	their	definition	of	success.		Amelia	

expressed	she	experienced	a	more	significant	change	while	she	was	in	high	school,	

particularly	related	to	her	faith	and	how	her	relationship	with	God	impacted	her	priorities	

and	goals.		Her	definition	of	success	in	college,	however,	remained	relatively	consistent	

overall.		Other	than	specific	times	when	her	“walk	with	Christ	wasn’t	always	as	close	as	I	

would	like	it	to	be,”	she	stated	her	definition	of	success	“did	fluctuate	a	little	bit	based	on	

wins	and	individual	performance,	but	ultimately	it	stayed	the	same.”		Chloe	shared	

throughout	her	time	in	college	she	kept	the	same	mindset	of	making	the	people	around	her	

proud.			

88	

	
	
	
	
	
Change	in	Circumstances	

Three	participants	experienced	changes	in	life	circumstances	impacting	how	they	

defined	success.		When	initially	talking	about	success,	Travis	said,		

“When	you	first	get	the	call	and	get	the	scholarship,	the	goal	is,	you	know,	trying	to	
make	it	to	the	NBA.		Try	and	make	the	big	bucks	and	stuff	like	that.		But	I	think	once	
you	start	looking	at	the	bigger	picture,	you	realize	everybody	can’t	go.		Everybody	
can’t	make	it.		And,	you	know,	the	ultimate	goal	is	to	get	the	degree	and	get	through	
college…So	yeah,	my	perspective	definitely	changed…probably	going	into	my	junior	
year	because	you	experience	so	much	in	college.”	

When	I	followed	up	and	asked	Travis	if	anything	in	particular	happened	his	junior	

year	to	change	his	perspective,	he	shared	he	lost	his	grandfather.		Related	to	what	this	

tragedy	meant	regarding	success,	he	said,	“At	that	point,	losing	him,	I	pretty	much	had	to	

step	up	and	become	the	man	of	the	household.”		He	went	on	to	say,	“That’s	when	

everything	flipped	for	me.		I	wanted	to	keep	pursuing	[basketball],	but	I	was	pretty	much,	I	

was	torn	down.		I	couldn’t	play	basketball.		I	had	a	good	season,	but	I	wasn’t	in	it	how	I	was	

before.”		Personal	loss	caused	Travis	to	see	the	importance	of	changing	his	definition	of	

success	to	include	non-sports	related	goals.	

Injuries	were	mentioned	as	catalysts	for	change	by	two	of	the	student-athletes.		Zoe	

talked	about	her	experience	coming	back	from	injury	and	how	her	definition	of	success	

shifted.		Describing	the	experience	as	a	change	in	mindset,	she	said,	“At	some	point	I	dealt	

with	injury,	so	rather	than	success	being	about	winning	a	game,	it	was	more	so	like,	how	do	

I	get	back	onto	the	court?		Am	I,	you	know,	training	properly?		Am	I	eating?”		The	focus	was	

on	how	to	be	successful	returning	to	her	previous	playing	status.			

Layla’s	injuries,	on	the	other	hand,	were	such	that	she	had	to	medically	retire	mid-

way	through	her	junior	year.		There	was	a	two-month	period	while	she	was	waiting	on	the	

89	

	
	
	
results	of	her	medical	tests	she	used	to	reflect	on	her	priorities	and	definition	of	success.		

Much	of	the	reflection	was	focused	on	her	faith	and	spirituality.		She	said,		

“Coming	from	a	Christian	aspect,	I	saw	[the	injuries]	as	time	from	God,	that	he	gave	
me,	to	really	change	my	focus	in	life	and	realize	that	basketball	had	become	an	idol	
and	taken	over	my	whole	mindset.		And	I	needed	to	shift	my	focus	more	towards	
building	relationships	with	people…and	building	more	of	that	faith	and	connection	
with	God	that’ll	ultimately	change	my	mindset	and	outlook	on	life	in	a	more	positive	
way.”			

Following	her	retirement,	she	transitioned	from	student-athlete	to	student-coach/manager	

for	her	basketball	team.		Layla	described	her	outlook	after	changing	roles,	“So,	I	think	I	am	

much	better	balanced	now,	and	ultimately	just	have	a	more	positive	outlook	on	life,	to	not	

worry	so	much	about	the	outcome	and	just	looking	for	that	continuous	joy	every	day	

throughout	life,	and	finding	the	joy	in	the	littlest	things,	and	being	thankful	for	all	that	I’ve	

had,	and	I’ve	experienced,	and	there’s	still	a	lot	to	come.”		As	a	result	of	significant	changes	

in	her	life,	Layla	had	more	time	to	consider	her	shifting	priorities	and	felt	it	was	all	for	the	

best.	

As	mentioned	previously,	many	of	the	student-athletes’	definitions	of	success	

involved	winning	on	some	level.		Zoe,	however,	shared	how	her	definition	started	to	change	

when	basketball	was	not	going	well	and	winning	was	not	happening.		“So,	it’s	always	

winning.		But	when	it	can’t	be	winning	or	it’s	not	winning,	then	it’s	kind	of	like,	okay	now,	

what	is	it?”		She	described	how	her	focus	began	to	encompass	more	than	just	winning.			

“I	wanted	to	graduate	with	a	4.0…that	is	what	I	did!		I	wanted	to	have…other	things	
going	on,	so	I	joined	a	sorority.		It	was	about	me	trying	to	then	expand	what	my	
college	life	was,	rather	than	it	just	being	centered	on	basketball,	because	basketball	
was	not	going	well.		And	that	was	just	affecting	other	things…So	it	was	like,	what	are	
my	relationships	like	with	my	teammates?		Like,	can	I	trust	the	people	in	this	locker	
room?		How	are	those	relationships	being	dealt	with?”	

90	

	
	
	
The	circumstances	these	student-athletes	experienced	caused	them	to	have	to	adapt	

their	definitions	of	success,	which	turned	out	to	be	a	positive	experience	for	them.	

Amount	of	Work	and	Time	

Three	of	the	participants	recognized	the	impact	of	the	amount	of	time	and	work	

required	for	simultaneously	being	a	student	and	an	athlete	and	the	subsequent	changes	

this	impact	required	on	how	they	defined	success.			

Blake	highlighted	the	initial	shock	of	juggling	classes	and	practices	his	first	year	and	

how	difficult	the	transition	was	from	high	school	to	college.		He	commented	on	how	much	

harder	the	practices	were	and	how	much	more	demanding	the	classes	were.		“You’re	just	

trying	to	ride	the	ship	honestly.		These	practices	are	way	harder.		You’re	just	trying	to	fit	in.		

You’re	trying	to	get	as	much	playing	time	as	you	can	all	while	juggling	a	full	class	schedule.”			

The	change	for	Blake	occurred	slowly	over	time	as	he	recognized	success	was	more	about	

the	little	things.		“And	then,	as	the	years	go	on,	you	get	smarter,	everything	slows	down	a	

little	bit	more,	and	you’re	able	to	focus	on	little	things	and	really	trying	to	succeed.		And	I	

think	you	know,	by	the	senior	year,	you’re	just	trying	to	enjoy	every	minute.”		While	the	

transition	from	high	school	to	college	was	initially	difficult,	Blake	found	that	he	was	able	to	

enjoy	more	success	as	time	passed.	

Riley	recognized	how	competitive	the	college	athletic	atmosphere	was,	and	in	

addition	to	the	in-season	and	on-campus	training,	he	identified	the	importance	of	training	

on	his	own	during	the	summers	as	a	crucial	aspect	of	success.		“A	lot	of	the	training	is	in	the	

summer	when	you’re	not	even	around	your	teammates	and	training	on	your	own	and	

certain	things	like	that.		So,	there	was	a	lot	that	I	just	didn’t	realize	would	have	to	

91	

	
	
	
	
contribute	toward	success	but	did.”		Riley	recognized	the	additional	commitment	of	time	

and	effort	it	was	going	to	take	to	be	successful.			

Similarly,	Scott	recognized	areas	in	his	life	needing	to	change	in	order	to	be	

successful	and	maintain	athletic	and	academic	competitiveness.		He	reported	setting	his	

standards	high	from	the	beginning	because	he	wanted	to	play	football	and	pursue	a	pre-

med	academic	path.		However,	it	did	not	take	long	for	his	focus	to	skew	heavily	toward	

football,	meaning	his	grades	started	to	decrease.		The	realization	this	change	was	

happening,	coupled	with	the	strong	desire	to	be	successful	in	both,	caused	Scott	to	take	

corrective	action.		“So	that	ended	up	making	me	get	rid	of	basically	my	social	life,	going	out	

and	stuff…to	maintain	being	competitive.”		He	also	worked	more	closely	with	his	academic	

advisor	to	help	with	managing	priorities	on	and	off	the	field.			

Change	in	Perspective	

Finally,	many	of	the	student-athletes	articulated	an	overarching	change	in	personal	

perspective	causing	them	to	rethink	and	redefine	success.			

Zoe	discussed	the	frustration	of	being	part	of	a	system	that	did	not	work.	

“We’re	being	put	in	a	system,	right?		So,	you	have	these	coaches	and	other	people	
who	are	in	charge	of	it…You	have	coaches	who	have	essentially	created	this	system,	
and	you’re	coming	into	it.		And	the	hope	is	that	you’re	coming	into	the	system	
believing	that	it	can	work…Your	hope	is	that	your	coaches	are	experienced	enough	
and	flexible	enough	themselves,	that	if	the	system	is	not	working,	that	they	will	be	
willing	to	adjust	it…The	problem	is	that	when	it’s	not	working,	there	is	supposed	to	
be	some	level	of	adjustment.		And	there	are	a	lot	of	coaches	who	are	unwilling	to	
adjust	because	their	idea	is,	it’s	you	all,	not	my	system…That	becomes	a	
disappointing	place.”			

Zoe	went	on	to	describe	further	disappointments	related	to	her	experience	with	coaches	

who	did	not	exhibit	the	qualities	they	were	expecting	from	their	players,	such	as	showing	

up	every	day	at	your	best	and	being	willing	to	be	adaptable	and	flexible.		All	of	this	

92	

	
	
	
		
	
disappointment	resulted	in	a	level	of	friction	between	the	coaches	and	players,	and	

ultimately,	in	Zoe’s	opinion,	losing	games.		However,	this	experience	caused	her	to	adjust	

and	pivot	related	to	her	definition	of	success.		She	focused,	instead,	on	relationships	with	

teammates,	joined	a	sorority,	and	focused	on	achieving	her	goal	of	a	4.0	GPA.	

Unlike	Zoe,	many	of	the	student-athletes	did	not	have	a	series	of	specific	events	that	

caused	their	definition	to	change.		Instead,	the	definition	morphed	slowly	over	their	time	as	

their	perspective	changed	due	to	a	variety	of	experiences.			

Riley	was	focused	on	winning	when	he	began	his	college	career.		As	he	progressed,	

he	realized	there	were	a	lot	of	different	ways	to	win	and	be	successful.		As	an	example,	he	

shared	his	best	individual	race	turned	out	not	to	be	a	good	team	race.		This	result	caused	

him	to	rethink	his	place	in	the	team,	how	he	fit	into	the	bigger	picture,	and	how	his	

performance	may	or	may	not	impact	his	teammates.		He	subsequently	challenged	them	to	

understand	their	limits	and	felt	he	was	successful	when	he	knew	he	had	pushed	his	

teammates	farther	than	they	realized	they	could	go.		He	said,	“That’s	really	what	it	took	was	

to	push	all	the	way	beyond	and	find	your	breaking	point,	and	then	just	use	that	knowledge	

to	know	how	hard	you	can	push	yourself,	because	sometimes	you	push	yourself	to	a	certain	

point,	and	tell	yourself	this	is	all	I	have,	but	usually	that’s	not	always	true.”		After	

experiencing	a	shift	in	perspective,	Riley	turned	his	focus	not	only	to	realizing	his	own	full	

potential,	but	also	helping	his	teammates	realize	their	own.	

For	Jenny,	the	change	occurred	when	her	focus	on	comparing	herself	with	others,	

specifically	related	to	performance	in	the	pool,	shifted	to	an	equal	amount	of	focus	on	her	

grades.		The	shift	in	thinking,	and	subsequent	release	of	pressure,	made	her	feel	happier	

about	the	way	she	was	swimming.	

93	

	
Addy	focused	on	her	effort	in	college	rather	than	the	results	of	her	athletic	

competitions.		For	a	variety	of	reasons,	she	did	not	improve	as	an	athlete	in	college,	

compared	to	her	performance	in	high	school.		She	had	to	accept	the	fact	success	was	not	

defined	by	her	times	in	the	pool,	because	if	it	was,	she	would	have	been	a	failure	during	her	

four	years	in	college.		Sophie,	on	the	other	hand,	did	not	experience	the	drop	in	results	like	

Addy.		However,	she	altered	her	definition	of	success	in	her	fourth	year,	after	three	years	of	

winning,	to	include	enjoyment	of	the	sport	no	matter	the	results.		She	also	recognized	

graduating	itself	was	a	success,	having	participated	in	athletics	for	four	years.	

Jake	and	Macy	described	an	internal	process	led	to	their	change	in	definition.		Jake	

shared	as	he	progressed	through	high	school	and	college,	he	made	an	intentional	effort	to	

intrinsically	define	success.		He	still	cared	about	what	those	around	him	thought,	but	he	

said,	“At	the	end	of	the	day	I’m	either	happy	with	what	I’ve	done	or	not	happy	with	what	

I’ve	done	because	of	what	I	think.		So,	I	think	that’s	been	a	good	thing	for	keeping	me	

grounded.”		After	focusing	on	winning	for	much	of	her	career,	Macy	made	a	shift	to	focus	

more	on	internal	validation	and	a	growth	mindset.		She	recognized	she	can	still	have	lofty	

goals,	like	winning	a	championship,	but	she	can	also	focus	on	smaller	goals	too.		In	

summary,	she	described	her	new	definition	of	success	as,	“being	the	best	version	of	

yourself	you	can,	in	that	moment,	because	each	moment	has	different	conditions,	different	

circumstances,	and	some	of	those	things	are	outside	of	the	locus	of	your	control.”		For	Jake	

and	Macy,	a	change	in	perspective	meant	an	increased	focus	on	internal	processes	and	

validation.	

George	credited	his	change	in	definition	of	success	to	his	maturation	process	and	

increase	in	emotional	intelligence.		Initially,	he	felt	unsuccessful	if	he	did	not	get	the	time	in	

94	

	
a	race	for	which	he	planned.		He	said,	“That	kind	of	becomes	toxic…puts	a	lot	of	pressure	on	

the	end	result.”		Instead,	he	found	it	helpful	to	focus	on	smaller	details	and	celebrate	little	

successes	along	the	way.		Iris	also	adopted	a	change	in	her	definition	as	a	result	of	

experience	in	life.		Specifically,	she	recognized	what	is	most	important	is	not	money	and	

winning.		Instead,	having	the	ability	to	push	through	difficult	times	and	achieve	your	goals	

is	more	important.	

Callie	transitioned	from	being	focused	on	athletic	and	academic	performance	to	

placing	a	greater	emphasis	on	being	a	good	teammate	and	preparing	herself	specifically	to	

be	at	her	best	for	her	teammates.		Layla’s	change	in	definition	also	included	her	impact	on	

her	teammates	and	added	the	ability	to	learn	from	mistakes.		She	said,		

“Looking	back	now,	I	would	definitely	say,	like	self-improvement	is	definitely	like	a	
big	part	of	that.		Like	still	refining	the	skills	and	being	more	consistent	and	
disciplined,	and	them	becoming	like	second	nature.		But	also	leaving	a	positive	
impact	on	the	teammates	around	you.		I	think	that’s	a	big	part	of	success	as	well.		
And	then…learning	from	your	mistakes,	taking	what	you’ve	learned	from	your	
mistakes,	and	if	you	can	take	what	you	learn	from	the	sports	world	and	apply	it	to	
your	real	life.		I	think	that’s	super	important.”			

Additionally,	Layla	highlighted	having	a	positive	outlook	and	a	positive	impact	on	

others	as	necessary	for	success.		And	as	mentioned	above,	her	faith	played	a	significant	role	

in	these	realizations	after	recognizing	basketball	had	taken	over	her	mindset	and	her	focus	

needed	to	shift	to	faith	and	relationships.	

Jasmine’s	change	in	definition	was	also	related	to	her	faith.		She	identified	the	time	

after	her	second	year	as	the	phase	that	started	to	shift	how	she	defined	success.		During	this	

time,	she	realized	she	did	not	have	to	be	the	best	player	on	the	floor	to	be	“worthy”	and	

fulfilling	her	purpose.		She	stated,	“God	didn’t	put	me	in	this	position	just	for	me.		Like,	it’s	

also	to	be	a	servant	to	those	around	me.		So,	then	my	purpose	became	more	than	just	me.”		

95	

	
	
Jasmine	identified	her	purpose	as	being	“much	bigger”	and	more	closely	aligned	to	her	

relationship	with	God.	

Changing	Definitions	after	College	

Having	identified	how	the	student-athletes	defined	success	in	college	and	how	these	

definitions	changed	as	they	moved	through	the	collegiate	experience,	this	section	focuses	

on	the	changes	that	took	place	after	graduation.		As	former	student-athletes,	I	asked	them	

to	reflect	on	their	time	since	college	and	discuss	how	their	post-graduation	experiences	

further	shaped	their	definition	of	success.		The	responses	are	divided	into	the	following	

categories:	change	in	focus,	change	in	goals,	and	change	in	perspective.	

Change	in	Focus	

Six	of	the	student-athletes	identified	a	change	in	focus	as	influencing	their	definition	

of	success	following	graduation.			

Blake’s	general	focus	moved	away	from	sports	and	became	more	directed	at	life	in	

general.		He	said,	“I	think	it’s	definitely	changed…I	do	have	goals	for	myself	in	life,	but	I	feel	

like	I	just	want	to	take	it	day	by	day,	because,	you	know,	life	can	hit	you	at	any	moment,	and	

I	feel	like	staying	present	is	so	key,	and	if	I’m	able	to	do	that,	then	I	feel	like	I	will	have	

success	in	the	future.”		Blake’s	focus	changed	to	being	more	about	staying	present	and	in	

the	moment.			

Riley,	Chloe,	and	Jasmine	identified	a	change	in	focus	related	to	their	greater	

purpose	as	part	of	the	shift	in	their	definition	of	success.		Consistent	with	what	brought	

meaning	to	him	as	a	student-athlete,	Riley	spoke	about	an	elevated	sense	of	personal	

fulfillment	and	responsibility.		He	stated,	“You	could	be	in	what	some	people	could	really	

define	as	a	very	successful	job	within	a	great	environment,	that	sometimes	it’s	just	not	

96	

	
	
	
	
what	you’re	happy	doing.		And	I	think	not	just	happiness,	but	a	sense	of	fulfillment	now	is	

much	more	important	to	me	in	success,	because	I	think	about	it…I	need	to	find	a	place	

where	I	can	be	fulfilled	in	my	work.”		Chloe	shared	thoughts	in	a	similar	vein,	highlighting	

the	COVID-19	pandemic	as	a	specific	time	that	caused	her	to	think	differently	about	

success.		She	shared,	“My	definition	has	changed…I’ve	finally	taken	that	time,	and	COVID	

definitely	helped.		Not	being	able	to	go	anywhere	always	helps	must	make	you	sit	down	and	

think	about	stuff,	figuring	out	what	actually	brings	me	joy	and	what	actually	defines	my	

happiness.		And	as	long	as	I	am	trying	my	hardest	and	still	progressing	to	get	to	those	goals	

that	I’ve	made	for	myself,	that	is	success	to	me.”		She	continued	to	describe	her	change	in	

focus	and	the	importance	of	her	own	interpretation	of	success,	not	relying	on	someone	

else’s.			

Jasmine’s	shift	in	focus	centered	on	her	faith	and	how	consistently	she	follows	God’s	

definition	of	success.		“You	know	now	is	so	much	more	different	and	just	thinking	about	

what’s	God’s	perspective,	and	where	he’s	asking	me	to	be?		What	steps	is	he	asking	me	to	

take	right	now?		What	steps	is	he	asking	me	to	take	next	year?”		In	relation	to	her	current	

job	as	a	coach,	she	also	mentioned	the	difference	between	being	“you-focused,	with	

blinders	on”	as	a	student-athlete	and	seeing	the	big	picture	as	a	coach	and	mentor.		She	

said,	“When	I	think	about	even	just	success	for	my	players	as	student-athletes,	I	want	it	to	

be	different	for	them	and	I	want	to	help	facilitate	that	as	much	as	I	can	just	for	them	to	

understand.		The	stat	line	doesn’t	make	or	break	who	you	are…your	identity,	in	seeing	

success	as	who	you	are,	as	a	person,	cannot	come	from	this	[stat]	line.”		Jasmine’s	definition	

of	success	meant	something	much	different	when	working	with	her	players	from	what	it	

did	as	an	individual	student-athlete.			

97	

	
Macy	shared	she	plans	to	increase	her	focus	on	intangibles	are	not	based	in	

achievements	or	accolades.		As	a	recent	graduate,	she	also	recognizes	something	that	seems	

incredibly	stressful	in	the	moment,	may	not	be	memorable	after	time	has	passed.		She	

referred	to	this	focus	as	staying	mentally	regulated	in	the	moment.	

Having	graduated,	Addy’s	new	definition	of	success	is	figuring	out	her	own	goals	and	

following	through	on	things	she	wants	to	do	for	herself,	not	things	required	of	her	as	part	of	

an	academic	or	athletic	program.			

Change	in	Goals	

Three	of	the	student-athletes	experienced	a	change	in	goals	following	their	time	in	

college.		Closely	tied	to	Chloe’s	change	in	focus	described	above,	she	identified	making	a	

difference	in	people’s	lives	as	a	new	goal.		Travis’s	response	to	this	question	related	to	his	

big-picture	goals	of	accomplishing	more	than	just	getting	a	job.		He	said,	“The	way	that	I	

view	success	now	is…it’s	always	changing.		I	think	it’s	always	changing…I’m	gonna	get	a	job,	

and	I	get	a	job.		But	if	you	want	to	elevate,	you	have	to	do	more.”		Scott’s	overall	goals	

following	graduation	were	to	make	it	to	the	NFL	and	then	go	to	medical	school.		As	such,	his	

short-term	goals	became	much	more	practical	in	nature	–	preparing	physically	and	

mentally	for	the	NFL	draft	and	completing	shadowing	hours	for	medical	school	

applications.		Finishing	college	and	facing	the	prospect	of	the	next	phase	of	life	caused	

shifts	in	the	overarching	goals	of	these	student-athletes.	

Change	in	Perspective	

Finally,	eight	of	the	student-athletes	highlighted	changes	in	a	particular	perspective	

as	the	result	of	their	change	in	success	definition.			

98	

	
	
	
Riley	identified	two	unique	aspects	of	his	perspective	changed.		First,	he	does	not	

feel	like	people	have	to	put	themselves	in	a	box,	particularly	related	to	attending	college.		

He	said,	“It	seems	like	after	high	school,	you	can	really	do	whatever	you	want,	and	there’s	a	

lot	of	different	ways	to	be	successful.		Some	people	go	to	college…and	that	really	doesn’t	

work	out	for	them.		Some	people	just	don’t	go	to	college	at	all	and	find	something	that	

really	works,	and	they	could	be	happy	with	it.”		And	second,	he	feels	that	life	is	not	just	

about	finding	happiness,	but	also	having	a	sense	of	fulfillment	and	coming	to	terms	with	

everything	that	you	have	done	in	your	life	up	to	the	present.		Specifically	in	relation	to	

pursuing	a	coaching	career,	he	shared,		

“But	a	big	part	of	fulfillment	for	me…is	being	okay	with	everything	that	I’ve	done	at	
this	stage	and	moving	on	from	it.		I	think	it’s	pretty	easy	actually	to	think	about	the	
past,	and	when	we	think	about	the	good	times,	to	think,	what	was	missing	there?		
And	what	more	could	I	have	done?...What	can	I	do	now?		And	it’s	nothing,	because	
it’s	in	the	past.		So,	I	think	what’s	healthy	now	is	not	just…what	I	did	or	didn’t	do	in	
my	career,	what	I	could	have	done	better.		But	to	just	instead	of	focus	on	that,	I	can	
take	what	I	did	best,	and	take	what	I	think	I	could	have	done	better,	and	just	set	that	
as	an	example	for	the	athletes	I’ll	be	around.”	

The	others	shared	varying	changes	to	their	perspective.		Amelia	realized	her	

approach	had	to	change	following	college.		She	said,	“For	example,	today	I’m	trying	to	

[work	hard]	and	working	hard	is	me	not	getting	frustrated	or	giving	up…my	mind	was,	

okay,	I	gotta	keep	going,	let	me	not	quit	on	it,	even	though	it’s	not	easy.”		Amelia	recognized	

working	hard	in	the	real	world	is	a	lot	different	from	working	hard	in	college.	

Callie’s	perspective	was	formed	as	a	student-athlete	and	continued	to	develop	

beyond	graduation.		She	prioritized	preparing	herself	for	work	and	life	and	is	trying	her	

best	to	learn	from	what	happens,	regardless	of	the	outcome,	good	or	bad.	

While	she	admits	to	being	the	same	person	she	was	in	college,	Zoe	decided	not	to	

put	as	much	pressure	on	herself	or	her	decisions	as	she	did	when	trying	to	balance	her	

99	

	
	
roles	as	student	and	athlete.		She	stated,	“I’m	not	putting	as	much	pressure	on	myself,	and	

creating	stress	for	myself	has	just	gotten	better.		And	so,	the	muscle	is	just	getting	

stronger.”		She	went	on	to	share,		

“I’m	in	grad	school	now,	and	it’s	not	what	I	thought	I	was	gonna	be	doing,	but…I	feel	
good	about	my	decisions,	my	choices.		So,	there’s	just	kind	of	strength	in	that.		
Where	now	you	have	these	bigger	life	things	that	are	happening,	where	it’s	not	even,	
though	it’s	a	big	thing	to	us.		Then	it’s	not	as	small	as	being	an	athlete	and	winning	a	
game.		It’s	these	bigger	life	things	that	are	happening,	and	it	just	kind	of	helps	with	
that,	having	had	to	practice	doing	it	then.”			

Reducing	the	amount	of	personal	pressure	and	recognizing	the	relative	insignificance	of	

things	she	experienced	as	a	student-athlete	have	helped	Zoe	shift	her	perspective.	

Jasmine	conveyed	it	is	no	longer	about	the	accumulation	of	statistics	making	or	

breaking	who	she	is.		She	tries	to	instill	this	perspective	in	her	players	as	a	coach.			

“And	just	being	able	to	understand	that,	and	then	applying	that,	continuing	to	apply	
that	to	my	own	life	and,	like,	my	success	isn’t	wrapped	up	in	how	successful	I	am	as	
a	coach…But	to	understand	that	now	success	is,	how	obedient	was	I?...You	know,	
now,	just,	it’s	so	much	more	different	and	just	thinking	about	what’s	God’s	
perspective,	and	where	he’s	asking	me	to	be?		What	steps	is	he	asking	me	to	take	
right	now?		What	steps	is	he	asking	me	to	take	next	year?”	

What	matters	in	Jasmine’s	new	perspective	is	a	focus	on	the	big	picture,	coupled	with	her	

faith.	

Travis	offered	two	points	of	view	related	to	how	his	perspective	has	changed	–	one	

practical	and	one	philosophical.		First,	he	said	there	are	a	lot	of	people	with	college	degrees,	

and	he	is	learning	about	the	necessity	of	networking.		And	second,	he	emphasized	the	

importance	of	not	being	afraid	to	fail	and	how	failing	is	the	only	way	to	learn.	

Iris	shifted	her	perspective	on	success	to	remind	herself	success	is	subjective,	and	

she	can	make	the	definition	what	she	wants	it	to	be.		She	no	longer	has	to	rely	on	

comparing	herself	to	peers	or	teammates	and	their	accomplishments.	

100	

	
	
	
Finally,	Jake	shared	he	might	not	care	as	much	as	he	thought	about	the	things	he	

wanted	and	worked	hard	for	throughout	his	college	experience.		He	said,	“As	I	go	forward,	I	

think	that	my	definition	of	success	might	become	like,	making	the	best	decision	on	the	

margins	and	then…trying	to	be	grateful	and	trying	to	be	happy.”		He	still	wants	to	maximize	

his	potential,	but	his	definition	of	success	has	the	added	components	of	gratitude	and	

happiness.			

This	section	provided	themes	from	the	responses	of	student-athletes	to	the	

questions	related	broadly	to	research	question	1.		The	following	section	focuses	on	

research	question	2	and	addresses	how	the	student-athlete	identity	and	definition	of	

success	are	related.	

Student-Athlete	Identity	and	Success:	Research	Question	2		

The	purpose	of	research	question	2	was	to	have	the	participants	consider	their	

student-athlete	identity	and	its	influence	on	their	definition	of	success.		All	of	the	student-

athletes	acknowledged	their	definition	of	success	was,	in	fact,	influenced	by	their	identity	

as	a	student-athlete.		The	degree	of	this	connection	varied	from	person	to	person,	with	

some	expressing	an	extremely	tight	coupling	and	others	focusing	more	on	other	aspects	of	

their	identity.	

Scott	provided	a	holistic	response	tying	his	student-athlete	identity	to	all	of	the	

qualities	he	learned	while	being	a	student-athlete	and	how	they	connect	to	success	in	life	

and	career.		In	summary,	he	said,	“My	identity	as	a	student-athlete	has	contributed	to	my	

definition	of	success	by	emphasizing	the	importance	of	being	able	to	balance	my	life	while	

managing	my	time,	working	hard,	trusting	in	teamwork,	being	resilient	through	losses,	and	

being	able	to	handle	pressure.		I	feel	these	qualities	are	important	for	success	in	any	

101	

	
	
	
career.”		He	identified	a	variety	of	qualities	that	were	part	of	his	student-athlete	identity	

and	shaped	his	definition	of	success.		In	summary,	he	said,	“My	identity	as	a	student-athlete	

has	contributed	to	my	definition	of	success	by	emphasizing	the	importance	of	being	able	to	

balance	my	life	while	managing	my	time,	working	hard,	trusting	in	teamwork,	being	

resilient	through	losses,	and	being	able	to	handle	pressure.		I	feel	these	qualities	are	

important	for	success.”		Qualities	such	as	time	management,	a	strong	work	ethic,	discipline,	

teamwork,	and	resilience	were	highlighted	by	Scott	as	stemming	from	his	student-athlete	

identity.			

Macy	also	identified	a	set	of	characteristics	defined	both	success	and	her	student-

athlete	identity,	including	a	strong	work	ethic	and	pushing	herself	to	the	limit.		For	her,	

success	took	on	new	meaning	when	her	identity	included	leadership	roles.		These	roles	

allowed	her	to	look	outward	and	assist	other	people	with	being	successful	and	reaching	

their	goals.	

The	definition	of	success	in	college	shared	by	Zoe,	Jasmine,	and	Chloe	highlights	the	

very	tight	interconnectedness	between	the	role	of	student	and	the	role	of	athlete.		Zoe’s	

definition	was	cultivated	through	her	student-athlete	identity	and	focused	most	on	winning	

and	positive	outcomes.		She	said,	“The	basic	concepts	of	winning	and	positive	outcomes	are	

integrated	in	the	student-athlete	identity,	which	is	the	way	I	have	identified	most	of	my	life.		

I	do	not	know	if	I	could	think	of	a	clear	distinction	between	my	definition	of	success	as	a	

student-athlete	and	my	general	definition	of	success.		They	are	inextricably	intertwined.”			

Chloe	further	shared	the	significance	of	the	relationship	between	her	student-athlete	

identity	and	definition	of	success	and	the	focus	on	winning.		She	stated,	“My	identity	as	a	

student-athlete	significantly	impacted	my	definition	of	success.		In	sports,	winning	equals	

102	

	
	
success	and	that	translated	into	my	idea	of	success	–	top	of	the	class,	being	the	best	

statistician	at	work,	etcetera.		If	I	am	not	the	best	and	win	at	whatever	I	try,	I	consider	that	

a	failure.”		Jasmine	shared	her	identity	as	a	student-athlete	actually	created	her	definition	

of	success.		In	fact,	she	went	so	far	as	to	say	she	believed	herself	to	be	a	failure	if	she	did	not	

live	up	to	her	own	definition	of	success.		Jasmine	said,	“My	belief	was	that	my	purpose	was	

to	be	a	student-athlete	at	that	point	in	time.		So,	everything	I	ate,	drank,	and	breathed	

surrounded	that.		If	my	stats	weren’t	where	they	should	be,	or	if	I	wasn’t	fulfilling	the	role	

my	team	needed	me	to,	I	would	see	myself	as	failing.”		She	went	on	to	talk	about	her	single-

minded	focus	and	how	it	detracted	from	other	areas	of	her	life	including	family,	

relationships,	spirituality,	and	academics.		“I	would	neglect	the	positive	in	my	life	

holistically	and	fail	to	contribute	that	to	a	holistic	success.		Because	of	my	athlete	identity,	

success	became	one-dimensional	–	tunnel	visioned.”		Each	of	these	three	student-athletes	

identified	such	a	significant	connection	between	their	role	as	student	and	role	as	athlete	

that	success	or	failure	in	one	was	equivalent	to	success	or	failure	in	the	other.	

Layla	confirmed	her	identity	as	a	student-athlete	determined	her	definition	of	

success	and	shared	the	transition	in	her	identity	that	took	place	after	experiencing	injury	

and	being	forced	to	retire	from	her	sport	of	basketball.		Layla	shared,		

“Before	my	injuries,	I	would	have	determined	success	as	stats	because	I	thought	my	
work	in	the	gym	should	have	translated	to	numbers	in	games.		After	my	injuries,	I	
would	say	my	definition	of	success	is	giving	full	effort	100	percent	of	the	time.		
Sometimes	that’ll	translate	to	good	stats	and	sometimes	it	won’t.		However,	all	we	
can	control	are	our	effort	and	attitude,	so	success	should	not	be	based	on	pure	stats	
and	outcome	numbers.		Some	people	are	more	naturally	skilled	than	others,	so	they	
don’t	need	to	work	as	hard.		Those	who	have	to	work	harder	typically	can	overcome	
the	tough	obstacles	with	more	resilience,	and	therefore,	reach	success.”	

The	different	perspective	forced	on	her	by	retirement	caused	Layla	to	identify	effort	and	

attitude	as,	ultimately,	more	important	than	winning.			

103	

	
	
	
In	high	school	and	early	college,	George	saw	himself	only	as	“[George]	the	

swimmer.”		His	identity	was	completely	tied	up	in	results	in	the	pool.		George’s	experiences	

in	college,	along	with	realizing	there	is	much	more	to	sports	and	life	than	the	times	he	was	

swimming,	helped	shift	his	identity	to	be	more	well-rounded.		Part	of	this	journey	included	

his	role	as	team	captain,	which	forced	his	focus	to	shift	outward	onto	his	teammates.	

Similarly,	Addy	assumed	more	of	an	identity	as	emotional	support	for	her	

teammates.		As	a	result,	she	focused	on	being	a	good	teammate,	setting	a	good	example,	and	

having	a	good	mindset.	

Iris’s	identity	as	a	student-athlete	resulted	in	the	perspective	that	her	definition	and	

standards	of	success	are	higher	than	her	non-athlete	peers.		She	shared	all	the	training	and	

work	required	to	be	a	student-athlete	results	in	student-athletes	being	able	to	push	

themselves	further	and	have	a	higher	breaking	point.			

Amelia’s	student-athlete	identity	influenced	her	definition	of	success,	but	this	

definition	was	also	tied	closely	to	her	spiritual	identity	–	consistent	with	her	responses	to	

the	other	questions.					

“My	identity	as	a	student-athlete	influenced	my	definition	of	success	by	putting	an	
emphasis	on	the	effort	given.		Being	a	student-athlete	with	my	identity	rooted	in	
Christ,	success	to	me	was	always	more	dependent	on	making	my	Heavenly	Father	
proud	and	that	came	simply	by	working	with	all	my	heart	with	the	goal	of	giving	him	
the	glory.		Being	a	student-athlete	emphasized	the	effort	part	of	this	definition	of	
success.”	

The	outcome	of	the	dual	nature	of	these	identities	for	Amelia	was	a	specific	emphasis	on	

giving	maximum	effort.	

In	relation	to	the	connection	between	his	student-athlete	identity	and	definition	of	

success,	Blake	said,	“I	think	it	just	went	to	show	myself	I	am	able	to	do	anything	I	can	put	

my	mind	into.		I	never	want	to	compare	myself	to	others.		The	quote,	‘comparison	is	a	thief	

104	

	
	
of	joy,’	is	something	I	live	by.		So,	my	definition	of	success	is	only	determined	by	me,	and	if	I	

felt	proud	of	myself,	then	I	felt	like	I	succeeded.”		Blake	moved	toward	an	inward	focus	on	

accomplishing	his	own	personal	goals,	rather	than	comparing	himself	to	the	success	of	

teammates	and	others	around	him.			

Cassidy	noticed	a	change	in	her	student-athlete	identity	mid-way	through	her	

college	career.		She	said,		

“I	feel	like	my	first	two	years	of	college,	again	there’s	a	bigger	emphasis	on	the	
performance	aspect.		So,	I	feel	like	I	put	more	of	my	identity	in	how	I	was	performing	
in	both	soccer	and	academics.		And	then…as	the	years	went	on,	more	so	on	how	I	
was	being	as	a	person	for	my	teammates	and	my	peers,	and	more	so	on	if	I	prepared	
myself,	rather	than	the	outcome	of	what	actually	happened.”	

Cassidy’s	focus,	and	consequently	her	identity,	shifted	from	a	performance-based	definition	

of	success	to	a	definition	elevating	the	idea	of	being	a	better	person.	

Jenny	shared	in	her	student-athlete	identity,	she	valued	the	student	identity	more	

than	the	athlete	identity,	because	she	recognized	early	in	her	swimming	career	competitive	

swimming	would	not	be	a	part	of	her	life	forever.		She	expressed	gratitude	for	being	

successful	in	both	athletics	and	academics	and	highlighted	the	advantage	of	having	two	

things	to	focus	on	–	particularly	when	one	was	not	going	as	well	as	expected.	

While	others	may	have	felt	this	way,	Sophie	verbalized	her	definition	of	success	

would	have	been	completely	different	had	she	not	been	a	student-athlete.		She	shared,	in	

her	experience,	those	who	identify	as	student-athletes	have	so	much	internal	pressure	they	

make	it	harder	on	themselves	to	be	successful.	

Travis	focused	more	on	the	practical	benefits	of	being	a	student-athlete	and	how	

they	contributed	to	his	success	in	particular	situations.		He	shared,	“My	[student-athlete]	

identity	changed	everything.		Being	a	student-athlete	made	school	easier	for	me…meeting	

105	

	
	
new	people	and	learning	how	to	network	with	different	cultures.”		He	also	connected	his	

student-athlete	identity	to	some	of	the	personal	challenges	he	faced	while	in	college,	

particularly	the	loss	of	several	close	friends	and	former	teammates.		He	said,	“It	also	gave	

me	a	sense	of	peace	knowing	that	everyone	knew	who	I	was	on	campus,	so	when	I	was	

dealing	with	a	tough	time,	I	knew	seeing	people	would	change	my	perspective	those	days.”		

Travis’s	identity	as	a	student-athlete	assisted	him	in	overcoming	very	challenging,	and	

potentially	devastating,	experiences.	

Success	and	Career	Transition:	Research	Question	3	

The	following	sections	discuss	the	participants’	career	aspirations,	how	they	

prepared	for	the	transition	from	college	athletics	to	the	next	phase	of	life,	and	how	their	

definition	of	success	may	have	influenced	the	transition.	

Career	Goals		

The	participants	in	this	study	varied	in	their	career	aspirations,	and	in	many	cases,	

their	career	plans	evolved	as	they	progressed	through	college	and	beyond	graduation.		

Table	2	lists	both	the	initial	and	current	career	plans	of	the	student-athletes	interviewed.			

Three	of	the	student-athletes	planned	to	play	their	sport	professionally.		Travis	

studied	criminal	justice	in	college	but	wanted	to	make	it	to	the	NBA.		Late	in	his	college	

experience	he	realized	playing	in	the	NBA	was	unlikely	and,	instead,	pursued	a	master’s	

degree	in	criminal	justice.		He	now	plans	to	work	in	cyber	security.		From	a	young	age,	

Jasmine	was	obsessed	with	medicine	and	hospitals.		She	started	on	a	pre-med	track	but	

changed	her	major	to	psychology	after	transferring	schools.		Jasmine	played	professional	

basketball	in	Italy	for	a	short	period	of	time	before	deciding	to	return	to	the	United	States	

to	attend	graduate	school	and	further	study	psychology.		Scott	was	inspired	by	his	father	to	

106	

	
	
be	a	student-athlete	and	pursue	medicine,	specifically	to	be	a	cardiothoracic	surgeon.		

These	plans	are	on	hold	as	he	pursues	his	dream	to	play	in	the	NFL.		Depending	on	the	

length	of	his	NFL	career,	he	plans	to	eventually	attend	medical	school	(with	a	short	NFL	

career)	or	go	into	business	(with	a	long	NFL	career).	

Table	2:	Participant	Career	Plans	

Name	

Blake	

Scott	

Chloe	

Zoe	

Initial	Career	Plans	

Current	Career	Plan	

Business/Sport	Mgmt.	

Business	

NFL/Cardiothoracic	Surgeon	

NFL/Business/Medical	School	

Forensic	Science/Law	

Criminal	Justice	

Law	

Library	Information	Science	

Travis	

NBA/Criminal	Justice	

Cyber	Security	

Amelia	

Teaching	

Criminal	Justice	

Layla	

Riley	

Physician	Assistant	

Physician	Assistant	(gap	year)	

Business	

Sport	Coach	

Jasmine	

Anesthesiologist/Pro	Basketball	 Psychology	

Callie	

Jenny	

Medicine	

Occupational	Therapy	

Environmental		

Environmental/Law	

George	

Accounting	

Financial	Services	

Addy	

Iris	

Unsure	

Physician	

Applying	for	jobs	

MA	in	Public	Health/	Medical	School	

Sophie	

Accounting	

Accounting/	Swimming	Coach	

107	

	
	
	
Table	2	(cont’d)	

Name	

Initial	Career	Plans	

Current	Career	Plan	

Jake	

Macy	

Economics/Comp.	Sci.	

Consulting	

Physician	

Physician/Surgeon	

The	other	participants	displayed	interest	in	a	variety	of	fields	including	law,	

teaching,	business,	and	various	areas	of	healthcare.		Most	of	them	are	pursuing	something	

different	from	what	they	studied	in	college	or	originally	wanted	to	do.			

One	of	the	challenges	that	surfaced	in	multiple	interviews	is	the	inability	to	pursue	a	

particular	major	or	field	due	to	the	time	commitment	or	scheduling	conflicts	associate	with	

being	a	student-athlete.		Chloe	experienced	this	frustration	and	shared	the	following,		

“My	first	option,	I	believe,	was	forensic	science.		And	then	my	second	option	was	a	
type	of	pre-law	track.		But…the	actual	practicality	of	like	just	aligning	your	
schedule…But	you	also	have	to	think	about	the	aspect	of,	okay,	if	I	do	this	forensic	
science,	and	chemistry	is	kicking	my	butt,	I	don’t	really	actually	have	the	time	to	go	
and	sit	down	and	find	a	tutor,	actually	spend	additional	time	to	learn	this	because	I	
got	practice,	or	I	gotta	go	to	this	game,	or	I’m	tired	because	we	just	did	a	four	hour	
workout.		So,	things	like	that,	seeing	like	the	actual	expectations	and	the	course	
schedule	is	like,	yeah,	let	me	just	do	something	a	little	bit	simpler.”	

The	following	section	highlights	the	process	each	of	the	student-athletes	went	

through	to	transition	from	college	to	the	next	phase	of	life	and	how	their	definition	of	

success	influenced	the	transition.	

Preparation	for	Transition	and	the	Influence	of	Definition	of	Success	

Responses	to	the	questions	associated	with	this	topic	required	the	participants	to	

layer	their	career	preparation	process	on	top	of	their	evolving	definition	of	success.		As	

such,	all	of	the	participants	prepared	for	their	transition	out	of	college	and	applied	their	

108	

	
	
	
	
definition	of	success	in	a	unique	way.		The	uniqueness	of	each	participant’s	experience	and	

their	resulting	responses	highlighted	two	themes.		First,	the	influence	of	the	definition	of	

success	on	career	transition	is	highly	individual	and	personal.		And	second,	the	nature	of	

the	process	associated	with	defining	success	is	iterative	–	each	stage	of	development,	

including	career	transition,	requires	the	individual	to	evolve	in	their	thinking	and	decision-

making.		Following	are	examples	illustrative	of	the	uniqueness	of	the	participants’	

responses.	

Blake	

Blake	indicated	he	was	not	afraid	of	the	transition	from	college	to	the	next	stage	of	

life	but	felt	the	need	to	prepare	for	the	cut-throat	nature	of	the	real	world.		In	this	regard,	

he	indicated	sports	had	provided	him	with	a	competitive	edge.		He	said,		

“But	I	felt	like,	you	know,	the	real	world	is	different.		It’s	a	really	cutthroat	world.		
And	people,	you	know,	they’ll	just	take	whatever.		And	I	feel	like	that’s	also	
something	I	can	take	is	keeping	that	competitive	edge.		I	feel	like	in	business	
everything	is	competitive	and	if	you	want	to	be	successful,	you’ve	got	to	take	what’s	
yours	and	not	be	afraid	to	fail.”			

He	also	felt	like	the	time	in	between	school	and	work	was	a	time	of	adjustment,	especially	

since	it	felt	different	not	to	be	playing	a	sport.		Blake’s	definition	of	success	factored	into	

the	transition	in	the	form	of	accountability,	particularly	with	this	gap	in	his	life.		He	

acknowledged	it	was	difficult	to	stay	focused	without	mandatory	exercise	sessions	and	

study	halls	and	identified	intentional	accountability	with	those	around	him,	including	

former	coaches,	as	necessary	for	success.	

Scott	

Scott	wanted	to	be	pre-med,	prepare	for	the	MCAT,	and	play	in	the	NFL.		He	realized,	

however,	toward	the	end	of	college	he	had	to	be	more	realistic	with	his	plans	and	available	

109	

	
	
	
time.		He	ended	up	taking	business	courses	to	supplement	his	education,	instead	of	the	

registering	for	the	pre-med	requirements.		Scott	also	realized	his	career	plans	not	only	

depended	on	whether	or	not	he	made	the	NFL,	but	the	length	of	his	NFL	career.		He	shared	

he	would	likely	pursue	medicine	if	his	NFL	career	was	short,	but	he	would	follow	the	

business	path	if	his	NFL	career	lasted	longer.	

Scott’s	definition	of	success	revolved	around	competitiveness	and	the	balancing	of	

continuous	learning	in	sports	and	education.		He	faced	a	lot	of	adversity	toward	the	end	of	

college	and	realized,	as	part	of	his	definition	of	success,	his	competitiveness	and	learning	

needed	to	translate	into	the	next	phase	of	life.		Specifically,	he	needed	to	be	tough-minded	

and	believe	in	himself.	

Layla	

Layla	was	forced	to	retire	from	college	athletics	due	to	a	series	of	injuries.		During	

her	final	year	in	college,	she	used	the	opportunity	afforded	by	a	more	open	schedule	to	

move	forward	with	plans	to	become	a	physician	assistant.		She	is	currently	taking	a	gap	

year	prior	to	entering	a	physician	assistant	program.			

With	a	success	definition	focused	heavily	on	performance	and	refinement	of	skills,	

Layla’s	retirement	forced	her	to	consider	alternate	definitions.		As	she	began	the	transition	

out	of	college,	her	expanded	perspective	played	a	significant	role	in	how	she	defined	

success.		Layla	said,	“But	I	think	my	life	changed	around	for	the	better	in	terms	of	a	lot	of	

the	lessons	I’ve	learned	and	how	I	can	go	forward	into	the	real	world	now	with	great	

friends	that	I	never	had	before…But	I’m	very	much	trying	to	work	on	my	mental	and	

emotional	state	of	mind,	as	well	as	my	social	relationships.”		In	this	context,	Layla	was	able	

to	build	the	social	and	emotional	health	that	were	lacking	and	find	a	healthy	balance	in	life.			

110	

	
	
	
	
Jenny	

Jenny	described	her	career	plans	in	college	as	“up	and	down.”		Due	to	her	

uncertainty,	she	chose	not	to	give	them	full	consideration	until	her	final	year.		Even	then,	

she	wanted	to	put	everything	into	her	final	swim	season	and	placed	her	career	pursuit	on	

the	back	burner.		She	ultimately	decided	on	an	environmentally	focused	career	and	is	

planning	to	go	to	law	school	in	the	next	few	years.			

Jenny	felt	unsuccessful	compared	to	her	peers,	because	she	did	not	have	a	job	lined	

up	during	her	last	year	of	college.		She	shifted	her	definition	of	success	away	from	relying	

on	comparing	herself	to	others	and,	instead,	decided	to	focus	on	waiting	patiently	for	what	

is	right	for	her.	

Addy	

Similar	to	Jenny,	Addy	felt	nervous	others	were	“farther	down	the	path”	toward	

their	careers.		Her	feelings	caused	her	to	want	to	pull	back	from	the	career	exploration	

process	and	even	took	away	some	of	her	urge	to	compete	athletically.		However,	once	she	

started	sending	out	job	applications,	Addy	discovered	she	could	actually	leverage	her	

experience	as	a	student-athlete	and	the	skills	she	learned,	including	time	management,	

leadership,	and	dedication,	to	market	herself	more	effectively.			

Her	fully	evolved	definition	of	success	in	college	included	being	an	optimist,	a	good	

teammate,	and	someone	who	can	be	relied	upon	when	assuming	a	leadership	role.		She	is	

now	applying	these	traits	to	her	job	search.	

Jake		

Jake	began	thinking	about	his	transition	out	of	athletics	from	a	very	early	age.		He	

knew	he	would	eventually	stop	swimming	and	decided	to	be	prepared	for	the	“moment	

111	

	
	
	
	
	
after.”		In	college,	this	foresight	translated	into	joining	multiple	student	organizations	to	

help	determine	the	best	career	path.		He	ultimately	landed	in	consulting.	

Jake’s	definition	of	success	in	college	was	intrinsically	centered	and	focused	on	traits	

such	as	discipline,	time	management,	and	the	ability	to	lift	others	up.		He	has	more	recently	

augmented	this	definition	to	make	it	broader	and	include	maximizing	his	potential	–	

specifically	in	his	career	moving	forward.	

Macy	

Macy	planned	to	be	a	physician	since	she	was	five	years	old.		She	shared	her	belief	

there	is	no	better	way	to	prepare	for	a	career	in	medicine	than	being	a	student-athlete.		As	

such,	she	identified	several	intangible	traits	possessed	by	student-athletes,	including	

mental	and	physical	fortitude,	leadership,	and	compassion.	

Macy’s	initial	definition	of	success	was	externally	focused	and	did	not	take	the	

intangible,	invisible	traits	into	consideration.		As	she	progressed	through	college,	Macy	

realized	being	the	best	version	of	herself	was,	in	fact,	success.		She	said,	“I	learned	that	you	

can	do	your	best	and	still	not	technically	be	the	best.		But	doing	your	best	is	just	as	

important,	if	not	more	important	than	what	others	think.”		As	a	result,	she	has	felt	more	

successful	and	satisfied.	

Each	of	these	experiences	provides	evidence	of	the	unique	path	the	student-athletes	

journeyed	to	arrive	at	their	present	definition	of	success.		The	stories	also	highlight	the	

iterative	process	required	to	adapt	the	student-athletes’	definitions	of	success	to	the	

various	stages	of	their	development.	

112	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Summary	

This	chapter	presented	the	research	findings	from	interviews	conducted	with	

seventeen	former	student-athletes.		The	opening	section	highlighted	the	participants’	

responses	to	questions	regarding	what	it	means	to	be	a	student-athlete	and	whether	or	not	

a	conflict	exists	when	navigating	the	role	of	student	and	athlete	simultaneously.		The	

remainder	of	the	chapter	was	dedicated	to	information	related	to	the	study’s	three	main	

research	questions.					

First,	I	outlined	the	themes	related	to	their	definition	of	success	and	then	discussed	

how	the	individual	definitions	change	during	and	after	college.		Second,	I	documented	how	

their	identity	as	a	student-athlete	impacted	their	definition	of	success.		And	third,	I	

discussed	the	participants’	career	aspirations,	how	they	prepared	for	the	transition	from	

college	athletics	to	the	next	phase	of	life,	and	how	their	definition	of	success	may	have	

influenced	this	transition.		The	following	chapter	includes	a	discussion	of	the	findings,	as	

well	as	recommendations	for	enhanced	student-athlete	services	and	further	research.	

113	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
CHAPTER	5:	

DISCUSSION	

The	purpose	of	this	qualitative	descriptive	study	was	to	define	success	from	the	

student-athletes’	perspective	and	gain	a	better	understanding	of	how	their	student-athlete	

identity	and	perspective	on	career	transition	informed	this	definition.		The	goal	of	this	

research	was	to	present	qualitative,	descriptive	data	that	will	help	universities	and	student	

services	and	athletic	personnel	to	have	a	more	nuanced	understanding	of	success	from	the	

student	athlete’s	perspective	and	result	in	improvements	for	the	student-athlete	

experience.	

This	chapter	contains	discussion	of	the	findings	outlined	in	chapter	4	and	future	

research	possibilities	to	address	the	research	questions:	

1.  How	do	student-athletes	define	success?	

2.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	identity	influenced	their	definition	of	success?	

3.  How	has	the	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success	informed	their	career	transition?	

The	participants	ascribed	significant	meaning	to	their	identity	and	experiences	as	

student-athletes	and	most	felt	at	least	some	conflict	between	their	role	as	student	and	

athlete.		Their	definitions	of	success	spanned	four	general	categories	including:	

experiencing	winning,	making	improvement,	finding	balance,	and	receiving	approval.		In	all	

but	two	cases,	the	student-athletes	experienced	varying	levels	of	change	in	their	definition	

of	success	as	they	progressed	through	college	and	most	experienced	additional	or	

continued	change	beyond	graduation.			

All	the	student-athletes	acknowledged	their	identity	as	a	student-athlete	influenced	

their	definition	of	success.		The	degree	of	connection	between	identity	and	definition	varied	

114	

	
across	the	participants	and	the	reasons	given	and	experiences	shared	were	highly	

individualized.	

Each	of	the	student-athletes	shared	how	they	applied	their	definition	of	success	to	

their	career	transition	process.		The	responses	varied	widely	due	to	the	highly	

individualized	and	layered	nature	of	the	process	of	connecting	their	success	definition	to	

their	career	transition.			

This	study	contributes	two	significant	findings	to	the	current	body	of	literature.		

First,	defining	success	is	an	iterative	process	that	occurs	over	time	and	is	the	result	of	

series	of	events	or	occurrences	that	happen	around	or	to	the	student-athlete.		And	second,	

the	overwhelming	lack	of	intentionality	surrounding	the	process	of	defining	success	and	

the	largely	reactive	nature	of	the	student-athletes’	decision	making	processes	are	indicated	

by	the	overall	uniqueness	of	the	participants’	experiences	and	responses.		Following	the	

Interpretation	of	Findings	and	the	Implications	for	Theory,	the	section	on	Implications	for	

Practice	provides	suggestions	for	a	more	proactive	approach	to	addressing	the	topic	of	

success	with	student-athletes.	

Interpretation	of	the	Findings	

While	the	experiences,	definitions,	and	responses	shared	by	the	student-athletes	

varied	significantly,	there	were	common	themes	and	threads	running	through	the	

interviews.		These	themes,	as	described	in	chapter	4,	are	connected	to	the	higher	education	

literature	and	theoretical	framework	of	the	study	in	the	following	sections.	

Meaning	of	Being	a	Student-Athlete	and	Conflicting	Identities	

The	student-athletes	shared	what	being	a	student-athlete	meant	to	them	as	context	

for	the	interviews	and	subsequent	responses	to	questions.		This	study	indicates	student-

115	

	
	
athletes	ascribe	a	significant	level	of	meaning	to	being	a	student-athlete.		Several	

participants	highlighted	the	overarching,	positive	significance	of	the	meaning	of	being	a	

student-athlete.		Some	focused	on	the	qualities	acquired	through	the	student-athlete	

experience,	including	versatility,	work	ethic,	leadership,	discipline,	and	responsibility.		

Other	themes	constructed	from	the	student-athletes’	responses	were	consistent	with	the	

current	body	of	literature.		First,	the	internal	and	external	expectations	experienced	by	

many	of	the	participants	in	this	study	led	to	high	motivation	in	both	academic	and	athletic	

settings	(Gaston	Gayles,	2004;	Hart	et	al.,	2024;	Tudor	&	Ridpath,	2018).		A	smaller	group	

were	less	motivated	academically,	reflecting	the	findings	of	other	studies	(Lucas	&	Lovaglia,	

2008;	Simons	et	al.,	1999).		Second,	this	study	found	the	commitment	required	for	being	a	

student-athlete	was	significant,	both	in	time	and	effort.		For	some,	the	commitment	had	a	

positive	influence,	preparing	them	for	life	after	college.		For	others,	the	commitment	had	a	

negative	influence,	representing	sacrifice	of	academic,	career,	and	social	opportunities.		

(Gaston-Gayles,	2004;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	&	Pierce,	2021).		And	third,	the	uniqueness	of	the	

culture	and	relationships	built	in	the	student-athlete	community	(Eiche,	Sedlacek,	&	

Adams-Gaston,	1997;	Sedlacek,	2004;	Sowa	&	Gressard,	1983)	remained	a	consistent	

theme	throughout	this	study.	

The	concept	of	conflicting	identities	between	student	and	athlete	aligns	with	

previously	conducted	research	(Adler	&	Adler,	1987;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	&	Pierce,	2021)	and	

the	attempt	to	balance	the	significant	demands	from	both	sides	(Aquilina,	2013)	is	central	

to	the	student-athlete	discussion	and	provides	additional	context	for	defining	success.			

The	research	suggests	(Cooper	&	Cooper,	2015;	Lu	et	al.,	2018;	Yopyk	&	Prentice,	

2005),	and	12	of	the	17	student-athletes	in	this	study	confirmed,	while	it	is	experienced	at	

116	

	
varying	levels	of	intensity,	there	is	a	conflict	between	the	role	of	student	and	the	role	of	

athlete.		The	level	to	which	the	student-athletes	experienced	a	conflict	between	their	

identities	as	students	and	athletes	varied	from	overwhelming	to	minimal.		Conflict	was	felt	

most	often	when	the	student-athlete’s	sport	was	in-season	but	included	both	practice	and	

competitive	events	as	strong	contributors	to	decisions	having	to	be	made	regarding	time	

and	effort	put	into	academics	and	athletics.			

None	of	the	participants	indicated	the	conflict	between	their	athletic	and	student	

identities	increased	in	intensity	during	their	time	in	college.		Many	of	the	participants	

identified	their	first	and	second	years	in	college	as	the	timeframe	during	which	the	conflict	

was	most	prominent	and	challenging.		However,	following	the	first	two	years,	they	shared	

the	conflict	either	decreased	over	time	or	stayed	consistent	throughout	the	remainder	of	

their	college	career.		The	reason	provided	by	the	student-athletes	for	the	consistency	or	

decrease	of	the	conflict	during	their	third	and	fourth	years	was	they	developed	skills	and	

decision-making	strategies	that	helped	them	reconcile	the	conflict	and	achieve	balance.		

While	there	is	a	significant	body	of	literature	addressing	the	overall	conflict	experienced	by	

student-athletes	(Aquilina,	2013;	Comeaux,	2010;	Healy	et	al.,	2016;	O’Neil,	Amorose,	&	

Pierce,	2021),	resolving	the	conflict	and	strategies	to	achieve	balance	are	areas	needing	

further	study.	

The	student-athletes	who	did	not	experience	conflict	between	the	two	roles	in	the	

same	way	as	the	other	participants	highlighted	specific	factors	that	mitigated	the	conflict.		

Included	in	these	factors	were	the	type	of	university	selected,	specifically	Division	III	

schools	that	did	not	offer	scholarships	or	have	the	same	focus	on	athletics;	finding	solutions	

117	

	
to	the	conflict	they	experienced	in	high	school,	so	it	was	not	a	factor	in	college;	and	having	

higher	priorities	on	which	to	focus,	such	as	spirituality.	

Definitions	of	Success	

At	the	heart	of	this	study,	with	the	intention	of	filling	a	significant	gap	in	the	

research,	is	the	question	of	how	student-athletes,	as	individuals,	define	success.		Not	

surprisingly,	each	of	the	student-athletes	interviewed	provided	a	unique	and	nuanced	

definition	of	success.		Within	these	distinctive	responses,	several	broad	themes	were	

constructed	from	the	responses	as	important	factors	in	defining	success.		These	themes	and	

their	ties	to	the	literature	base	and	theoretical	foundations	are	discussed	briefly	below.	

The	first	two	themes,	winning	in	athletics	and	achieving	improvement	in	skills,	

abilities,	and	results,	were	closely	associated	in	the	participants’	responses.		While	the	

theme	of	winning	is	not	surprising	based	on	the	literature	related	to	the	conflicting	worlds	

experienced	by	student-athletes	(Carodine	et	al.,	2001;	Kamusoko	&	Pemberton,	2013),	

only	about	half	of	the	student-athletes	in	this	study	cited	winning	as	central	to	their	

definition	of	success.		Those	who	did	highlight	the	importance	of	winning	went	on	to	

explain	how	their	perspective	changed	over	time	as	they	matured	as	individuals	and	

balanced	their	priorities	as	student-athletes.		In	a	similar	vein,	the	student-athletes’	

experiences	taught	them	consistent	improvement	in	skills	and	abilities	meant	success	on	

the	court	or	in	the	pool.		Similar	to	winning,	the	student-athletes	identified	their	desire	to	

improve	as	changing	over	time	into	a	more	holistic	view	of	improvement	and	becoming	a	

factor	that	ultimately	spilled	over	into	their	academics.			

These	changes	in	perspective	are	consistent	with	the	theoretical	framework	around	

which	this	study	is	constructed.		The	process	of	developing	identity	and	purpose	

118	

	
(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993)	naturally	results	in	focusing	on	priorities	that	display	a	more	

holistic	perspective.		While	winning	can	remain	important,	the	need	to	win	as	part	of	the	

identity	is	reduced	as	the	student-athlete	develops	their	identity	around	a	“solid	sense	of	

self”	(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993,	p.	181).		Additionally,	the	student-athletes’	purpose	can	

begin	to	shift	away	from	success	on	the	field	or	court	and	toward	vocational	and	personal	

interests,	and	interpersonal	relationships.		The	focus	on	personal	improvement	is	an	

evolutionary	process	also	consistent	with	the	theoretical	framework.		The	establishment	of	

a	more	mature	identity	and	purpose	leads	to	a	different	perspective	on	how	improvement	

in	skills	and	abilities	can	be	applied	to	developing	holistic	perspective.			

The	third	theme	is	finding	balance	between	the	academic	and	athletic	priorities.		For	

the	student-athletes	who	expressed	this	perspective	as	part	of	their	initial,	core	definition	

of	success,	the	intended	outcome	was	not	decreasing	expectations	in	their	athletic	

performance,	but	instead,	increasing	performance	in	both	areas	because	of	their	ability	to	

balance	priorities.		It	should	be	noted,	many	of	those	who	did	not	initially	include	balance	

as	central	to	their	definition	of	success,	did	discuss	the	importance	of	balance	as	part	of	

their	changing	definition.		Similar	to	the	first	two	themes,	a	more	balanced	perspective	is	

the	intended	outcome.			Related	to	the	theoretical	framework,	one	of	the	components	of	

identity	development	Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	indicate	contributes	to	the	“solid	

sense	of	self”	is	the	ability	to	clarify	self-concept	through	the	trialing	of	various	roles	and	

lifestyles.		The	roles	and	lifestyles	established	by	the	culture	of	athletics	lend	themselves	to	

a	particular	set	of	priorities	and	circumstances	(Kamusoko	&	Pemberton,	2013)	through	

which	student-athletes	must	navigate.		As	the	student-athletes	in	this	study	navigated	the	

119	

	
athletic	culture	at	their	institutions,	they	ultimately	sought	balance	in	their	academic	and	

athletic	priorities.	

The	theme	of	balancing	academic	and	athletic	priorities	also	points	to	the	

multidimensional	structure	(Heird	&	Steinfeldt,	2013)	of	a	student-athlete’s	identity	and	

highlight	identity	salience	(Lu	et	al.,	2018;	Yopyk	&	Prentice,	2005)	as	an	important	factor	

in	the	maturation	process.		This	study	suggests	as	each	dimension	of	the	student-athlete	

identity	was	activated	and	reinforced	over	time,	the	definition	of	success	changed	

accordingly.			

The	fourth	theme	is	receiving	approval	from	important	figures	in	the	student-

athletes’	lives.		Parents	and	coaches	(Adler	&	Adler,	1991;	Raunig	&	Coggins,	2018)	were	

specifically	identified	as	the	key	figures	whose	acknowledgment	and	approval	equated	to	

success	for	the	student-athletes.		A	common	sentiment	was	wanting	to	make	these	

important	people	proud.		This	theme	is	also	supported	by	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	(1993)	

concept	of	the	“solid	sense	of	self,”	of	which	one	factor	is	receiving	feedback	from	valued	

individuals.		Positive	feedback	(Baker	et	al.,	2000;	Chelladurai	&	Saleh,	1980;	Shrivastava	&	

Sharma,	2015)	in	particular	allows	the	student-athletes	to	see	how	they	are	perceived	by	

others	and	adjust	their	priorities	and	performance	accordingly.		For	the	student-athletes	in	

this	study,	the	perception	of	important	individuals	was	relevant	for	both	their	athletic	

performance	and	academic	achievements.	

Finally,	while	faith	and	spirituality	were	part	of	the	central	definition	of	success	for	

only	two	of	the	participants,	these	concepts	were	referenced	throughout	the	interviews	in	

response	to	various	questions,	highlighting	their	relevance	(Clements	&	Koenig,	2014;	

Czech	&	Bullet,	2007;	Dillon	&	Tait,	2000;	Noh	&	Shahdan,	2020;	Vernacchia	et	al.,	2000).		

120	

	
Faith	and	spirituality	also	provide	an	example	of	how	each	student-athlete’s	experience	is	

unique	and	how	their	definitions	of	success	incorporate	a	variety	of	different	components.					

Additional	themes	were	identified	related	to	the	changes	occurring	in	the	student-

athletes’	definitions	of	success	as	they	progressed	through	college	and	beyond.		Changes	in	

definition	that	happened	during	college	resulted	from	changes	in	circumstances;	the	

amount	of	work	and	time	required	for	academics	and	athletics;	and	changes	in	perspective.		

These	themes	are	briefly	discussed	below.	

Three	participants	identified	specific	circumstances	or	events	causing	them	to	

change	their	definition	of	success,	including	the	loss	of	a	loved	one,	sustaining	multiple	

injuries	that	forced	early	athletic	retirement,	and	lack	of	winning	from	a	team	perspective.		

The	literature	focuses	on	early	athletic	retirement	(Cash	et	al.,	2021;	Huang	et	al.,	2016;	

Torregrosa	et	al.,	2015;	Webb	et	al.,	1998)	and	its	overall	influence	on	student-athletes	but	

does	not	address	how	it	potentially	changes	their	perspective	on	success.		This	gap	in	the	

literature	leaves	space	for	further	study	on	how	circumstances,	both	inside	(e.g.,	injury	and	

lack	of	winning)	and	outside	(e.g.,	loss	of	a	loved	one)	of	athletics	influence	a	student-

athletes	definition	of	success.	

		The	circumstances	described	above	provided	each	of	the	student-athletes	with	the	

chance	to	recalibrate	their	ideas	of	success	and	each	took	advantage	of	the	opportunity.		

The	process	of	recalibration	is	consistent	with	the	theoretical	framework	of	this	study	

because	the	development	of	purpose	manifested	itself	in	the	decisions	of	the	student-

athletes	to	adjust	their	definitions	of	success	related	to	personal	(lack	of	winning),	

vocational	(early	retirement),	and	interpersonal	(loss	of	a	loved	one)	factors	(Chickering	&	

Reisser,	1993).		Based	on	their	responses	during	the	interviews,	these	“negative”	events	

121	

	
gave	the	student-athletes	a	reason	to	evaluate	their	definition	of	success	and	make	

“positive”	changes.	

Three	student-athletes	pointed	to	the	amount	of	work	and	time	required	to	be	a	

student-athlete	as	a	catalyst	to	changing	their	definition	of	success.		While	the	significance	

of	the	time	commitment	of	student-athletes	highlighted	by	the	participants	in	this	study	

aligns	with	previous	research	(Adler	&	Adler,	1985;	Brewer	et	al.,	1993;	Harrison	et	al.,	

2011;	Raunig	&	Coggins,	2018;	Simons	et	al.,	1999),	the	gap	in	the	literature	is	again	related	

to	the	connection	to	the	definition	of	success.	

	Similar	to	the	circumstances	described	above,	the	student-athletes	who	

experienced	“negative”	challenges	due	to	the	demanding	time	commitment	reconsidered	

how	they	defined	success	and	shifted	their	focus	to	balancing	and	managing	priorities.		The	

reoccurring	theme	of	conflict	between	the	student	identity	and	athlete	identity	(Cooper	&	

Cooper,	2015;	Healy	et	al.,	2016)	confirms	the	connection	of	this	study	to	the	theoretical	

framework;	specifically,	the	process	of	identity	development	as	proposed	by	Chickering	

and	Reisser	(1993).	

And	finally,	a	shift	in	perspective	caused	many	of	the	student-athletes	to	rethink	

their	definition	of	success	both	during	and	after	college.		While	the	original	perspective	and	

the	subsequent	perspective	were	different	for	each	participant,	many	of	them	mentioned	

moving	from	an	inward-facing	focus	on	personal	success	and	accolades	to	an	outward-

facing	focus	on	team	success	and	“small	wins”	as	the	crux	of	their	change.		Regardless	of	the	

type	of	change	that	occurred,	the	common	thread	throughout	the	interviews	was	a	specific	

catalyst	that	drove	the	change.		Examples	of	catalysts	mentioned	by	the	student-athletes	

include	disappointment	in	the	student-athlete	experience,	individual	results	in	athletic	

122	

	
competitions,	perceived	failure	on	the	field	and	in	the	class,	the	personal	maturation	

process,	and	the	realization	that	sports	will	not	be	around	for	the	long-term.			

The	progression	through	the	student	development	process,	as	outlined	in	

Chickering	and	Reisser’s	(1993)	vectors	requires	catalysts	to	propel	students	to	the	next	

stage	of	development.		Consistent	with	this	theoretical	framework,	the	student-athletes	in	

this	study	identified	specific	factors	that	allowed	them	to	develop	a	fuller	and	more	

intentional	outward-facing	perspective	that	was	still	tied	to	their	personal	identity	as	a	

student-athlete.			

Identity	and	Definition	of	Success	

The	make-up	of	the	student-athlete	identity	is	complex,	particularly	with	the	

addition	of	the	athletic	identity	to	the	student’s	personal	identity.		Chapter	2	established	

student-athletes	deal	with	competing,	and	sometimes	conflicting,	identities	(Cooper	&	

Cooper,	2015).		The	definition	of	athletic	identity	is	the	extent	to	which	an	individual	

identifies	with	the	role	of	athlete,	with	a	particular	emphasis	on	membership	in	a	group	

and	social	relatedness	(Brewer,	Van	Raalte,	&	Linder,	1993).		Good	and	colleagues	(1993)	

add	the	athletic	identity	is	the	strength	and	exclusivity	with	which	the	athlete	role	is	

associated	with	identity	development.		The	extent	to	which	the	athletic	identity,	in	

particular,	contributed	to,	or	encroached	upon,	the	student-athlete’s	larger	identity	was	

beyond	the	scope	of	this	study.		I,	however,	felt	it	was	important	to	consider	the	

participants’	identities	as	a	whole	and	how	they	influenced	their	definitions	of	success	

since	the	literature	does	not	specifically	address	this	connection.	

The	purpose	of	research	question	two	was	to	identify	any	connection	between	the	

participants’	student-athlete	identity	and	their	definition	of	success.		While	the	degree	to	

123	

	
which	this	connection	occurred	varied	from	individual	to	individual,	all	the	participants	

affirmed	their	definition	of	success	was	in	some	way	influenced	by	their	identity	as	a	

student-athlete.	

Consistent	with	responses	to	earlier	questions,	the	student-athletes	highlighted	a	

variety	of	traits	and	characteristics	associated	with	their	identity	as	student-athletes	as	

part	of	their	definition	of	success.		These	traits	include	time	management,	a	strong	work	

ethic,	teamwork,	setting	a	good	example,	and	resilience.		In	addition	to	these	traits,	some	of	

the	participants	described	student-athletes	as	having	a	distinct	advantage	over	their	non-

athlete	peers	related	to	certain	characteristics.		These	include	having	higher	standards	of	

success,	higher	mental	and	physical	fortitude,	greater	capacity	for	leadership,	and	being	

able	to	push	self	to	the	limit	with	higher	thresholds.	

A	common	thread	in	many	of	the	interviews	was	the	idea	the	student-athlete	

identity	was	inextricably	woven	into	the	definition	of	success	–they	could	not	be	separated.		

For	some	this	perspective	translated	into	a	coupling	of	the	concept	of	success	in	athletics	

(i.e.,	winning)	with	success	in	the	classroom	(i.e.,	best	grades).		For	others,	the	athletic	

identity	came	to	the	fore	and	resulted	in	a	hyper	focus	on	success	in	sports,	to	the	

detriment	of	other	aspects	of	life	including	athletics	and	community	building.		Those	who	

shared	the	experience	of	focusing	solely	on	sports	at	some	point	in	their	college	career	also	

highlighted	that	this	perspective	did	not	persist	but	changed	as	they	matured	and	gained	

experience	in	life.	

Definition	of	Success	and	Career	Transition	

The	purpose	of	research	question	3	was	to	inquire	about	how	the	student-athletes’	

definitions	of	success	informed	their	career	transition.			

124	

	
There	are	different	perspectives	in	the	research	on	how	the	student-athlete	identity,	

and	particularly	athletic	identity,	influence	career	development.		As	discussed	in	the	

literature	review,	some	studies	suggest	the	risk	of	underdeveloped	career	maturity	is	

greater	depending	on	the	degree	to	which	a	student-athlete	develops	in	their	athletic	

identity	(Gaston-Gayles	&	Hu,	2009;	Watson	&	Kissinger,	2007).		Other	researchers,	

however,	found	the	direct	correlation	between	high	athletic	identity	and	low	career	

maturity	may	not	be	as	prevalent	(Brown,	Glastetter-Fender,	&	Shelton,	2000;	Kornspan	&	

Etzel,	2001).		While	this	study	did	not	measure	the	level	of	career	maturity	related	to	

athletic	identity,	all	but	one	participant	expressed	a	strong	student-athlete	identity.		

Additionally,	each	of	the	student-athletes	displayed	a	level	of	career	maturity	that	allowed	

them	to:	(1)	simultaneously	pursue	their	goal	of	playing	professionally,	or	at	the	next	level,	

while	still	making	progress	toward	their	ideal	alternate	career	path;	(2)	pivot	to	a	major	

that	allowed	them	to	pursue	their	chosen	career;	or	(3)	find	an	alternate	route	to	their	

chosen	career	following	graduation.	

Regardless	of	these	differing	paths,	each	of	the	study	participants	shared	their	

definition	of	success	did,	in	fact,	influence	their	career	transition.		More	so	than	any	other	

topic	explored	in	this	study,	the	student-athletes	shared	highly	unique	descriptions	related	

to	their	experiences.	

There	was	agreement	among	many	of	the	participants	that	being	a	student-athlete	

prepared	them	for	moving	into	the	phase	of	life	following	college.		Multiple	student-

athletes	referred	to	their	athletic	experience	as	similar	to	holding	a	full-time	job,	without	

pay,	while	also	being	a	full-time	student.		While	this	experience	presented	significant	

125	

	
challenges	for	balancing	academics	and	athletics,	it	provided	them	with	a	unique	

perspective	many	of	their	peers	did	not	receive.	

Some	of	the	student-athletes	discussed	the	changes	they	implemented	in	their	final	

year	of	college	to	prepare	for	the	next	phase.		These	changes	trended	in	one	of	two	

directions.		First,	some	of	the	student-athletes	shifted	their	definition	of	success	away	from	

winning	and	accomplishments	to	a	definition	capturing	a	more	holistic	perspective.		This	

shift	was	generally	in	recognition	that	the	sports	career	was	coming	to	an	end	and	a	

broader	perspective	was	needed	to	be	successful	in	their	post-sports	world.		On	the	other	

hand,	several	of	the	student-athletes	decided	put	everything	they	had	into	their	final	year	

of	sports	for,	ironically,	the	same	reason	–their	sports	career	was	coming	to	an	end.		In	one	

case,	however,	the	focus	on	sports	was	with	the	goal	of	continuing	into	a	professional	

league.	

An	additional	theme	I	identified	is	the	winding	nature	of	the	path	from	college	to	

career.		With	a	few	exceptions	who	knew	exactly	what	they	wanted	to	do	for	a	career	and	

followed	through,	the	majority	of	the	participants	changed	their	major	and	career	track,	

questioned	their	abilities	and	preparedness	for	a	particular	career,	and	generally	found	

their	way	to	their	career	toward	the	end	of	college	or	even	after	graduation.		It	was	during	

these	times	the	student-athletes	were	reliant	on	their	definition	of	success	to	guide	the	

decision-making	process	and	affirm	their	choices.	

Implications	for	Theory	

This	study	relied	on	Chickering	and	Reisser’s	(1993)	research	on	the	seven	vectors	

of	student	development.		The	vectors	of	establishing	identity	and	developing	purpose	were	

the	primary	theoretical	foundation	for	this	study.		These	two	vectors	were	determined	to	

126	

	
	
be	the	most	salient	for	the	process	of	defining	success	due	to	their	connection	to	the	

establishment	of	the	student-athlete’s	sense	of	self	and	the	movement	of	the	student-

athlete	through	the	process	of	establishing	of	an	intentional	plan	of	action	regarding	

vocational,	personal,	and	interpersonal	priorities.		While	these	two	vectors	are	appropriate	

for	this	study,	future	studies	could	include	other	vectors	that	focus	on	different	aspects	of	a	

student-athlete’s	development.		The	following	sections	briefly	highlight	the	connection	of	

these	vectors	to	the	experiences	of	the	student-athletes	who	participated	the	study.	

Establishing	Identity	

Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993)	provide	specific	components	contributing	to	a	

student’s	sense	of	self	and	identity	covered	in	detail	in	the	literature	review.		Germain	to	

this	study	are	the	final	two	components	focusing	on:	(1)	the	development	of	self-

acceptance	and	self-worth	based	on	personal	standards,	and	(2)	the	sense	of	integration	

and	stability	regarding	their	identities	and	values,	coupled	with	an	awareness	of	the	

systems	and	communities	of	which	they	are	part.			

Regarding	the	first	component,	student-athletes	who	participated	in	this	study	

demonstrated	varying	levels	of	self-acceptance	and	self-worth	fluctuating	throughout	their	

time	in	college,	as	seen	in	the	iterative	process	of	developing	their	definitions	of	success.		

Some	expressed	confidence	in	their	decisions	related	to	success,	while	others	were	more	

tentative	and	unsure.		The	most	unstable	aspects	of	determining	a	definition	of	success	are	

the	“personal	standards”	on	which	the	self-acceptance	and	self-worth	rested.		The	student-

athletes’	responses	to	the	interview	questions	demonstrate	as	their	personal	standards	

changed,	so	did	their	definition	of	success.		These	standards	include	their	perspective	on	

127	

	
	
	
winning,	the	level	of	meaning	they	ascribed	to	being	a	student-athlete,	and	their	focus	on	

individual	accolades	versus	team	accomplishments.	

In	most	cases	the	second	component	was	more	evident	when	the	student-athletes	

discussed	experiences	occurring	in	their	later	college	years	and	following	graduation.		The	

personal	maturation	process	coupled	with	experiences	that	changed	the	participants’	

perspectives	lent	themselves	to	more	stability	and	integration	of	core	values	in	the	

development	of	a	success	definition.		There	was	also	a	much	stronger	sense	of	“place”	in	

regard	to	their	systems	and	communities.	

In	summary,	this	theoretical	component	of	the	study	helped	answer	one	of	the	

questions	asked	by	Chickering	and	Reisser,	“How	stable	and	clear	am	I	about	who	I	am	and	

what	is	important?”	(1993,	p.	182)	

Developing	Purpose	

Central	to	the	college	experience	is	the	development	of	an	increasing	sense	and	

clarity	of	purpose.		According	to	Chickering	and	Reisser	(1993),	students	must	develop	

action	plans	and	priorities	related	to	their	personal	interests,	aspirations,	and	vocational	

plans	in	order	to	clarify	their	purpose.		As	discussed	in	the	literature	review,	vocational	

plans	involve	more	than	just	an	individual	deciding	on	a	career.		They	also	include	the	

process	of	the	person	discovering	their	passions	and	“what	actualizes	[their]	potential	for	

excellence”	(Chickering	&	Reisser,	1993,	p.	212).			

The	student-athletes	who	participated	in	this	study	discussed	the	process	of	

developing	their	priorities	and	plans	of	action	for	their	personal	interests	and	vocational	

plans.		At	the	time	of	the	interview,	most	of	the	participants	had	identified	not	only	their	

career	track,	but	their	corresponding	passions.		Central	to	this	process	was	their	definition	

128	

	
	
	
	
	
of	success.		The	definitions	of	success	highlighted	the	perspective	from	which	the	

participants	were	approaching	their	personal	interests	and	vocational	plans.		The	student-

athletes	shared	personal	perspectives	ranging	from	a	focus	on	inward-facing	ideals	to	the	

strong	need	for	external	acknowledgement.		They	spoke	about	competitiveness	and	

performance-based	definitions	of	success	as	well	as	definitions	focusing	on	incremental	

change	and	contentment	with	choices	made.		Regardless	of	how	they	arrived	at	their	

current	definition	of	success,	they	all	recognized	this	definition	played	a	part	in	their	

priorities	related	to	personal	interests	and	career	development.		Similar	to	the	

development	of	identity	discussed	above,	the	student-athletes	underwent	a	progression	in	

their	development	of	purpose.		

Implications	for	Practice	

The	results	of	this	study	suggest	defining	success	is	an	iterative	process	that	occurs	

over	time	and	is	the	result	of	a	series	of	occurrences	that	happen	around	or	to	the	student	

during	particular	development	stages.		This	entire	process	occurs	within	the	environment	

created	by	the	different,	and	sometimes	conflicting,	roles	student-athletes	must	navigate.		

Additionally,	there	is	an	overwhelming	lack	of	intentionality	associated	with	the	

development	of	their	personal	success	definition.		The	evolution	of	success	happened	by	

chance	and	was	largely	a	reactive	process.		As	such,	student-athletes	need	assistance	in	

making	intentional	and	well-informed	decisions	related	to	how	they	approach	success.		I	

now	address	how	institutions	can	better	support	student-athletes	through	the	decision-

making	process.	

The	literature	review	highlighted	academic	success	programs	and	their	central	role	

in	supporting	the	academic	and	athletic	success	of	student-athletes.		The	following	section	

129	

	
will	address	adjustments	or	additions	that	can	be	made	to	these	programs	to	account	for	

the	important	developmental	process	of	defining	success.		Some	of	the	recommendations	

below	represent	themes	constructed	when	the	participants	in	this	study	were	asked	what	

additional	services	could	have	been	provided	to	help	them	achieve	success.		Other	

recommendations	are	a	direct	result	of	the	findings	of	this	study.		Recognizing	not	all	

institutions	have	similar	financial	resources,	or	full	academic	success	programs,	it	should	

be	noted	that	these	practices	are	not	intended	to	be	“one	size	fits	all.”		Practices	can	vary	

depending	on	the	budget	and	resources	available	to	the	school.		Similarly,	supports	and	

interventions	should	be	implemented	at	scale.	

Orientation	and	Classes	

Most	schools	support	specific	orientation	programming	for	the	student-athlete	

population.		And	while	the	student-athletes	need	to	know	about	NCAA	rules,	regulations,	

and	eligibility	requirements,	additional	topics	could	be	addressed	during	this	dedicated	

time,	including	an	introduction	to	the	concept	of	success	and	how	it	will	be	defined	–	as	a	

department,	as	a	team,	and,	most	importantly,	as	an	individual.		Once	the	concept	of	success	

is	introduced,	other	programming	will	ideally	provide	opportunities	to	continue	the	

conversation	and	highlight	the	iterative	nature	of	the	process	of	actually	defining	success.		

The	“Athletics	in	Higher	Education”	course	at	Michigan	State	University	is	a	good	example	

of	where	this	kind	of	material	and	discussion	can	live,	since	the	course	covers	topics	both	

directly	and	tangentially	related	to	success,	such	as	the	philosophy	of	athletics,	athletic	and	

academic	achievement,	and	ethical	issues.		Engaging	student-athletes	in	discussions	on	how	

to	define	success	in	a	proactive	manner	will	mitigate	the	largely	reactive	nature	of	the	

130	

	
	
process	identified	in	this	study	and	contribute	to	a	process	marked	by	purpose	and	

intentionality.	

Academic	Support	and	Advising		

The	level	of	engagement	of	academic	support	services	and	academic	advising	was	

mentioned	multiple	times	by	the	participants	in	this	study	as	a	service	needing	to	be	

bolstered.		There	was	specific	concern	shared	by	those	who	were	either	STEM	majors	or	

pursuing	a	pre-med	track	about	their	ability	to	navigate	the	challenging	schedule	

associated	with	being	a	student-athlete.		While	most	of	the	large	schools	have	dedicated	

academic	support	staff	for	student-athletes,	smaller	schools	are	oftentimes	unable	to	offer	

similar	services.		These	smaller	schools	could	consider	creative	options	such	as	workshops	

or	other	opportunities	to	address	student-athletes	in	large	groups.		A	study	by	Navarro	

(2015)	provided	evidence	that	academic	and	student	affairs	staff	can	have	an	influence	on	

the	major	selection	process	of	student-athletes.		In	this	vein,	several	of	the	participants	

mentioned	having	an	advisor	who	is	intimately	familiar	with	their	circumstances	and	

specific	challenges	would	have	been	incredibly	helpful.		Those	who	experienced	this	type	of	

specialized	advising	were	grateful	for	the	support	and	accountability	it	offered.			

One	of	the	most	frequent	concerns	shared	by	the	student-athletes	was	the	inability	

to	take	the	individual	classes	they	want	or	select	their	first	choice	of	major	due	to	the	

incompatible	schedule.		This	experience	is	consistent	with	information	highlighted	in	the	

literature	review.		Potuto	and	O’Hanlon	(2007)	found	while	student-athletes	reported	an	

overall	positive	college	experience,	they	felt	there	were	trade-offs	in	particular	areas,	

including	not	majoring	in	their	first	choice	and	not	taking	classes	in	which	they	are	

interested.		The	study	conducted	by	Foster	and	Huml	(2017)	found	that	student-athletes	

131	

	
	
whose	major	choice	was	unrelated	to	their	career	goals	generally	had	higher	levels	of	

athletic	identity	as	opposed	to	at	academic	identity.	

There	is	no	easy	solution	to	these	problems,	particularly	due	to	the	time	demands	

on	the	student-athletes’	schedules,	but	consideration	should	be	given	to	mitigating	

measures.		Increased	attention	could	be	given	to	highlighting	alternative	paths,	such	as	

post-baccalaureate	programs	and	gap	years,	to	careers	in	areas	such	as	medicine	and	other	

STEM-related	fields.		While	potentially	controversial,	other	measures	could	include	

scheduling	sections	of	problematic	courses	in	particular	majors	during	time	slots	

conducive	to,	or	in	a	format	(e.g.,	hybrid	or	online)	compatible	with,	student-athlete	

schedules.		Again,	these	solutions	may	not	be	scalable	for	smaller	institutions.		However,	an	

additional	suggestion	is	to	conduct	a	formal	needs	assessment	of	the	student-athlete	

population	to	determine	exactly	where	the	deficiencies	in	services	lie	and	what	is	required	

to	fill	these	gaps.	

Faculty	Support	

Another	frequently	mentioned	concern	voiced	by	the	participants	of	this	study	was	

the	lack	of	faculty	support	and	understanding	of	the	student-athlete	experience	(Lawrence,	

2009).		One	student-athlete	described	it	as	a	disconnect	between	faculty	and	athletics,	

where	the	faculty	viewed	participation	in	a	competitive	sport	the	same	as	any	other	

student	activity.		This	disconnect	not	only	results	in	a	negative	classroom	experience	for	

student-athletes,	but	in	a	worst-case	scenario,	bias	(Baucom	&	Lantz,	2001).		Continued	

education	for	faculty,	supported	by	administration,	and	intentional	efforts	to	bridge	the	gap	

between	athletics	and	academics	could	help	reduce,	or	resolve,	some	of	these	challenges.		

Recommendations	for	programming	include:	(1)	round-table	discussions	between	faculty	

132	

	
	
and	student-athlete	representatives	regarding	the	student-athlete	experience,	and	(2)	

increased	communication	by	the	Faculty	Athletics	Representative	(FAR)	to	academic	

colleagues,	highlighting	the	nature	of	the	commitment	required	of	student-athletes	and	

how	to	best	support	them.		

Mental	Health	Resources	

One	of	the	most	frequent	barriers	to	personal	success	mentioned	by	the	student-

athletes	in	this	study	were	the	mental-health	challenges	they,	or	their	teammates,	

encountered.		Mental	health	is	recognized	as	a	significant	problem	on	campuses	across	the	

country,	with	nearly	8	million	students,	or	around	40	percent	of	the	population,	reporting	a	

significant	mental	health	challenge	(Leshner	&	Scherer,	Eds.,	2021).		Student-athletes	face	a	

particular	set	of	challenges,	increasing	their	likelihood	of	experiencing	mental	health	

problems,	including	the	consistent	pressure	to	perform	both	academically	and	athletically	

(Bauman,	2016).			Over	50	percent	of	student-athletes	report	a	need	for	mental	health	

support,	while	less	than	half	utilized	mental	health	resources	(Moore,	2017).		The	

overwhelming	need	for	mental	health	services	and	the	underwhelming	utilization	of	

available	services	requires	focused	attention	by	athletic	departments.		In	additional	to	

staffing	sport	psychologists,	athletic	departments	should	continue	to	look	at	ways	to	

enhance	the	services	that	exist	and	highlight	the	need	for	a	safe	space	for	student-athletes	

to	express	their	concerns	and	address	varying	levels	of	mental	illness.		Programming	

should	seek	to	destigmatize	the	use	of	available	mental	health	resources.		Corresponding	

messaging,	directly	from	athletic	departments	and	coaching	staffs,	could	be	especially	

impactful.	

133	

	
	
	
Limitations	and	Recommendations	for	Future	Research	

This	study	focused	on	a	small	sampling	of	former	student-athletes	who	played	a	

variety	of	sports,	both	revenue	generating	and	non-revenue	generating,	and	attended	

schools	across	all	three	NCAA	divisions.		The	study	also	included	both	male-	and	female-

identifying	student-athletes.		While	the	scope	of	the	study	and	the	number	of	participants	

did	not	allow	me	to	include	additional	institution	types	or	focus	on	a	specific	student-

athlete	sub-population,	the	purpose	of	the	study	was	to	begin	to	identify	how	student-

athletes	define	success.		A	variety	of	factors	could	be	changed	to	enhance	and	broaden	both	

the	scope	and	the	results.			

First,	a	larger	sample	size	from	a	targeted	group	of	student-athletes	could	provide	

more	nuanced	information	related	to	their	definitions	of	success.		Examples	of	targeted	

populations	include:	a	specific	type	of	school	(e.g.,	NCAA	Division	I,	II,	or	III;	HBCU,	faith-

based,	or	liberal	arts	institutions),	a	specific	sport	or	category	of	sport	(e.g.,	basketball,	

football,	Olympic	sports,	revenue	or	non-revenue	generating),	and	a	specific	gender	

identity	(e.g.,	men’s	or	women’s	sports).		Expanding	the	study	in	this	way,	with	an	

increased	sample	size,	could	identify	how	definitions	of	success	are	similar	or	different	

across	environments.	

Second,	this	study	relied	on	the	recollection	of	former	student-athletes	who,	in	some	

cases,	were	years	removed	from	their	college	years.		While	there	is	certainly	value	in	

having	space	and	time	to	reflect	on	past	experiences,	interesting	data	could	also	be	

generated	by	a	longitudinal	study	following	student-athletes	through	their	college	career.		

Interviewing	the	student-athletes	at	varying	intervals	would	allow	them	to	share	their	

134	

	
	
experiences,	decisions,	and	definitions	in	real-time	and	would	also	allow	them	to	see	the	

trajectory	of	their	identity	development	as	a	student-athlete.	

And	third,	none	of	the	student-athletes	in	this	study	had	the	ability	to	profit	from	

their	own	brand,	largely	due	to	when	they	attended	college	or	the	sport	in	which	they	

participated.		However,	future	studies	addressing	how	students	define	success	will	need	to	

consider	the	impact	of	name,	image,	and	likeness	opportunities,	and	the	ability	of	student-

athletes	to	monetize	their	personal	brand.			

Conclusion	

I	opened	this	paper	by	recounting	my	experiences	meeting	with	three	different	

students	who	presented	three	different	scenarios	about	their	future	goals.		In	my	naivete,	I	

made	assumptions	about	how	they	defined	success	and	was	wrong	in	at	least	one	case.			

The	purpose	of	this	study	was	to	define	success	from	the	student-athletes’	

perspective	and	gain	a	better	understanding	of	how	their	student-athlete	identity	and	

perspective	on	career	transition	informed	this	definition.		The	interviews	highlighted	the	

fact	that	a	student-athlete’s	definition	of	success	develops	over	time	via	an	iterative	process	

encompassing	both	the	establishment	of	their	identity	and	the	development	of	their	

purpose.		The	results	of	the	study	suggest	the	definition	of	success	is	developed	via	a	

largely	reactive,	unintentional	process	through	which	student-athletes	have	both	shared	

and	individual	experiences	that	ultimately	produce	a	highly	individualized	definition	of	

success.		Though	themes	and	similarities	were	constructed,	the	17	student-athletes	

involved	in	this	study	defined	success	in	17	different	ways.			

135	

	
	
	
	
REFERENCES	

ACT	(2007).		The	role	of	nonacademic	factors	in	college	readiness	and	success.		Iowa		

City,	IA:	Author.	

Adler,	P.A.,	&	Adler,	P.		(1987).		Role	conflict	and	identity	salience:	College	athletics	and	the		

academic	role.		The	Social	Science	Journal,	24(4),	443-455.	

Adler,	P.	A.	&	Adler,	P.		(1991).		Backboards	and	blackboards:		College	athletics	and		

role	engulfment.		New	York:		Columbia	University	Press.	

Adler,	P.	A.	&	Adler,	P.		(1985).		From	idealism	to	pragmatic	attachment:		The		

academic	performance	of	college	athletes.		Sociology	of	Education,	58(4),	241-	
250.	

Antshel,	K.	M.,	VanderDrift,	L.	E.,	&	Pauline,	J.	S.	(2016).		The	role	of	athletic	identity	in	the		
relationship	between	difficulty	thinking	or	concentrating	and	academic	service	use	
in	NCAA	student-athletes.		Journal	of	Clinical	Sport	Psychology,	10(4),	309-323.	

Aquilina,	D.		(2013).		A	study	of	the	relationship	between	elite	athletes’	educational		

development	and	sporting	performance.		International	Journal	of	the	History	of		
Sport,	30(4),	374-392.	

Astin,	A.	W.		(1984).		Student	involvement:		developmental	theory	for	higher		
education.		Journal	of	College	Student	Personnel,	25,	297-308.	

Bailey,	S.,	&	Bhattaharyya,	M.		(2017).		A	comparison	of	academic	and	athletic	performance	

in	the	NCAA.		College	Student	Journal,	51(2),	173-182.	

Baker,	J.,	Cote,	J.,	&	Hawes,	R.		(2000).		The	relationship	between	coaching	behaviors	and	
sport	anxiety	in	athletes.		Journal	of	Science	and	Medicine	in	Sport,	3(2),	110-119.	

Bartels,	J.	M.,	&	Herman,	W.	E.	(2011).	Fear	of	failure,	self-handicapping,	and	negative	

emotions	in	response	to	failure.		Paper	presented	at	the	Annual	Convention	of	the	
Association	for	Psychological	Science	(Washington,	D.C.,	May	28,	2011).	

Baucom,	C.	&	Lantz,	C.		(2001).		Faculty	attitudes	toward	male	Division	II	student-athletes.		

Journal	of	Sport	Behavior,	24(3),	265-270.	

Bauman,	N.	J.		(2016).		The	stigma	of	mental	health	in	athletes:	Are	mental	toughness	and	

mental	health	seen	as	contradictory	in	elite	sport?		Journal	of	Sports	Medicine,	50(1),	
135-136.	

Beamon,	K.		(2012).		“I’m	a	baller”:		Athletic	identity	foreclosure	among	African-American	
former	student-athletes.		Journal	of	African	American	Studies,	16,	195-208.	

136	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Beamon,	K.		(2008).		Used	goods:		African-American	student-athletes’	perception	of	

exploitation	by	Division	I	universities.		The	Journal	of	Negro	Education,	77,	352-364.	

Beamon,	K.,	&	Bell,	P.	A.		(2006).		Academics	versus	athletics:		An	examination	of	the	effects	
on	background	and	socialization	on	African-American	male	student	athletes.		Social	
Science	Journal,	43,	393-403.	

Beamon,	K.,	&	Bell,	P.	A.		(2002).		Going	pro:		The	differential	effects	of	high	aspirations	for	a	
professional	sports	career	on	African-American	student-athletes	and	White	student-
athletes.		Race	and	Society,	5(2),	179-191.	

Bell,	L.	F.		(2009).		Examining	academic	role-set	influence	on	the	student-athlete	

experience.		Journal	of	Issues	in	Intercollegiate	Athletics,	(Special	Issue),	19-41.	

Beron,	K.	J.,	&	Piquero,	A.	R.		(2016).		Studying	the	determinants	of	student-athlete	grade	

point	average:		The	roles	of	identity,	context,	and	academic	interests.		Social	Science	
Quarterly,	97(2),	142-160.	

Bimper,	A.	Y.		(2014).		Game	changers:		The	role	athletic	identity	and	racial	identity	play	on	

academic	performance.		Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	55(8),	795-807.	

Blann,	F.	W.	(1985).	Intercollegiate	athletic	competition	and	students'	educational	and	

career	plans.	Journal	of	College	Student	Personnel,	26,	115-119.	

Bloomberg,	L.	D.,	&	Volpe,	M.		(2019).		Completing	your	qualitative	dissertation:	A	roadmad	

from	beginning	to	end	(4th	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	Publications.	

Bradshaw,	C.,	Atkinson,	S.,	&	Doody,	O.		(2017).		Employing	a	qualitative	description	

approach	in	health	care	research.		Global	Qualitative	Nursing	Research,	4.		Retrieved	
from:	https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2333393617742282.		

Braun,	V.,	&	Clarke,	V.		(2013).		Successful	qualitative	research:		A	practical	guide	for	

beginners.		London:	Sage	Publications.	

Brewer,	B.	W.,	Van	Raalte,	J.	L.,	&	Linder,	D.	E.	(1993).	Athletic	identity:	Hercules'	muscles	or	

achilles	heel?	International	Journal	of	Sport	Psychology,	24,	237-254.	

Brewer,	B.	W.,	&	Petitpas,	A.	J.		(2017).		Athletic	identity	foreclosure.		Current	Opinion	in	

Psychology,	16,	118-122.	

Broughton,	E.,	&	Neyer,	M.		(2001).		Advising	and	counseling	student	athletes.		New	

Directions	for	Student	Services,	93,	47-53.	

Brown,	C.,	&	Hartley,	D.		(1998).		Athletic	identity	and	career	maturity	of	male	college	
student	athletes.		International	journal	of	Sport	Psychology,	29,	17-26.	

137	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Brown,	C.,	Glastetter-Fender,	C.,	&	Shelton,	M.		(2000).		Psychosocial	identity	and	career	

control	in	college	student-atheletes.		Journal	of	Vocational	Behavior,	56,	53-62.	

Brown,	D.	J.,	Fletcher,	D.,	Henry,	I.,	Borrie,	A.,	Emmett,	J.,	Buzza,	A.,	&	Wombwell,	S.		(2015).		

A	British	university	case	study	of	the	transitional	experience	of	student-athletes.		
Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	21,	78-90.	

Brown,	S.	D.,	&	Heath,	L.		(1984).		Coping	with	critical	life	events:		An	integrative	cognitive-

behavioral	model	for	research	and	practice.		Handbook	of	Counseling	Psychology,	
545-578.	

Burns,	G.	N.,	Jasinski,	D.,	Dunn,	S.,	&	Fletcher,	D.		(2013).		Academic	support	services	and	
career	decision-making	self-efficacy	in	student	athletes.		The	Career	Development	
Quarterly,	61,	161-167.	

Cabrita,	T.	M.,	Rosado,	A.	B.,	Leite,	T.	O.,	Serpa,	S.	O.,	&	Sousa,	P.	M.		(2014).		The	relationship	

between	athletic	identity	and	career	decisions	in	athletes.		Journal	of	Applied	Sport	
Psychology,	26(4),	471-481.	

Caelli,	K.,	Ray,	L.,	&	Mill,	J.		(2003).		‘Clear	as	mud’:		Toward	greater	clarity	in	generic		
qualitative	research.		International	Journal	of	Qualitative	Methods,	2(2),	1-13.	

Calfree,	J.		(2007).		Online	tutoring	and	student	success	in	developmental	writing		
courses.		Journal	of	Applied	Research	in	Community	Colleges,	15(1),	37-45.	

Carodine,	K.,	Almond,	K.	F.,	&	Gratto,	K.	K.		(2001).		College	student	athlete	success	both	in	

and	out	of	the	classroom.		New	Directions	for	Student	Services,	93,	19-33.	

Cash,	T.	A.,	Hart,	A.,	Cole,	M.,	&	Villegas-Gold,	M.		(2021).		Translating	the	phenomena	of	

student-athlete	retirement.		The	International	Journal	of	Sport	and	Society,	12(2),	59-
79.	

Charmaz,	K.		(2015).		Constructing	grounded	theory	(2nd	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	

Publications.	

Chartrand,	J.	M.,	&	Lent,	R.	W.	(1987).	Sports	counseling:		Enhancing	the	development	of	the	

student-athlete.	Journal	of	Counseling	and	Development,	66(4),	164-167.	

Chelladurai,	P.,	&	Saleh,	S.	D.		(1980).		Dimensionsn	of	leader	beahvior	in	sport:	
Development	of	a	leadership	scale.		Journal	of	Sport	Psychology,	2,	34-45.	

Chen,	R.,	&	Wiederspan,	M.		(2014).		Understanding	the	determinants	of	debt	burden	
among	college	graduates.		Journal	of	Higher	Education,	85(4),	565-598.	

Chickering,	A.	W.,	&	Reisser,	L.		(1993).		Education	and	identity.		San	Francisco:			

Jossey-Bass	Publishers.	

138	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Chickering,	A.	W.		(1969).		Education	and	identity.		Jossey-Bass.	

Chu,	D.	(1989).	The	character	of	American	higher	education	and	intercollegiate	sport.	

Albany:	State	University	of	New	York	Press.	

Clements,	W.	M.,	&	Koenig,	H.	G.		(2014).		Aging	and	God:	Spiritual	pathways	to	mental	

health	in	midlife	and	later	years.		New	York,	NY:	Routledge.	

Coakley,	J.	J.		(2009).		Sport	in	society:		Issues	and	controversies	(10th	Ed.).		Boston:		McGraw-

Hill.	

Comeaux,	E.		(2010).		Mentoring	as	an	intervention	strategy.		Journal	for	the	Study	of	Sports	

and	Athletes	in	Education,	4(3),	257-276.	

Comeaux,	E.,	&	Harrison,	K.	C.	(2011).		A	conceptual	model	of	academic	success	for	student-

athletes.		Educational	Researcher,	40(5),	235-245.	

Constantinou,	C.	S.,	Georgiou,	M.,	&	Perdikogianni,	M.		(2017).		A	comparative	method	for	
theses	saturation	(CoMeTS)	in	qualitative	interviews.		Qualitative	Research,	17(5),	
571-588.	

Cooper,	J.N.,	&	Cooper,	J.E.		(2015).		“I’m	running	so	you	can	be	happy	and	I	can	keep	my	

scholarship”:	A	comparative	study	of	black	male	college	athletes’	experiences	with	
rold	conflict.		Journal	of	Intercollegiate	Sport,	8(2),	131-152.	

Creswell,	J.	W.		(2018).		Research	design:	Qualitative,	quantitative,	and	mixed	methods	

approaches	(4th	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		SAGE	Publications,	Inc.	

Czech,	D.	R.,	&	Bullet,	E.		(2007).		An	exploratory	description	of	christian	athletes’	

perceptions	of	prayer	in	sport:	A	mixed	methodological	pilot	study.		International	
Journal	of	Sports	Science	&	Coaching,	2(1),	49-56.	

Danish,	S.	J.	&	Hale,	B.	D.		(1981).		Toward	an	understanding	of	the	practice	of	sport	

psychology.		Journal	of	Sport	Psychology,	3,	90-99.		

Davis,	N.	(2007).	Out	of	bounds:	States	and	colleges	are	increasingly	turning	to	the	courts	to	
help	protect	the	integrity	of	big-time	college	athletics.	Diverse	Issues	in	Higher	
Education,	24(11),	14-15.	

Deakin,	H.,	&	Wakefield,	K.		(2014).		Skype	interviewing:		Reflections	of	two	PhD		

researchers.		Qualitative	Research,	14(5),	603-616.	

DeLong,	C.,	Radcliffe,	P.,	&	Gorny,	L.	(2007).	Recruiting	for	retention:	Using	data-	

mining	and	machine	learning	to	leverage	the	admissions	process	for	improved		
[first-year]	retention.	Paper	presented	at	the	CSRDE	National	Symposium	on		
Student	Retention,	Milwaukee,	WI.	

139	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
		
	
	
	
	
	
	
Denzin,	N.	K.	&	Lincoln,	Y.	S.		(Eds.).		(2000).		Handbook	of	qualitative	research	(2nd	ed.).			

Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		SAGE	Publications,	Inc.	

Desrochers,	D.	M.		(2013).		Academic	spending	vs.	athletic	spending:		Who	wins?	(PDF		

document).		Retrieved	from		
http://www.deltacostproject.org/sites/default/files/products/DeltaCostAIR_Athlet
icAcademic_Spending_IssueBrief.pdf		

Dillon,	K.,	&	Tait,	J.		(2000).		Spirituality	and	being	in	the	zone	in	team	sports:	A		

relationship?		Journal	of	Sport	Behavior,	23(2),	91-100.	

Duderstadt,	J.	J.		(2003).		Intercollegiate	athletics	and	the	American	university:	A		

university	president’s	perspective.		Ann	Arbor:	University	of	Michigan	Press.	

Duderstadt,	J.	J.	(2000).	Intercollegiate	athletics	and	the	American	university:	A	university	

president's	perspective.	Ann	Arbor:	University	of	Michigan	Press.	

Duke	University.		(2015).		Duke	Leadership	Program:	1st	Year	Action	Program.		Retrieved	

from:	http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=3656936	on	January	12,	
2015.	

Duran,	A.,	&	Jones,	S.	R.		(2019).		Using	intersectionality	in	qualitative	research	on	college	

student	identity	development:	Considerations,	tensions,	and	possibilities.		Journal	of	
College	Student	Development,	60(4),	455-471.	

Eiche,	K.,	Sedlacek,	W.,	&	Adams-Gaston,	J.	(1997a).	Comparing	university	athletes	and	
nonathletes	on	attitudes	and	perceptions.	Research	Report,	#5-97,	1-19.	

Eiche,	K.,	Sedlacek,	W.,	&	Adams-Gaston,	J.	(1997b).	An	exploration	of	leadership	

characteristics	in	college	athletes.	Research	Report,	#6-97,	1-17.	

Eiche,	K.,	Sedlacek,	W.,	&	Adams-Gaston,	J.	(1997c).	Using	noncognitive	variables	with	

freshmen	athletes.	Research	Report,	#7-97,	1-18.	

Eitle,	T.,	&	Eitle,	D.		(2002).		Race,	cultural	capital,	and	the	educational	effects	of	

participation	in	sports.		Sociology	of	Education,	75,	123-146.	

English,	J.	A.,	&	Kruger,	A.	C.		(2020).		I	am	not	only	a	student-athlete:	Investigating	social		
identity	complexity	as	a	stereotype	threat	mitigation	strategy	to	reduce	barriers.			
Journal	of	Issues	in	Intercollegiate	Athletics,	Special	Issue,	29-55.	

Engstrom,	C.	M.,	Sedlacek,	W.	E.,	&	McEwen,	M.	K.		(1995).		Faculty	attitudes	toward		

male	revenue	and	nonrevenue	student-athletes.		Journal	of	College	Student		
Development,	36,	217-227.	

140	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Engstrom,	C.	M.,	&	Sedlacek,	W.	E.	(1991).	A	study	of	prejudice	toward	university	student-

athletes.	Journal	of	Counseling	and	Development,	70(1),	189-193.	

Engstrom,	C.	M.	&	Sedlacek,	W.	E.		(1989).		Attitudes	of	residence	hall	students	toward	

student-athletes:	Implications	for	advising,	training,	and	programming.		Research	
report	#19-89	(ED319321).	

Feltz,	D.	L.,	Schneider,	R.,	Hwang,	S.,	&	Skogsberg,	N.	J.		(2013).		Predictors	of	collegiate	
student	athletes’	susceptibility	to	stereotype	threat.		Journal	of	College	Student	
Development,	54(2),	184-201.	

Flick,	U.		(2006).		An	introduction	to	qualitative	research	(3rd	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		

SAGE	Publications,	Inc.	

Foster,	S.	J.	L.,	&	Huml,	M.	R.		(2017).		The	relationship	between	athletic	identity	and	
academic	major	chosen	by	student-athletes.		International	Journal	of	Exercise	
Science,	10(6),	915-925.	

Fouad,	N.,	Cotter,	E.	W.,	&	Kantamneni,	N.		(2009).		The	effectiveness	of	a	career	decision-

making	course.		Journal	of	Career	Assessment,	17,	338-347.	

Fuches,	P.	X.,	Wagner,	H.,	Hannola,	H.,	Niemisalo,	N.,	Pehme,	A.,	Puhke,	R.,	Marinsek,	M.,	
Strmecki,	A.,	Svetec,	D.,	Capranica,	L.,	&	Guidotti,	F.		(2016).		European	student-
athletes’	perceptions	on	dual	career	outcomes	and	services.		Kinesiologia	Slovenica,	
22,	31-48.	

Fuller,	R.	D.,	Harrison,	K.	C.,	&	Bukstein,	S.	J.		(2017).		A	study	of	significance	of	racial	and	
athletic	identification	on	educational	perceptions	among	African	American	male	
college	athletes.		Race,	Ethnicity	and	Education,	20(5),	711-722.	

Gallup.		(2020).		A	study	of	NCAA	student-athletes:		Undergraduate	experiences	and	post-

college	outcomes.		Gallup,	Inc.		Retrieved	from:	
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/other/2020/2020RES_GallupNCAAO
utcomes.pdf		on	August	5,	2023.		

Garcia,	A.	J.,	Fong,	C.	J.,	&	Regalado,	Y.	M.		(2023).		Motivational,	identity-based,	and	self-

regulatory	factors	associated	with	the	academic	achievement	of	US	collegiate	
student-athletes:	A	meta-analytic	investigation.		Educational	Pyschology	Review,	
35(1),	1-30.	

Gaston-Gayles,	J.	L.		(2009).		The	student-athlete	experience.		New	Directions	for	

Institutional	Research,	144,	33-41.	

Gaston-Gayles,	J.	L.		(2004).	Examining	academic	and	athletic	motivation	among	student	

athletes	at	a	Division	I	univeristy.	Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	45(1),	75-
83.	

141	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Gaston-Gayles,	J.	L.,	&	Hu,	S.	(2009a).	The	influence	of	student	engagement	and	sport	

participation	on	college	outcomes	among	Division	I	student	athletes.	The	Journal	of	
Higher	Education,	80(3),	315-333.	

Gaston-Gayles,	J.	L.,	&	Hu	S.	(2009b).	Athletes	as	students:		Ensuring	positive	cognitive	and	

affective	outcomes.	New	Directions	for	Higher	Education,	148,	101-107.	

Georgia	Institute	of	Technology.		(2015).		The	Total	Person	Program.		Retreived	from:	

http://www.ramblinwreck.com/school-bio/geot-rice-total.html	on	January	15,	
2015.	

Gerdy,	J.	R.	(2006).		For	true	reform,	athletics	scholarships	must	go.	The	Chronicle	of	Higher	

Education,	52(36),	B6.	

Gerdy,	J.	R.	(1997).		The	successful	college	athletic	program:		The	new	standard.			
Phoenix,	AZ:		American	Council	on	Education	and	the	Oryx	Press.	

Giacobbi	Jr.,	P.	R.,	Whitney,	J.,	Roper	E.,	&	Butryn,	T.		(2002).		College	coaches’	views	about	

the	development	of	successful	athletes:	A	descriptive	exploratory	investigation.		
Journal	of	Sport	Behavior,	25(2),	164.	

Glesne,	C.		(2006).		Becoming	qualitative	researchers:		An	introduction.		Boston,	MA:		Pearson	

Education,	Inc.	

Good,	A.	J.,	Brewer,	B.	W.,	Petitpas,	A.	J.,	Ban	Raalte,	J.	L.,	&	Mahar,	M.	T.		(1993).		Identity	

foreclosure,	athletic	identity,	and	college	sport	participation.		The	Academic	Athletic	
Journal,	8,	1-12.	

Grant,	C.	H.	B.	(1979).	Institutional	Autonomy	and	Intercollegiate	Athletics.	Educational	

Record.	60(4),	409-19.	

Griffith,	K.	&	Johnson,	K.		(2002).		Athletic	identity	and	life	roles	of	Division	I	and	Division	III	

collegiate	athletes.		Journal	of	Undergraduate	Research,	5,	225-231.	

Guba,	E.	G.,	&	Lincoln,	Y.	S.		(1989).		Fourth	generation	evaluation.		Newbury	Park,	CA:	Sage.	

Guerney,	B.	G.,	Stollak,	G.	E.,	&	Guerney,	L.	F.		(1971).		The	practicing	psychologist	as	

educator	–	an	alternative	to	the	medical	practitioner	model.		Professional	Psychology,	
2,	276-282.	

Gunn,	E.,	&	Eddy,	J.		(1989).		Student	services	for	intercollegiate	athletes.		College	Student	

Affairs	Journal,	9,	36-44.	

Gurney,	G.,	Lopiano,	D.	A.,	&	Zimbalist,	A.		(2017).		Unwinding	madness:	What	went	wrong	
with	college	sports	and	how	to	fix	it.		Washington,	D.C.:	The	Brookings	Institution.	

142	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Hamilton,	K.	(2005).	Putting	the	"student"	back	into	student-athlete.	Black	Issues	in	Higher	

Education,	22(4),	28-30.	

Hamilton,	D.	L.	&	Trolier,	T.	K.		(1986).		Stereotypes	and	stereotyping:		An	overview		

of	the	cognitive	approach.		In	J.	F.	Dovidio	&	S.	L.	Gaertner	(Eds.),	Prejudice,		
discrimination,	and	racism	(pp.	127-163).		San	Diego,	CA:		Academic	Press.	

Hanna,	P.	&	Mwale,	S.		(2017).		“I’m	not	with	you,	yet	I	am…”		Virtual	face-to-face	

interviews.		In	V.	Braun,	&	D.	Gray	(Eds.),	Collecting	qualitative	data.		A	practical	
guide	to	textual,	media,	and	virtual	techniques	(pp.	256-274).		Cambridge	University	
Press.	

Harrison,	C.,	&	Lawrence,	S.		(2003).		African-American	student-athletes’	perception	of	

career	transition	in	sport:		A	qualitative	and	visual	elicitation.		Race	Ethnicity	and	
Education,	14,	91-103.	

Harrison,	L.,	Jr.,	Sailes,	G.,	Rotich,	W.	K.,	&	Bimper,	A.	Jr.		(2011).		Living	the	dream	or	

awakening	from	the	nightmare:		Race	and	athletic	identity.		Race	Ethnicity	and	
Education,	14(1),	17-32.	

Hart,	K.,	Madrigal,	L.,	Ede,	A.,	&	Fogaca,	J.		(2024).		Examining	classroom	learning	

behaviorsand	academic	and	athletic	motivation	in	collegiate	athletes.		Journal	of	
Intercollegiate	Sport,	17(2),	196-216.	

Haslerig,	S.	J.		(2017).		Graduate(d)	student	athletes	in	Division	1	football:		Redefining	
archetypes	and	disrupting	stereotypes	or	invisible?		Sociology	of	Sport	Journal,	
34(4),	329-343.	

Hawley,	L.	R.,	Hosch,	H.	M.,	&	Bovaird,	J.	A.		(2014).		Exploring	social	identity	theory	and	the	

‘black	sheep	effect’	among	college	student-athletes	and	non-athletes.		Journal	of	
Sport	Behavior,	37(1),	56-76.	

Healy,	L.,	Ntoumanis,	N.,	&	Duda,	J.		(2016).		Goal	motives	and	multiple-goal	striving	in	sport	
and	academia:		A	person-centered	investigation	of	goal	motives	and	inter-goal	
relations.		Journal	of	Science	and	Medicine	in	Sport,	19,	1010-1014.	

Hesse-Biber,	S.,	&	Leavy,	P.		(2006).		The	practice	of	qualitative	research.		Thousand	Oaks,	

CA:	SAGE	Publications.	

Hirko,	S.	(2009).	Intercollegiate	athletics	and	modeling	multiculturalism.	New	Directions	for	

Higher	Education,	148,	91-100.	

Hollis,	L.	P.		(2001).		Service	ace?		Which	academic	services	and	resources	truly	benefit	

student	athletes.		Journal	of	College	Student	Retention,	3(3),	265-284.	

143	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Horton,	R.	S.,	&	Mack,	D.	E.		(2000).		Athletic	identity	in	marathon	runners:		Functional	focus	

or	dysfunctional	commitment?		Journal	of	Sport	Behavior,	33,	146-160.	

Howlett,	M.		(2022).		Looking	at	the	‘field’	through	a	Zoom	lens:		Methodological	reflections	
on	conducting	online	research	during	a	global	pandemic.		Qualitative	Research,	
22(3),	387-402.	

Huang,	C.,	Chou,	C.,	&	Hung,	T.		(2016).		College	experiences	and	career	barriers	among	

semi-professional	student-athletes:		The	influences	of	athletic	identity	and	career	
self-efficacy.		The	Career	Development	International,	21,	571-586.		

Husman,	J.,	&	Shell,	D.		(2008).		Beliefs	and	perceptions	about	the	future:		A	measurement	of	

future	time	perspective.		Learning	and	Individual	Differences,	18,	166-175.	

Ishitani,	T.	T.	&	Snider,	K.	G.		(2006).		Longitudinal	effects	of	college	preparation		

programs	on	college	retention.		IR	Applications,	9,	1-10.	

Ishitani,	T.	T.		(2003).		A	longitudinal	approach	to	assessing	attrition	behavior		

among	first-generation	students:		Time-varying	effects	of	pre-college		
characteristics.		Research	in	Higher	Education,	44(4),	433-449.	

Janis,	I.	L.,	&	Mann,	L.		(1977).		Decision-making:		A	psychological	analysis	of	conflict,		

choice,	and	commitment.		New	York:		The	Free	Press.	

Jessop,	A.		(2013).		The	economics	of	college	football:		A	look	at	the	top	25	teams’	revenues		

and	expenses.		Forbes.		Retrieved	from	
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2013/08/31/the-economics-of-college-
football-a-look-at-the-top-25-teams-revenues-and-expenses/	on	June	20,	2015.	

Johnson,	R.	B.,	&	Christensen,	L.		(2020).		Educational	research:	Quantitative,	qualitative,		

and	mixed	approaches	(7th	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	Publications.	

Jones-White,	D.	R.,	Radcliffe,	P.	M.,	Huesman,	R.	L.	Jr.,	&	Kellogg,	J.	P.		(2010).			

Redefining	student	success:	Applying	different	multinomial	regression		
techniques	for	the	study	of	student	graduation	across	institutions	of	higher		
education.		Research	in	Higher	Education,	5(2),	154-174.	

Kamusoko,	S.	D.,	&	Pemberton,	C.	L.	A.		(2013).		Student-athlete	wellbeing	and	persistence:		
An	in-depth	look	at	student-athlete	perceptions.		Journal	for	the	Study	of	Sports	and	
Athletes	in	Education,	7(1),	41-61.	

Kennedy,	S.	R.,	&	Dimick,	K.	M.	(1987).	Career	maturity	and	professional	sports	

expectations	of	college	football	and	basketball	players.	Journal	of	College	Student	
Personnel,	28(4),	293-297.	

144	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Kornspan,	A.,	&	Etzel,	E.		(2001).		The	relationship	of	demographic	and	psychological	

variables	to	career	maturity	of	juniorr	college	student-athletes.		Journal	of	College	
Student	Development,	42(2),	122-132.	

Lally,	P.	S.	&	Kerr,	G.	A.		(2005).		The	career	planning,	athletic	identity,	and	student		

role	identity	of	intercollegiate	student	athletes.		Research	Quarterly	for		
Exercise	and	Sport,	76(3),	275-285.	

Lawrence,	J.	H.	(2009).	Faculty	perceptions	of	intercollegiate	athletics.	New	Directions	for	

Institutional	Research,	144,	103-112.	

Lawrence,	J.	H.,	Hendricks,	L.	A.,	&	Ott,	M.	C.		(2007).		Faculty	perceptions	of	intercollegiate	

athletics:		A	national	study	of	faculty	at	NCAA	Division	I	Football	Bowl	Subdivision	
instistutions.		Prepared	for	the	Knight	Commission	on	Intercollegiate	Athletics,	
October	15,	2007.	

Lee,	R.	M.,	Fielding,	N.	G.,	&	Blank,	G.		(2017).		Online	research	methods	in	the	social	

sciences:	An	editorial	introduction	and	invitation.		In	N.	G.	Fielding,	R.	M.	Lee,	&	G.	
Blank	(Eds.),	The	Sage	Handbook	of	Online	Research	Methods.		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	
Sage	Publications.	

Leshner,	A.	I.,	&	Scherer,	L.	A.	(Eds.).		(2021).		Mental	health,	substance	use,	and	wellbeing	in		

higher	education:	Supporting	the	whole	student.		National	Academies	Press.	

Light,	R.	J.,	Singer,	J.,	&	Willett,	J.		(1990).		By	design:		Conducting	research	on	higher	

education.		Cambridge,	MA:		Harvard	University	Press.	

Lincoln,	Y.	S.,	&	Guba,	E.	G.		(2000).		Paradigmatic	controversies,	contradictions,	and	

emerging	confluences.		In	N.	K.	Denzin	&	Y.	S.	Lincoln	(Eds.).		Handbook	of	Qualitative	
Research	(2nd	ed.,	pp.	163-188).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	Publications.	

Lincoln,	Y.	S.,	&	Guba,	E.	G.		(1985).		Naturalistic	inquiry.		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:	Sage	

Publications.	

Linnemeyer,	R.	M.,	&	Brown	C.		(2010).		Career	maturity	and	foreclosure	in	student	athletes,	
fine	arts	students,	and	general	college	students.		Journal	of	Career	Development,	
37(3),	616-634.	

Lu,	L.	D.,	Heinze,	K.	L.,	&	Soderstrom,	S.	(2018).		Playing	multiple	positions:	Student-athlete		

identity	salience	and	conflict.		Journal	of	Intercollegiate	Sport,	11,	214-241.	

Lucas,	J.	W.,	&	Lovaglia,	M.	J.		(2008).		Athletes’	expectations	for	success	in	athletics		

compared	to	academic	competition.		The	Sport	Journal,	5,	12-19.	

145	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Lupo,	C.,	Mosso,	Co.	O.,	Guidotti,	F.,	Cugliari,	G.,	Pizzigalli,	L.,	&	Rainoldi,	A.		(2017).			

Motivation	toward	dual	career	of	Italian	student-athletes	enrolled	in	different		
university	paths.		Sport	Sciences	for	Health,	13,	485-494.	

Maloney,	M.	T.	&	McCormick,	R.	E.		(1992).		An	examination	of	the	role	that		

intercollegiate	athletic	participation	plays	in	academic	achievement.		Journal		
of	Human	Resources,	28(3),	555-570.	

Marshall,	C.	&	Rossman,	G.	B.		(2016).		Designing	qualitative	research	(6th	ed.).		Thousand		

Oaks,	CA:	Sage	Publications.	

Martens,	M.	P.	&	Cox,	R.	H.	(2000).		Career	development	in	college	varsity	athletes.			

Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	41(2),	172-180.	

Martens,	M.	P.,	&	Lee,	F.	K.		(1998).		Promoting	life-career	development	in	the	student-

athlete:		How	can	career	centers	help?		Journal	of	Career	Development,	25,	123-134.	

Martin,	B.,	Harrison,	C.	K.,	&	Bukstein,	S.		(2010).		“It	takes	a	village”	for	African	American	

male	scholar-athletes:		Mentorship	by	parents,	faculty,	and	coaches.		Journal	for	the	
Study	of	Sports	and	Athletes	in	Education,	4(3),	277-295.	

Martinelli,	Jr.,	E.	A.		(2000).		Career	decision	making	and	student-athletes.		In	D.	A.	Luzzo	

(Ed.),	Career	counseling	of	college	students:		An	empirical	guide	to	strategies	that	
work	(pp.	201-215).		Washington,	D.	C.:		American	Psychological	Association.	

Massey,	D.,	&	Owens,	J.		(2014).		Mediators	of	stereotype	threat	among	black	college		

students.		Ethnic	and	Racial	Studies,	37(3),	557-575.	

Matthews,	R.	(1996).		Learning	Communities:	A	retention	strategy	that	serves		

students	and	faculty.		Washington,	DC:	American	Association	of	State	Colleges		
and	Universities.	

Maxwell,	J.	A.		(2005).		Qualitative	research	design:	An	interactive	approach	(2nd	ed.).		

Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		Sage	Publications.	

McGannon,	K.	R.,	&	Smith,	B.		(2015).		Centralizing	culture	in	cultural	sport	psychology	

research:		The	potential	of	narrative	inquiry	and	discursive	psychology.		Psychology	
of	Sport	and	Exercise,	17,	79-87.	

Melendez,	M.	C.		(2009).		Psychosocial	influences	on	college	adjustment	in	Division	1	

student-athletes:		The	role	of	athletic	identity.		Journal	of	College	Student	Retention:		
Research,	Theory	and	Practice,	11(3),	345-361.	

Melendez,	M.	C.		(2008).		Black	football	players	on	a	predominantly	White	collee	campus:		

Psychosocial	and	emotional	realities	of	the	Black	college	athlete	experience.		Journal	
of	Black	Psychology,	34(4),	423-451.	

146	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Merriam,	S.	B.	(Ed.).		(2002).		Qualitative	research	in	practice:	Examples	for	discussion	and	

analysis.		San	Francisco,	CA:		Jossey-Bass.		

Mertens,	D.	M.		(1998).		Research	methods	in	education	and	psychology:		Integrating	diversity	

with	quantitative	and	qualitative	approaches.		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		SAGE	
Publications,	Inc.	

Meyer,	B.	B.	(1990).	From	idealism	to	actualization:	The	academic	performance	of	female	

college	athletes.	Sociology	of	Sport	Journal,	7,	44-57.	

Michigan	State	University.		(2023).		Student	Athlete	Support	Services:		Student-athlete	

development.		Retrieved	from	https://www.sass.msu.edu/student-athlete-
development/career-development/kin-171	on	October	11,	2023.	

Miller,	P.,	&	Kerr,	G.		(2003).		The	role	experimentation	of	intercollegiate	student	athletes.		

The	Sport	Psychologist,	17,	196-219.	

Moore,	M.		(2017).		Stepping	outside	of	their	comfort	zone:	Perceptions	of	seeking	

behavioral	health	services	amongst	college	athletes.		Journal	of	Issues	in	
Intercollegiate	Athletics,	10(2),	Article	9.	

Moustakas,	C.		(1994).		Phenomenological	research	methods.		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		SAGE	

Publications,	Inc.	

Murphy,	G.	M.,	Petitpas,	A.	J.,	&	Brewer,	B.	W.	(1996).	Identity	foreclosure,	athletic	identity,	
and	career	maturity	in	intercollegiate	athletes.	The	Sport	Psychologist,	10,	239-246.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association	(2022).		NCAA	sports	sponsorship	and		

participation	rates	report.		Retrieved	from	
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/research/sportpart/2022RES_SportsSponsors
hipParticipationRatesReport.pdf	on	September	16,	2023.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2017a).		Our	three	divisions.		Retrieved	from		

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-
divisions	on	November	16,	2017.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2017b).		2017	probability	of	competing	beyond		

high	school	figures	and	methodology.		Retrieved	from		
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015-
16RES_Probability_Chart_Web_20170314.pdf	on	August	12,	2017.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2017c).		Life	skills.		Retrieved	from		

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/leadership-development/life-skills	on		
August	12,	2017.	

147	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association	(2016).		NCAA	recruiting	facts.		Retrieved	from		

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Recruiting%20Fact%20Sheet%20WEB.p
df	on	August	12,	2017.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2015).		Remaining	eligible:		Academics.			

Retrieved	from	http://www.ncaa.org/remaining-eligible-academics	on	July	27,	
2015.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2014a).		Behind	the	blue	disk:		APR:			

Academic	Progress	Rate.		Retrieved	December	8,	2014	from		
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/91852%20BTBD%20Academic%20Progr
ess%20Rate%20WEB_0.pdf.		

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2014b).		Athletics	participation	rates		

continue	to	rise:		More	than	19,000	teams	competed	in	NCAA	sports	in	2013-2014.		
Retrieved	from	http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-
center/news/athletics-participation-rates-continue-rise	on	November	15,	2014.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2013).		Estimated	probability	of		
competing	in	athletics	beyond	the	high	school	interscholastic	level.			
Retrieved	from	http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Probability-of-going-pro-
methodology_Update2013.pdf	on	January	8,	2015.	

National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association.		(2008).		NCAA	CHAMPS/Life	Skills		

Program.		Retrieved	from	
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/LS08.pdf	on	January	8,	
2015.	

Navarro,	K.	M.		(2015).		An	examination	of	the	alignment	of	student-athletes’		

undergraduate	major	choices	and	career	field	aspirations	in	life	after	sports.		Journal	
of	College	Student	Development,	56(4),	364-379.	

Newton,	J.,	Gill,	D.	L.,	&	Reifsteck,	E.		(2020).		Athletic	identity:	Complexity	of	the	“iceberg.”			

Journal	of	Athlete	Development	and	Experience,	2(2),	69-82.	

Noh,	Y.,	&	Shahdan,	S.		(2020).		A	systematic	review	of	religion/spirituality	and	sport:	A		

psychological	perspective,	Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	46.	

O’Neil,	L.,	Amorose,	A.,	&	Pierce,	S.		(2021).		Student-athletes’	dual	commitment	to	school		

and	sport:	Compatible	or	conflicting?		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	52,	1-11.	

Oseguera,	L.		(2010).		Success	despite	the	image.		Journal	for	the	Study	of	Sports	and		

Athletes	in	Education,	4(3),	297-324.	

Parham,	W.	D.		(1993).		The	intercollegiate	athlete:	A	1990s	profile.		The	Counseling		

Psychologist,	21(4),	411-429.	

148	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Pascarella,	E.	T.,	Bohr,	L.,	Nora,	A.,	&	Terenzini,	P.	T.	(1995).	Intercollegiate	athletic	

participation	and	freshman-year	cognitive	outcomes.	Journal	of	Higher	Education,	
66(4),	369-387.	

Pascarella,	E.	T.	&	Smart,	J.	C.		(1991).		Impact	of	intercollegiate	athletic	participation		
for	African	American	and	Caucasian	men:		some	further	evidence.		Journal	of		
College	Student	Development,	32,	123-130.	

Pascarella,	E.	T.,	&	Terenzini,	P.	T.		(1991).		How	college	affects	students:		Findings	and	
insights	from	twenty	years	of	research.		San	Francisco,	CA:		Jossey-Bass.		

Patton,	M.	Q.		(1990).		Qualitative	evaluation	and	research	methods	(2nd	ed.).		Newbury	Park,	

CA:	SAGE	Publications,	Inc.	

Pearson,	R.	E.,	&	Petitpas,	A.	J.	(1990).	Transitions	of	athletes:	Developmental	and	
preventive	perspectives.	Journal	of	Counseling	and	Development,	69,	7-10.	

Perkhounkova,	Y.,	Noble,	J.,	&	McLaughlin,	G.	(2006).	Factors	related	to	persistence		
of	freshmen,	freshmen	transfers,	and	nonfreshmen	transfer	students.		AIR		
Professional	File	(99),	1–9.	

Petitpas,	A.	J.		(1978).		Identity	foreclosure:		A	unique	challenge.		Personnel	and	Guidance	

Journal,	56(9),	558-561.	

Petitpas,	A.	J.,	&	Champagne,	D.	E.	(1988).	Developmental	programming	for	intercollegiate	

athletes.	Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	29,	454-460.	

Potuto,	J.	R.,	&	O'Hanlon,	J.	(2007).	National	study	of	student-athletes	regarding	their	
experiences	as	college	students.	College	Student	Journal,	41(4),	947-966.	

Radcliffe,	P.,	Huesman,	R.,	Kellogg,	J.,	&	Jones-White,	D.	(2009).	Identifying	students		

at	risk:	Utilizing	survival	analysis	to	study	student	athlete	attrition.	IR		
Applications,	21.	Available:	http://www.	airweb.org/images/irapps21.pdf		

Raunig,	T.,	&	Coggins,	P.		(2018).		What	intercollegiate	athletics	coaches	wish	faculty	knew:	

Implications	for	curriculum	and	instruction.		Journal	of	Curriculum	and	Teaching,	
7(1),	111-124.	

Rettig,	J.,	&	Hu,	Shouping.		(2016).		College	sport	participation	and	student	educational	

experiences	and	selected	college	outcomes.		Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	
57(4),	428-446.	

Riciputi,	S.,	&	Erdal,	K.		(2017).		The	effect	of	stereotype	threat	on	student-athlete	math	

performance.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	32,	54-57.	

149	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Rivas-Quinones,	L.	A.		(2003).		Career	maturity,	exploration,	and	identity	foreclosure	of	

student	athletes.		(Doctoral	dissertation,	Southern	Illinois	Univeristy,	2003).		
Dissertation	Abstracts	International,	64,	811.	

Ronkainen,	N.	J.,	Kavoura,	A.,	&	Ryba,	T.	V.		(2016).		Narrative	and	discursive	perspectives		
on	athletic	identity:		Past,	present,	and	future.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise.		27,		
128-137.	

Ryan,	F.	J.		(1989).		Participation	in	intercollegiate	athletics:		affective	outcomes.			

Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	30,	122-128.	

Sandelowski,	M.		(2000).		Whatever	happened	to	qualitative	description?		Research	in	

Nursing	and	Health,	23(4),	334-340.	

Sandstedt,	S.	D.,	Cox,	R.	H.	Martens,	M.	P.,	Ward,	D.	G.,	Webber,	S.	N.,	&	Ivey,	S.	(2004).	

Development	of	the	Student-Athlete	Career	Situation	Inventory	(SACSI).	Journal	of	
Career	Development,	31(2),	79-93.	

Sanford,	N.	(Ed.)		(1962).		The	American	college:		A	psychological	and	social	interpretation	of	

higher	learning.		New	York:	Wiley.	

Sanford,	N.		(1966).		Self	and	society:		Social	change	and	individual	development.		New	York:		

Atherton	Press.	

Saunders,	R.,	&	Fogarty,	G.		(2001).		Time	discounting	in	career	preference.		Journal	of	

Vocational	Behavior,	58,	118-126.	

Scott,	A.	B.,&	Ciani,	K.	D.		(2008).		Effects	of	an	undergraduate	career	class	on	men’s	and	
women’s	career	decision-making	self-efficacy	and	vocational	identity.		Journal	of	
Career	Development,	34,	263-285.	

Sedlacek,	W.	E.		(2004).		Beyond	the	big	test:	Noncognitive	assessment	in	higher	education.		

San	Francisco:	Jossey-Bass.	

Sedlacek,	W.	E.,	&	Adams-Gaston,	J.	(1992).	Predicting	the	academic	success	of	student-
athletes	using	SAT	and	noncognitive	variables.	Journal	of	Counseling	and	
Development,	70(6),	724-727.	

Sellers,	R.	M.		(1992).		Racial	differences	in	the	predictors	for	academic	achievement		
of	student-athletes	in	Division	1	revenue	producing	sports.		Sociology	of	Sport		
Journal,	9,	48-60.	

Sharp,	L.	A.	&	Sheilley,	H.	K.		(2008).		The	institution’s	obligations	to	athletes.		New		

Directions	for	Higher	Education,	142,	103-113.	

150	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Shrivastava,	Y.,	&	Sharma,	R.		(2015).		Leadership	behavior	as	preferred	by	male	athletes	of		
different	games	and	sports.		International	Journal	of	Physical	Education,	Sports,	and		
Health,	1(6),	96-99.	

Shulman,	J.	&	Bowen,	W.		(2001).		The	game	of	life:	College	sports	and	educational		

values.		Princeton:	Princeton	University	Press.	

Sim,	J.,	Saunders,	B.,	Waterfield,	J.,	&	Kingstone,	T.		(2018).		Can	sample	size	in	qualitative	
research	be	determined	a	priori?		International	Journal	of	Social	Research	
Methodology,	21(5),	619-634.	

Simons,	H.	D.,	Bosworth,	C.,	Fujita,	S.,	&	Jensen,	M.	(2007).	The	athlete	stigma	in	higher	

education.	College	Student	Journal,	41(2),	251-273.	

Simons,	H.	D.,	Van	Rheenen,	D.,	&	Covington,	M.	V.		(1999).		Academic	motivation	and		
the	student	athlete.		Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	40,	151-162.	

Smith,	B.,	&	McGannon,	K.	R.		(2018).		Developing	rigor	in	qualitative	research:		Problems	

and	opportunities	within	sport	and	exercise	psychology.		International	Review	of	
Sport	and	Exercise	Psychology,	11(1),	101-121.	

Smith,	E.		(2007).		Race,	sport,	and	the	American	dream.		Durham,	NC:		Carolina	Academic	

Press.	

Sowa,	C.	J.,	&	Gressard,	C.	F.	(1983).	Athletic	participation:		Its	relationship	to	student	

development.	Journal	of	College	Student	Personnel,	24,	236-239.	

Sparkes,	A.	C.		(1998).		Athletic	identity:	An	Achille’s	Heel	to	the	survival	of	self.			

Qualitative	Health	Research,	8(5),	644-664.		

Sperber,	M.		(2000).		Beer	and	circus:	How	big-time	college	sport	is	crippling		

undergraduate	education.		New	York:	Holt.	

Stainback,	S.,	&	Stainback,	W.	(1988).		Understanding	and	conducting	qualitative	research.	

Dubuque,	IA:	Kendall/Hunt.	

Steele,	A.	R.,	van	Rens,	F.	E.	C.	A.,	&	Ashley,	R.		(2020).		A	systematic	literature	review	on	the	
academic	and	athletic	identities	of	student-athletes.		Journal	of	Intercollegiate	Sport,	
13(1),	69-92.	

Stoltenburg,	A.	L.,	Kamphoff,	C.	S.,	&	Bremer,	K.	L.		(2011).		Transitioning	out	of	sport:		The	
psychological	effects	of	collegiate	athletes’	career-ending	injuries.		Athletic	Insight,	
13(2),	1-11.	

151	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Stone,	J.,	Harrison,	C.	K.,	&	Mottley,	J.		(2012).		‘Don’t	call	me	a	student-athlete’:		The	effect	of	

identity	priming	on	stereotype	threat	for	academically	engaged	African	American	
college	athletes.		Basic	and	Applied	Social	Psychology,	34(4),	99-106.	

Stone,	J.	A.,	&	Strange,	C.	C.	(1989).	Quality	of	student	experiences	of	freshman	

intercollegiate	athletes.	Journal	of	College	Student	Development,	30(2),	148-154.	

Storey,	Q.	K.,	Hewitt,	P.	L.,	&	Ogrodniczuk,	J.	S.		(2022).		Managing	daily	responsibilities	

among	collegiate	student-athletes:	Examining	the	roles	of	stress,	sleep,	and	sense	of	
belonging.		Journal	of	American	College	Health,	retrieved	from:	
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2022.2093610	on	
September	20,	2023.		

Super,	D.		(1990).		A	life-span,	life-space	approach	to	career	development.		In	D.	Brown	&	L.	
Brooks	(Eds.)		Career	choice	and	development	(2nd	ed.,	pp.	197-261).		San	Francisco,	
CA:		Jossey-Bass.	

Taylor,	K.,	&	Betz,	N.		(1983).		Application	of	self-efficacy	theory	to	the	understanding	and	
treatment	of	career	indecision.		Journal	of	Vocational	Behavior,	22,	63-81.	

Tekavc,	J.,	Wylleman,	P.	&	Erpic,	S.	C.		(2015).		Perceptions	of	dual	career	development	

among	elite	level	swimmers	and	basketball	players.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	
Exercise,	21,	27-41.	

Thelin,	J.	R.	(2004).	A	history	of	American	higher	education.	Baltimore:	Johns	Hopkins	

University	Press.	

Tinto,	V.		(2012).		Completing	college:		Rethinking	institutional	action.		Chicago:		University		

of	Chicago	Press.	

Tinto,	V.		(1998).		Colleges	as	Communities:	Taking	research	on	student	persistence		

seriously.	Review	of	Higher	Education,	21,	167–177.		

Tinto,	V.		(1993).		Leaving	college:		Rethinking	the	cause	and	cures	of	student	attrition	(2nd	

Ed.).		Chicago:		University	of	Chicago	Press.	

Torregrosa,	M.,	Ramis,	Y.,	Pallares,	S.,	Azocar,	F.,	&	Selva,	C.		(2015).		Olympic	athletes	back	

to	retirement:		A	qualitative	longitudinal	study.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	21,	
50-56.	

Torres,	V.,	Jones,	S.	R.,	&	Renn,	K.	A.		(2009).		Identity	development	theiories	in	student	
affairs:		Origins,	current	status,	and	new	approaches.		Journal	of	College	Student	
Development,	50,	577-596.	

Tracy,	S.	J.		(2010).		Qualitative	quality:		Eight	‘big-tent’	criteria	for	excellent	qualitative	

research.		Qualitative	Inquiry,	16,	837-851.	

152	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Tshube,	T.,	&	Feltz,	D.	L.		(2015).		The	relationship	between	dual-career	and	post-sport	

career	transition	among	elite	athletes	in	South	Africa,	Botswana,	Namibia	and	
Zimbabwe.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	21,	109-114.	

Tudor,	M.	L.,	&	Ridpath,	B.	D.		(2018).		Does	the	perceived	motivational	climate	significantly	
predict	academic	and/or	athletic	motivation	among	NCAA	division	I	college	
athletes?		Journal	of	Contemporary	Athletics,	12(4),	291-307.	

Tufford,	L.,	&	Newman,	P.		(2012).		Bracketing	in	qualitative	research.		Qualitative	Social	

Work,	11(1),	80-96.	

Umback,	P.	D.,	Palmer,	M.	M.,	Kuh,	G.	D.,	&	Hannah,	S.	J.	(2006).	Intercollegiate	athletes	and	

effective	educational	practices:	Winning	combination	or	losing	effort?	Research	in	
Higher	Education,	47(6),	709-733.	

University	of	Michigan.		(2023).		Student-Athlete	Advisory	Committee.		Retrieved	from:	
https://maizepages.umich.edu/organization/saac	on	October	11,	2023.	

University	of	Southern	California.		(2015).		Student-Athlete	Academic	Services:		Community	

outreach.		Retrieved	from:		https://saas.usc.edu/personal-
development/community-outreach/	on	January	12,	2015.	

University	of	Texas	at	Austin.		(December	15,	2014).		Character	development	of	young	
athletes	will	be	focus	of	groundbreaking	UT	Austin	effort.		Retrieved	from:	
https://news.utexas.edu/2014/12/15/character-development-of-young-athletes-
will-be-focus-of-groundbreaking-ut-austin-effort/		on	January	12,	2015.			

van	Rens,	F.	E.	C.	A.,	Ashley,	R.	a.,	&	Steele,	A.	R.		(2019).		Wellbeing	and	performance	in	dual		

careers:		The	role	of	academic	and	athletic	identities.		The	Sport	Psychologist,	33,		
42-51.	

Vernacchia,	R.	A.,	McGuire,	R.	T.,	Reardon,	J.	P.,	&	Templin,	D.	P.		(2000).		Psychosocial		

characteristics	of	Olympic	track	and	field	athletes,	International	Journal	of	Sport		
Psychology,	31(1),	5-23.	

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-athlete	(Vol.	27,	pp.	).		Columbia,	SC:		National	Resource		
Center	for	the	First-Year	Experience	and	Students	in	Transition.	

Watson,	J.	C.,	&	Kissinger,	D.	B.		(2007).		Athletic	participation	and	wellness:		Implications	
for	counseling	college	student-athletes.		Journal	of	College	Counseling,	10,	153-162.	

Watt,	S.	K.	&	Moore,	J.	L.	III.	(2001).		Who	are	student	athletes?		New	Directions	for		

Student	Services,	93,	7-18.	

153	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
Webb,	W.	M.,	Nasco,	S.	A.,	Riley,	S.,	&	Headrick,	B.		(1998).		Athletic	identity	and	reactions	to	

retirement	from	sports.		Journal	of	Sport	Behavior,	21,	338-362.	

Wilson,	M.	E.	&	Wolf-Wendel,	L.	E.	(2005).		Introduction.	In	M.	E.	Wilson	&	L.	E.	Wolf-	

Wendel	(Eds.),	ASHE	reader	on	college	student	development	theory	(pp.	xv-xvi).		
Boston:	Pearson	Custom	Publishing.	

Wolverton,	B.		(2008).		Athletes’	hours	renew	debate	over	college	sports.		Chronicle		

of	Higher	Education,	January	25,	A1,	A23.	

Wolverton,	B.	(2006).	Presidents	flex	their	muscles.	The	Chronicle	of	Higher	Education,	

52(34),	A48.	

Wylleman,	P.,	Rosier,	N.,	&	De	Know,	P.		(2015).		Transitional	challenges	and	elite	athletes’		
mental	health.		In	J.	Baker,	P.	Safai,	&	J.	Fraser-Thomas	(Eds.),	Health	and	elite	sport.			
Is	high	performance	sport	a	healthy	pursuit?		(pp.	99-116).		Research	in	Sport,		
Culture,	and	Society,	Vol.	38.		New	York,	NY:		Routledge.	

Yin,	R.	K.		(2009).		Case	study	research:	Design	and	methods	(4th	ed.).		Thousand	Oaks,	CA:		

Sage.	

Yopyk,	D.	J.	A.	&	Prentice	D.	A.		(2005).		Am	I	an	athlete	or	a	student?		Identity		

salience	and	stereotype	threat	in	student-athletes.		Basic	and	Applied	Social		
Psychology,	27(4),	329-336.	

Young,	R.	D.,	Neil,	E.	R.,	Eberman,	L.	E.,	Armstrong,	T.	A.,	and	Winkelmann,	Z.	K.		(2023).			

Experiences	of	current	National	Collegiate	Athletic	Association	Division	I	collegiate		
student-athletes	with	mental	health	resources.		Journal	of	Athletic	Training,	58(9),		
704-714.	

Yukhymenko-Lescroart,	M.	A.		(2018).		On	identity	and	sport	conduct	of	student	athletes:			

Considering	athletic	and	academic	contexts.		Psychology	of	Sport	and	Exercise,	34,		
10-19.	

Yukhymenko-Lescroart,	M.	A.		(2014).		Students	and	athletes?		Development	of	the		

Academic	and	Athletic	Identity	Scale	(AAIS).		Sport,	Exercise,	and	Performance		
Psychology,	3,	89-101.	

Zimbalist,	A.		(1999).		Unpaid	professionals:	Commercialism	and	conflict	in	big-time		

college	sport.		Princeton:		Princeton	University	Press.	

Zvosec,	C.	C.,	Baer,	N.,	Hughes,	M.,	Oja,	B.,	&	Kim,	M.		(2023).		The	career	transitions	of	high-	

profile	student-athletes:	Identity,	role	engulfment,	and	psychological	well-being.			
Journal	of	Athlete	Development	and	Experience,	5(1),	62-75.	

154	

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
APPENDIX	

Interview	Guide	
Former	Student-Athletes	

Pre-Interview	Routine	
1.  Introduction	
2.  Consent	Form	
3.  Demographic	Information	sheet	
4.  Reminder	that	there	are	no	right	or	wrong	answers	

Opening	Questions	

1.  Start	off	by	telling	me	a	little	about	your	sports	background…	

a.  What	sports	have	you	played	and	how	long?	
b.  What	have	been	some	of	the	highlights	of	your	sports	career?	

As	you	know,	I	am	interested	in	how	student-athletes	define	success.		Before	we	get	into	
the	heart	of	the	interview,	I	have	a	few	questions	about	your	identity	as	a	student-athlete.	

Transition	Questions:	

2.  Please	describe	what	being	a	student-athlete	meant	to	you.	
3.  Did	you	find	that	your	role	as	a	student	and	athlete	came	into	conflict	with	each	

other,	if	at	all?	
a.  How	did	the	conflict	increase	or	decrease	during	your	time	in	college?	

Key	Questions:	

4.  As	a	student-athlete,	how	did	you	define	success?	
5.  How	did	this	definition	change	over	time	as	your	progressed	through	college?	
6.  How	did	your	identity	as	a	student-athlete	influence	your	definition	of	success?	
7.  What	were	your	career	plans	and	how	did	you	prepare	for	your	transition	from	

college	athletics	to	the	next	phase	of	life?			

8.  How	did	your	definition	of	success	influence	this	transition?	
9.  How	has	your	definition	of	success	changed	since	graduating?	

Concluding	Questions:	

10. What	support	mechanisms	did	you	have	that	helped	you	achieve	success?		What	
additional	services	could	have	been	provided	to	help	you	achieve	success?	

11. Do	you	have	any	concluding	comments,	thoughts,	or	questions?	

155