What’s My Responsibility? Undergraduate Heterosexual White Men in Sport Management Discuss Increasing Diversity in Sport

Abstract

Sport is a white male-dominated, multi-billion-dollar industry characterized by a lack of racial and gender diversity among its leaders. To advance the field of sport management it is crucial to study what members of privileged social groups think about diversity and how they articulate their own responsibility in increasing diversity in sport. This article reports the findings of a focus group study with 22 heterosexual white male undergraduate sport management majors at a Southern midsized public master’s institution. Participants shared perceptions regarding diversity in sport management and the sport industry, women in the field, meritocratic hiring policies, and about their own responsibility to affect change. Sport management faculty and administrators should challenge white men in their programs to interrogate and understand their privileges and to commit to realizing their responsibility in making sport more diverse and more socially just.

Full text

What’s My Responsibility? Undergraduate Heterosexual
White Men in Sport Management Discuss
Increasing Diversity in Sport
Jörg Vianden
University of Wisconsin–La Crosse
Elizabeth A. Gregg
University of North Florida
Sport is a white, male-dominated, multibillion-dollar industry characterized by a lack of racial and gender
diversity among its leaders. To advance the field of sport management, it is crucial to study what members of
privileged social groups think about diversity and how they articulate their own responsibility in increasing
diversity in sport. This article reports the findings of a focus group study with 22 heterosexual white male
undergraduate sport management majors at a southern midsized public master’s institution. Participants shared
perceptions regarding diversity in sport management and the sport industry, women in the field, meritocratic
hiring policies, and about their own responsibility to affect change. Sport management faculty and admin-
istrators should challenge white men in their programs to interrogate and understand their privileges and to
commit to realizing their responsibility in making sport more diverse and more socially just.
Keywords: diversity, gender, masculinity, race, social justice, sport management
During the first two decades of the 21st century,
growing social inequalities and persistent power dispa-
rities between people from different classes, races,
sexual orientations, genders, and ability statuses have
marked life in the United States. Atop the social ladder
sit elite heterosexual white men who hold leadership
positions in business, industry, law and law enforce-
ment, health, education, and politics (Feagin, 2013;
Feagin & O’Brien, 2003). In the sport industry, this
privilege is evident in statistics characterizing front
offices of major professional leagues. Top National
Football League (NFL) executives, of whom 95% are
men and 86% are white, reign over a league that is made
up of more than 70% nonwhite players (Lapchick, Costa,
Sherrod, & Anjorin, 2012). The National Basketball
Association paints a similar picture, as 76% of nonwhite
players play for head coaches of whom more than two
thirds are white. In 2015, National Basketball Associa-
tion front offices comprised 65% white employees
and 60% men. In Major League Baseball, 72% of all
front-office employees are white, and in 2015, Kathleen
Torres became the first female Executive Vice President
(Lapchick & Salas, 2015). Women only comprise 29.4%
of all Major League Baseball front-office positions. At
the senior executive level, white men hold 81% of Major
League Baseball positions.
At the intercollegiate level, women and other mem-
bers of minoritized social groups are vastly underrepre-
sented at all levels of leadership (Lapchick, Fox, Guiao,
& Simpson, 2015). Among college football head coa-
ches, almost 90% are white. Only about one fifth of all
women’s and men’s college basketball head coaches are
people of color. Women make up less than half of the
coaches of women’s intercollegiate teams overall and
only 9.6% of National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division I athletic directors (Acosta & Carpenter, 2014).
This kind of race and gender hegemony “appears to be
thriving at the intercollegiate athletic directors’rank”
and must be addressed in research and practice
(Grappendorf & Lough, 2006, p. 13).
While the sport industry shows a glaring underrep-
resentation of professionals from diverse backgrounds,
the American society and institutions of higher educa-
tion are becoming increasingly diverse. For example,
2012 marked the first year that nonwhite births out-
numbered births of white children (Tavernise, 2012).
Hoover (2013) suggested that approximately 45% of all
Jörg Vianden is with the Department of Student Affairs Administration
in Higher Education, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse, La Crosse,
WI. Elizabeth A. Gregg is with the Department of Leadership, School
Counseling, and Sport Management, University of North Florida,
Jacksonville, FL. Address author correspondence to Jörg Vianden at
jvianden@uwlax.edu.
88
Sport Management Education Journal, 2017, 11, 88-101
https://doi.org/10.1123/smej.2015-0023
© 2017 North American Society for Sport Management ARTICLE

high-school graduates in the United States are nonwhite,
and as many as 50% of American citizens will be people
of color by 2050. Despite widespread arguments of the
United States as a postracial society, “Americans con-
tinue to find vestiges of racism, ageism, sexism, ableism,
homophobia, and other forms of oppression on the
college campus”on frequent basis (Brooks, Harrison,
Norris, & Norwood, 2013, p. 146). To increase diversity,
inclusion, and equity in institutions of higher education,
it is critical to gain a deeper understanding of how to
recruit and retain students, faculty, and administrators
who are not only capable of functioning in a diverse
world but who also advocate for social justice (Brooks
et al., 2013).
Similar to their elite sport executive counterparts,
heterosexual white college men from affluent back-
grounds hold the most privilege on campus (Niehuis,
2005). Among this group of white men are also most
often the originators of unacceptable behavior, including
racist, sexist, and homophobic acts, and comparable
unconcealed exploits involving alcohol, violence, or sex
(Picca & Feagin, 2007). Among their collegiate peers,
heterosexual white men are the most disengaged when it
comes to topics of diversity and social justice, privilege
and oppression, or societal inequities (National Survey
of Student Engagement, 2014). National Survey of
Student Engagement (2014) provides evidence that
white college men are least interested in conversations
with diverse peers, in selection of elective diversity
courses, or in attendance at diversity programs or events.
The sport industry and sport management programs
at colleges and universities nationwide are white, male-
dominated realms (Hancock & Hums, 2011). The lack
of diverse sport management undergraduates and alums
perpetuates the underrepresentation of sport industry
leaders from different races, genders, and sexual orienta-
tions at all levels of sport. Heterosexual white men
who dominate sport management programs perpetuate
opportunities to lead and direct for other white men
(Cunningham, 2007;Kian, Vincent, & Mondello, 2008;
Pedersen & Whisenant, 2005;Regan & Cunningham,
2012). Because of their apparent access to positions of
power and influence throughout their careers, scholars
must study white men to understand their perspective on
diversity and social justice. Data emerging from research
should be utilized to train sportmanagement faculty, staff,
and other college educators to appropriately challenge
heterosexual white men to advocate for increased diver-
sity and social justice on campus and in sport.
The data for this article were collected as part of the
Straight White College Men Project, a qualitative study
of 180 college students with traditionally privileged and
marginalized identities at 13 institutions around the
country (Svoboda & Vianden, 2015). The specific re-
search questions that guided the larger study included
(a) How do college students with privileged and op-
pressed identities perceive campus and community di-
versity issues? (b) How do participants conceptualize
their own privilege and oppression relative to race,
gender, and sexual orientation? (c) How do participants
articulate their own perceived responsibility for social
change?
For the purposes of this article, the researchers only
report the findings of focus groups conducted with 22
heterosexual white male undergraduate sport manage-
ment students at a southern midsized public institution.
Compared with the larger study, this paper analyzes and
reports data of two focus group questions specificto
sport management: (a) the participants’perceptions of
the level of diversity in the sport industry and (b) their
perceived responsibility to advocate for more diversity
in their field of study and profession.
Literature Review
White Male Privilege
Feagin (2013) suggested that systemic racism is built
upon the foundation of the white racial frame, a complex
meaning system that includes cognitive, emotional,
auditory, and visual, as well as behavioral elements.
The white racial frame is hegemonic; that is, it “has been
part of a distinctive [white] way of life that dominates
major aspects of society”(Feagin, 2013, p. 11). For
centuries, arguably since slavery started in the American
colonies in the early 17th century, the white racial frame
has provided a strong positive orientation to whites and
whiteness, and a strong negative orientation to those who
are racially different. The frame creates an extensive web
of cultural knowledge, including tenets of white superi-
ority, stereotyping, racism, and other forms of discrimi-
nation, passed down to whites over generations. The
resulting system creates conditions bestowing unearned
privileges onto whites, which they typically take for
granted and not challenge. In fact, white heterosexual
men regularly resist campus diversity or social justice
initiatives they say exclude them or they express pow-
erlessness relative to disrupting the system that benefits
them (Cabrera, 2012;DiAngelo & Sensoy, 2014;
Kimmel, 2013).
From a teaching perspective, literature suggests
privileged learners, such as heterosexual white men,
need help to raise their own self-awareness as well as
to stimulate their action for justice and equity (Kimmel,
2002). Pedagogy for the Privileged operates with the
assumption that privileged learners have the capacity to
change fundamentally, but that they also exhibit specific
needs that warrant educators’attention (Curry-Stevens,
2007). Specifically, heterosexual white men should con-
sider how their race, gender, sexual orientation, socio-
economic status, ability, ethnicity, and other salient
identity characteristics intersect and shape who they are
as individuals in the college context. Naming identities
in which white men may be disadvantaged (e.g., learning
or physical disability, impoverished upbringing, identi-
fying as a first-generation college student, nontraditional
student, single parent, mental health concerns) enables
them to connect to and identify with marginalized peers,
What’s My Responsibility? 89
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

and to develop agency to accept responsibility for social
change.
In the literature of sport, the body of critical research
on whiteness and privilege is growing. Ferber (2007)
asserted that white supremacy in sport perpetuates the
inferiority of black athletes. This occurs because of a
color-blind ideology that has white spectators cheering
for the same athletes, only until they behave in ways
white spectators find deficient, such as an apparently
thuggish Richard Sherman or a defiant Cam Newton
during recent TV interviews.
Gender and Racial Diversity in Sport
Although women have realized tremendous gains in
participation opportunities, men continue to dominate
coaching and leadership positions within competitive
sport programs. When operating under the governance
of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women
from 1972 to 1982, women coached and led roughly
90% of all intercollegiate athletic programs (Acosta &
Carpenter, 2014). Under control of the National Colle-
giate Athletic Association, opportunities for women de-
creased dramatically so that female head coaches only
lead 43% of women’s intercollegiate athletic teams and
women coaches of men’s teams are virtually nonexistent
in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (Acosta &
Carpenter, 2014).
As outlined by Doherty and Chelladurai (1999), the
sport industry traditionally reflected a thick organizational
culture promoting the values of the “dominant group of
heterosexual, able-bodied, white males”(p. 288). This
phenomenon is evident in most professional American
sports and is largely attributable to hegemonic masculinity
and homologous reproduction (Anderson, 2009). This
hegemonic culture has produced a sport industry work-
force with a vast underrepresentation of women and other
individuals with marginalized identities.
Women struggle to advance in intercollegiate
athletics due to discriminatory hiring practices, sexual
harassment, work–life balance constraints, a lack of role
models, and close-knit networks of white men who limit
the advancement of women (Burton, Grappendorf, &
Henderson, 2011;Coakley, 2015;Taylor & Hardin,
2016). Hegemonic masculinity in sport also restricts
the ascension of people of color to leadership positions
(Wright, Geurin-Eagleman, & Pedersen, 2014). African
American men and other racially minoritized individuals
are greatly underrepresented and not integrated success-
fully at all levels of athletic administration (Bower &
Hums, 2013;Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013). Aware
of the need to diversify, the NFL has enacted initiatives to
increase the percentages of traditionally marginalized
individuals at all levels of leadership, such as the Rooney
Rule (Lapchick et al., 2012). It requires that at least one
candidate with an underrepresented identity receives
an interview for head coaching positions, general man-
ager jobs, and other front-office positions in the NFL.
In 2016, the Rooney Rule was expanded to include a
requirement for the NFL commissioner’soffice (and NFL
teams who elect to participate) to interview women for
vacant executive positions (Reid, 2016). Although the
Rooney Rule shows signs the NFL may be committed to
enhancing diversity, little evidence suggests the policy
has been effective (Solow, Solow, & Walker, 2011).
Sport Management Programs and
Demographics
Although few studies have addressed the demographics of
sport management as a major program of study, only some
data exist. For example, King (2009) determined that
roughly 24,000 undergraduate students have chosen sport
management as their major program of study in the United
States, equating to about 4,000 graduates from approxi-
mately 300 sport management programs annually (North
American Society for Sport Management, 2015). Among
undergraduate sport management majors, women repre-
sent 20–30%, and African American men and women
comprise 11% and 3%, respectively (Hancock & Hums,
2011). At the research site of the present study, in 2016,
the sport management program enrolled 204 male and
42 female undergraduates, including 167 white students
and 57 students of color (including students who identified
as African American, Latino/Latina, Asian, and as biracial
or multiracial). A further breakdown of identity was not
possible due to Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act restrictions at the research site.
The value of diverse environments in sport organiza-
tions and academic programs is well documented
(Cunningham, 2004,2007;Smith & Hatterly, 2011).
Brooks et al. (2013) highlighted that diverse environ-
ments help prepare future professionals for the workforce,
reduce stereotypes, as well as encourage cooperation and
cultural understanding. Despite this knowledge, both
conscious and unconscious biases affect the lack of
gender balance in sport management programs. Parks
and Robertson (2002) found that white male students in
sport management programs perceive themselves to be
the dominant group and tend to perpetuate existing
hegemonic gender norms regarding the contributions
women and people of color bring to workplace culture.
Faculty members leading sport management pro-
grams are overwhelmingly white and male. According
to Jones, Brooks, and Mak (2008), some sport manage-
ment programs may include only white male faculty
members and several lacked a single female faculty
member. A lack of diversity among faculty in sport
management can have a direct effect on feelings of
interest and acceptance among sport management stu-
dents, such as students who could not connect or identify
with their program’s exclusively white faculty (Waller,
Costen, & Wozencraft, 2011).
Theoretical Framework
Hegemonic masculinity. Sport traditionally has been
a site for the development and maintenance of traditional
90 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

gender norms (Messner, 1992). As part of the socializa-
tion process for children in society, sport serves as a
vehicle to show boys and men “to exhibit, value and
reproduce traditional notions of masculinity–stratifying
them in accordance with a hegemonic form of masculine
dominance”(Anderson, 2009, p. 4). Sport continues to
celebrate men for demonstrating qualities of dominance
over women, gay men, and men who lack perceived traits
of masculinity (Anderson, 2009;Whisenant, Pedersen, &
Obenour, 2002). This dominance over all women and
some men epitomizes hegemonic masculinity.
Donaldson (1993) described hegemony as “the
winning and holding of power and the formation (and
destruction) of social groups in that process”(p. 644).
Hegemony requires individuals to conform to what
society and social institutions within it deem to be the
ideal, natural norm. Sport, as an institution, is rich with
hegemony and hegemonic masculinity (Walker &
Sartore-Baldwin, 2013;Wright et al., 2014) that restrict
and marginalize women and other marginalized indivi-
duals in their attempts to gain leadership opportunities
(Anderson, 2002;Cunningham & Sagas, 2005;Pedersen
& Whisenant, 2005).
Homologous reproduction. Another prevalent theory
used to explain the hegemonic nature of sport is homol-
ogous reproduction (Lovett & Lowry, 1994). Kanter
(1977)defined homologous reproduction as the process
of organizational leaders reproducing themselves by
hiring individuals that look, act, and often think as they
do, a process colloquially described as the “Good Old
Boys Network.”According to Kanter (1977), structural
determinants, including power, opportunity, and propor-
tion, must be in place for homologous reproduction to be
possible. In sport, homologous reproduction manifests in
the ways in which elite white men in leadership positions
continue to perpetuate white male hegemony by recruit-
ing, hiring, and promoting other white men, as well as by
not providing equal opportunity for minoritized indivi-
duals, including women and people of color.
Methods
The researchers chose a qualitative methodology for the
present study. According to Charmaz (2006), qualitative
studies explore participants’experiences in their natural
settings, such as heterosexual white college men in a
sport management program at a southern institution, on
whose campus the participants experienced encounters
with the phenomenon of diversity.
Research Site
Southern State University (SSU, name changed), a
public master’s comprehensive institution in the
Table 1 Participant Overview
Pseudonym Age Year Contact
Student
Organization Job
Office
Hours
Diversity
Programs
Diversity
Electives
Jason 28 4 8 1 0 2 0 1
Evan 20 3 2.5 1 10 3 0 0
John 32 5 2.5 0 0 2 0 0
Nate 25 5 2.5 0 0 3 0 0
Mike 25 3 2.5 1 0 2.5 0 0
Mark 21 3 6.5 3 12 5 0 0
Ron 22 5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0
Jake 21 4 4.5 0 0 1 0 1
Jim 25 4 4.5 0 0 0 0 0
Mitch 22 5 4.5 0 0 3 0 0
Phil 20 3 4.5 0 0 0 0 0
Alex 20 3 4.5 2 10 3 0 2
Eric 26 3 4.5 0 10 6 0 0
Tyler 20 3 4.5 1 20 1.5 0 0
Owen 28 5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0
Bill 23 5 0.5 1 0 0 0 0
Kyle 19 3 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Matt 22 3 4.5 0 0 2 0 0
Chris 20 3 0.5 1 0 10 0 1
Aaron 20 2 8 1 0 0 0 1
Leonard 22 4 8 0 0 3 0 0
Ivan 20 3 2.5 1 0 2 1 0
What’s My Responsibility? 91
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

Southern United States, served as the research site. At
the time of data collection, SSU enrolled 14,200 under-
graduates. Seventy percent of SSU’s students identified
as white, and 45% identified as men. Of the seven full-
time faculties in the program, four identify as women
and three as men. Two male faculty members identify as
African American, and one female faculty member
identify as Latina.
Sampling and Data Collection
The study used purposeful criterion sampling strategies
(Patton, 2002). The second author is a professor in sport
management at SSU and announced the study in all of
her undergraduate courses in the fall of 2014. The
criteria for selection included identifying as white, het-
erosexual, and male. Students who met the criteria
signed up for prescheduled focus groups that took place
at SSU during November of 2014 and January of 2015.
By the end of data collection, the lead author conducted
four in-person focus groups ranging from four to seven
participants each. Each focus group was digitally re-
corded, lasted between 60 and 90 min, and all were
transcribed verbatim. A total of 22 heterosexual white
men participated in the study. Twenty of the participants
were sport management majors and two were minors.
Focus groups, the chosen method of data collection,
were appropriate for the constructivist approach to the
study. Because of time and resource constraints, no other
forms of data collection were employed. In focus groups,
participants share thoughts, feelings, and opinions, as
well as co-construct meaning of their experiences in a
group setting. Focus groups allow students to be active
participants rather than being subjected to a more hier-
archical or power relationship with the researchers
(Yakaboski, 2010). Patton (2002) determined that focus
groups are primarily interviews rather than problem-
solving groups or discussions. The main distinction from
one-on-one interviews is that in focus groups “get to hear
each other’s responses and . . . make additional com-
ments beyond their own original responses as they hear
what other people have to say”(Patton, 2002, p. 386). In
focus groups, participants find like-minded individuals
who may have been struggling to articulate perceptions
of the content and together construct knowledge.
To ensure confidentiality, the first author moderated
all focus groups at the research site, which is considered
appropriate for applied research (Fern, 2001). The mod-
erator is a professor and graduate faculty member in a
higher education program in the midwest and has con-
ducted and published several qualitative studies, includ-
ing focus group research (Vianden, Kuykendall, Mock,
& Korb 2012). He also teaches research design, assess-
ment, and research analysis. Information regarding the
moderator was disclosed to the students during the
recruitment stage and reinforced prior to each focus
group session. The second author was not present during
focus groups because, as instructor of all participants
during the semester in which data collection occurred,
her presence could have jeopardized confidentiality.
Participants could have been reluctant to disclose their
thoughts in fear, and the instructor may perceive the
students as racist, sexist, or homophobic. This kind of
potential power relationship should be avoided in
qualitative research. Lastly, the first author created
pseudonyms for all participants to ensure confidentiality.
In this study, the researchers took the following
steps to address potential biases in collecting qualitative
data. First, as Smithson (2000) suggested, moderator and
participants came from similar identity backgrounds to
avoid bias and engender the comfort and disclosure of
student participants. The first author identifies as a
cisgender, heterosexual, white man, and all 22 partici-
pants at SSU identified the same way. Including the
second author—a white woman—in the focus group
would have introduced additional biases. The privileged
gender and racial identities of the moderator likely
encouraged the participants to share their thoughts more
openly than if the moderator had identified with margin-
alized identities (Smithson, 2000).
Second, before the focus groups started, the moder-
ator instructed the participants about the nature and aim
of the study, about his commitment to studying white
men, and about wanting to hear different viewpoints, and
that participants should feel free to answer any question,
or to sit out should they feel uncomfortable. This likely
helped to address potential groupthink or conformity to
singular ideas, and the participants confirmed they un-
derstood the intentions of the researcher to study their
lived experiences with the topic (Hollander, 2004).
Lastly, the moderator did not keep any notes during
the focus group interviews to concentrate entirely on
the participants’contributions. Note taking, while sug-
gested as good practice by Krueger and Casey (2000),
has the potential to alarm or unnerve the participants
(Yakaboski, 2010). Before each focus group began,
participants completed both an informed consent form
and a brief survey assessing demographic and campus
engagement data.
Table 1displays the demographic characteristics of
the sample. The researchers collected these data to
understand the level of diversity among the participants,
as well as show the participants’overall level of engage-
ment in campus life. Year refers to the students’classi-
fication. Contact describes how many hours per week
participants estimated they spent in close personal inter-
action (longer than 30 min) with someone different than
them (e.g., race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion).
Student organization captures how many registered
student organizations the participants were part of at
the time of data collection. Job refers to how many hours
per week the participant worked on or off campus. Office
hours captures how many faculty office hours over the
past year the student had visited. Diversity programs
assessed in how many out-of-class activities related to
diversity or social justice the students participated during
the current year. Diversity electives captured in how
many diversity electives the student had enrolled beyond
92 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

required diversity courses over their careers at SSU.
Overall, the demographic data show that the participants
were rather unengaged in campus life, and specifically,
in diversity-related initiatives. Half of the participants
did not belong to a student organization, nearly one third
had not visited with faculty outside of class, and only one
participant (Ivan) had participated in a diversity-related
program over the past year. Finally, all participants
collectively only took six diversity-related electives
beyond required courses at SSU.
At SSU, the researchers infused two questions in the
focus group protocol of the larger study. Answers
provided the data for this article:
(a) How, if you think it is necessary, could the sport
industry be more diverse (e.g., include more
women, persons of color, or lesbian, gay, bi-sexual,
or transgender individuals)?
(b) As heterosexual white men, what is your respon-
sibility, if any, to make the sport industry more
diverse?
The authors did not pilot these questions with
students, but consulted colleagues in sport management
when composing the questions.
To incentivize participation, each participant re-
ceived extra course credit in their section of Issues in
Sport or Introduction to Sport Management instructed by
the second author. The curriculum in Issues in Sport
consists of a broad range of content covering sociocul-
tural issues evident in sport; one chapter addresses gender
topics and another covers racial diversity. The Introduc-
tion to Sport Management curriculum does not include
dedicated lectures to diversity issues; the second author
infuses material regarding the homogenous nature of the
sport industry throughout the term. It is plausible that
focus group participants enrolled in either course would
have had a general understanding of diversity issues in
sport based on exposure to course content.
Incentives likely motivated the students to get to
the focus groups, but the conversations during the
groups were likely not influenced by the incentives.
None of the participants was reticent to share their
thoughts. Had they been primarily influenced by the
course credit incentive, they would have been quiet or
disengaged during the focus groups. To ensure trust-
worthiness, the investigators performed member
checks with participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This
involved inviting the participants to review, authenti-
cate, or critique a one-page document that included
initial interpretations of the specific focus group data.
All 22 participants were invited to participate and those
who responded agreed with the researchers’interpreta-
tions. Additional trustworthiness strategies included
maintaining an audit trail of all focus groups transcripts,
focus group protocols, field notes, and memos written
about early interpretations (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Audit trails “attest to the use of dependable procedures
and the generation of confirmable findings”(Schwandt,
2001,p.9).
Data Analysis
Krueger and Casey (2000) suggested that data analysis
of focus groups should follow a systematic and sequen-
tial process. Although they stress that the optimal con-
ditions for focus group data collection and analysis
develop among a team of moderators and debriefers,
focus groups conducted and analyzed by a single re-
searcher are not inappropriate or invalid (Krueger &
Casey, 2000). This project, due to time and resource
limitations, was led by the principal investigator who
moderated the SSU focus groups and served as main
coder. Because of local institutional review board reg-
ulations at the research site, the second author could not
view the data until the transcripts were redacted of all
identifiable information of the students.
After each focus group was transcribed, the lead
author engaged in open coding (Creswell, 2014)using
Dedoose (Sociocultural Research Consultants, Man-
hattan Beach, CA), a cloud-based qualitative data
analysis software. A graduate student trained in quali-
tative research methods assisted in this process. The
round of open coding aimed to discover expected and
unexpected participant conceptualizations of diversity
in the sport industry and perceived responsibility to
increase diversity. This preliminary analysis resulted in
a list of 27 codes for the two main questions. Saturation
of codes or how many times a piece of text, passage, or
conversation among participants was included under
the same code, ranged from 1 to 13. Sample codes
included (saturation in parentheses) “Stereotyping
Women”(13), “Marginalizing Women”(7), “Being
Open and Accepting”(7), “Hiring the Best Person”
(7), “Sports Is Masculine”(7), “Owners Won’t
Change”(4), “Racism in Sports”(4), or “Reaching
Out to Less Privileged Communities”(1).
After open coding was complete, axial coding
(Creswell, 2014) categorized the data into larger themes.
This subsuming of the initial codes included collapsing
codes like “Sports Is Masculine,”“Racism in Sports,”and
“Owners Won’t Change”into the theme of “Barriers to
Diversity in Sport.”The first author and graduate student
repeated this process for all other codes. Four distinct
themes emerged answering questions about the partici-
pants’thoughts about diversity in sport and their perceived
responsibility to increase or advocate for diversity:
(a) barriers to diversity in sport; (b) roles of women in
managing sport; (c) hiring policies in sport; and
(d) exploring responsibility for change. Finally, the lead
author identified quotations from the data that reflected the
themes.
Findings
Barriers to Diversity in Sport
This first theme describes perceived barriers to diversity in
sport, including masculinity and male-dominated culture,
as well as owners who appear resistant to change or racist.
What’s My Responsibility? 93
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

Whether sports, in general, should be more diverse was not
a consistent theme throughout all focus groups, but it was
discussed by individual participants in three of the four
focus groups. The participants indicated that the sport
industry and sport management would benefit from more
diverse perspectives. Jim’s statement is representative:
[Have] different people with different ideas to bring
to the table. If you just have the same people
walking around your office, you’re all going to
think relatively the same way and your company
is never going to change, but the marketplace and
everything else changes over time.
Despite sharing perceptions of why diversifying the
sport industry was essential, participants identified
potential barriers, such as masculinity, especially in
acknowledging the contributions of others in the industry:
Researcher: Tell us more about that. What does that
mean, [men] can’t put their ego aside? So, you’re
thinking that men have a harder time doing that?
Jim: Yes.
Jake: For sure.
Mike: Definitely. Because even in the new age,
males are [still] head of the household ...Soyou
take that to a business practice, I mean, there’s still a
lot of guys who can’t set aside their ego and say,
“You know what? That’s a good idea.”
(Sounds of agreement among participants)
Jim: “I think you’re headed in the right direction,”or
“yes, I’m wrong,”that’s like the hardest thing in the
world for men to say.
One participant, Mark, perceived that a masculine
locker room mentality dominates the sport industry and
how this may be unwelcoming to women: “There’s just
masculinity everywhere in sports, so [if] you’re looking
at it from a perspective [of] a woman, even if she’s
always been into sports, [she] might not feel that com-
fortable.”Kyle indicated that “sports are definitely a
high-testosterone environment . . . Some women . . .
might not feel comfortable with the way that [men] joke
or use intimidation.”
Other participants perceived owners and systemic
racism as obstacles in achieving more diversity in sport.
In one of the focus groups, participants indicated how the
racialized perspectives of owners, general managers, or
athletic directors in professional and collegiate sport
guided its culture:
Matt: I think when it comes [to] why African
Americans or any other race don’t get jobs, I think
honestly, it’s sad to say, [it depends on] how a lot of
people were raised. I mean you get a lot of these
guys who are top GMs and owners, I mean, they
come from . . .
Leonard: Country club neighborhoods.
Matt: Yeah. I can’t stand the [college team in the
South], but [they’re] just like that. I mean come on,
man. You have a whole bunch of old country
rednecks [who] run that thing, and that’s why you’ll
never probably see [an African American coach].
Here, the participants expressed some resignation
regarding the likelihood that sport industry leaders
would spearhead initiatives designed to enhance organi-
zational diversity. Matt continued, “I mean honestly,
as far as general managers or owners, I hate to say it but,
I think probably [not] too much is going to change
[to increase diversity].”
Chris discussed racism in sports as a barrier using a
well-known case in the National Basketball Association:
I mean look at Donald Sterling with the Clippers. He
literally [is] racist. Like I’m the white guy who owns
the team, and I’m paying you to play for me. And
the majority of that team is Black. And I’m glad he
got banned.
Matt added that the hiring of female coaches in
professional sports could “kick start something. But
especially, within ownership and general management,
it seems like a lot of our sports teams are stuck in
their ways.”
Overall, a sense of resignation seemed to emerge
among participants to affect positive change to increase
diversity within the sport industry. Even if they wanted
to improve work and study climates in their field, it
seemed that they thought they were caught in a hege-
monically masculine, stuck-in-its-ways culture, which
dictated how men should behave if they want to be
successful.
Roles of Women in Managing Sport
The second theme describes participants’perceptions of
the role of women in sport management and the sport
industry. The participants did not appear averse to
increasing the numbers of women in sport, but insinuat-
ed women should fit specific roles apart from men.
Despite their apparent support of women, this theme
explicates the participants’stereotypical and marginal-
izing views of women.
Diversity in sport, according to the participants, was
mostly represented by women and a male-dominated,
culture-controlled women in the sport industry. Ron
stated:
In general, especially working in the sport manage-
ment field, men tend to get this attitude because it’s
ingrained in us, almost at a young age, based on the
opportunities available for sports, that women just
can’t:::it’s viewed as an oddity if a woman is really
into sports, where it’s not viewed as an oddity in a
male at all.
94 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

Ivan added, “Even if you’re a white female from a
lot of money, you’re still female and people are going to
judge you for that, all the time. Like, She throws like a
girl or things like that.”
The participants were generally open to and inter-
ested in the diversification of sport management or the
sport industry, specifically by women, or as Bill sug-
gested “an open playing field.”However, the men also
shared thoughts that appeared stereotypical, sexist, hy-
permasculine, or even discriminatory toward women. To
describe how women indicated interest in sport manage-
ment, Ron shared an experience from his classes:
It seems like every class we have for sport manage-
ment there’s[sic] maybe five or six girls in the class,
if that. [On the] first day of class every professor
says, “All right, go around the room, your name,
your year and what’s your dream job.”I have not
heard a single girl in one of my sport management
classes say, “I want to be an owner,”or, “I want to
be front office.”They always end up wanting to do
marketing or maybe finance or PR.
Along the same vein, participants shared thoughts
about women “trying to crack”the male-dominated sport
industry, like Matt:
For me, if a woman came up and tried to question
my knowledge of sports, I probably would say,
“You’re crazy, I know more than you.”Like that’s
just how the sports industry is.
The discussion continued about whether male pro-
fessional athletes would listen to female coaches, and
Chris noted, “I don’t even think LeBron [James] would
listen to a woman”to which Ron replied, “It’d go in one
ear and out the other side.”These statements provide
evidence that participants were socialized or had inter-
nalized the hegemonic masculine system of sport. Matt’s
statement suggested his perceptions about which func-
tional area in sport women fit best: “I think [women are]
better suited for marketing.”Chris proclaimed that
whenever “you call and you’re talking to somebody
from [regional NFL team] for tickets, a lot of times those
are women, like, [they] are in charge of that”and
continued women were responsible for professional
sport team marketing efforts because “they’re better at
dealing with people. Women are better [with people]
than the men.”The men’s stereotypical notions of
women’s places in sport are indicative of a male-normed
hegemonic culture in which men get to decide what
happens to women professionally.
Hiring Policies in Sport
This theme describes participants’views and perceptions
about how hiring policies in sports affect its diversity.
Participants shared meritocratic ideals about who should
be hired for positions, discussed affirmative action rules
in hiring coaches, and shared that recruiting more
women to the sport industry may increase competition
for positions.
The men discussed current hiring policies in the
sport industry, specifically about hiring the best person
regardless of identity or characteristics. Mike shared,
“The best person for the job should always be hired
regardless of race or gender.”When discussing hiring
decisions in another focus group, Bill offered, “I don’t
think it’s responsible to say, ‘Because this person is
diverse, they must have an opportunity.’” Ron and Chris
had a more realistic perspective on the myth of
meritocracy:
Ron: It needs to be qualification based not on who
[sic] you know, but that’s hard to weed out. Espe-
cially when the people at the top are the one’s doing
the “who you know, you hire”type of situation.
Chris: For example, if a woman just came in with no
connections or anything, and she was highly quali-
fied, but I’m just as qualified as her, but I have
connections, I am more likely to get the job. Which
I’m not saying is right, but that’s just how it is.
Affirmative action in the sport industry, in the
form of the NFL’sRooney Rule, was a topic of discus-
sion in three of the focus groups, but participants
were ambivalent about its utility to increase diversity.
Tyler expressed skepticism about the Rooney Rule
making a true difference in achieving greater diversity
in the sport industry: “There is no one saying, ‘Oh, [the
Rooney Rule] shouldn’t be there,’but there is no one
really praising it either. I think [everyone is] just accept-
ing that it’s been passed and then kind of moving on
from there.”
In discussions about hiring women in the sport
industry, the participants displayed stereotypical and
male-dominant notions about who should be hired for
positions. On hiring women over men for a specific
position, Jim indicated, “From a hiring perspective, am I
going to hire the guy who played [professional] basket-
ball or am I going to hire the woman who wants to do
marketing?”In another focus group, Bill shared a similar
thought:
IfIwasaCEO...I’m hiring the one who I think
better fits the culture of the company. In sports, 99%
of the time that’s going to be a male. I’m not going
to hire someone who is not going to mesh well with
the group . . . I want the person who is going to blend
well in the office, who already has the lingo. In
sports, I would hire the male over the female,
especially like I said, all merits being equal.
If all owners or general managers in the sport
industry used this formula for hiring, anyone who does
not identify as a male would struggle to ever land a
position and advance professionally. This modus oper-
andi assumes or even accepts that hegemonic or dis-
criminatory practices are commonplace in the sport
What’s My Responsibility? 95
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

industry; consequently, sport management students,
especially men, may not see any need to advocate
for change. Or, if they wanted to, they may not be aware
of or trained in advocating for marginalized populations
in their field.
Exploring Responsibility for Change
In this final theme, participants shared perceptions of
their own responsibility as members of privileged social
identities to make the sport industry more diverse. This
included conceptualizations of advocacy by the leader-
ship of sport organizations, rather than by the lowest
position in the hierarchy. The theme also explains an
apparent desire by the participants to remain open
minded and to learn about human differences, yet with-
out a concrete commitment for social change.
The majority of participants had not thought about,
could not articulate, or did not sense responsibility as
heterosexual white men in sport management to help
diversify their career field or major. However, only Ron
seemed to overtly abdicate his responsibility, but Jim
and Jake countered:
Ron: If I’m a man in a CEO position and I look at
my responsibility to allow more women into that
culture . . . why am I going to invite more competi-
tion into this group? I think when you look at the
limited number of jobs, especially at a higher level
in sports, there are plenty of people who are in
facilities and running a stadium and stuff like that,
but there are very few front office positions. Why
are you going to try to add to the pool of people
trying to get more [women]?
Jim: I’m not saying you have to increase opportu-
nities, I’m just saying if someone had the job ...it’s
right to treat them like they don’t have to live
your way.
Jake: Yes, it should be an equal playing field.
Participants sensed the need to advocate for mar-
ginalized or underrepresented identities in sport man-
agement but acknowledged that speaking up was
difficult. Matt’s statement is representative: “I don’t
think we necessarily could do something right away.
I think we’re just starting off in a sports franchise. First
day at the job . . . we can’t go up to the GM and say, ‘Hire
him’because [the GM will] be like, ‘Well you can leave
right with him.’”
By far, the most consistent data category in this
theme related to education and learning. Participants
seemed to hesitate when addressing their responsibility
in improving diversity in the sport industry. Jim shared,
“I don’t know if it’s a responsibility [but] you might
want to be more conscious [of difference]. I know that
sounds politically correct, but you don’t want to do
things that make people uncomfortable just because it’s
comfortable for you.”Despite difficulty explaining
whether or not he felt responsible for helping make the
sport a more diverse field, Jim, nonetheless, seemed to
recognize his privilege and ability to make others feel
uncomfortable or unwelcome based on their marginal-
ized identity.
In a conversation with Mark, Jason showed diffi-
culty in committing to white male responsibility to
improve diversity within sport by stating: “You don’t
have a responsibility to do it, no, but if there was a way
to build more diversity it would be to accept it in the
first place . . . I’m not saying you have to but if you
wanted to do that, you would want to hire more people
from a different place.”This interaction supports the
notion that the participants perceived a need for the
sport industry to be open and accepting of diverse
others; however, the men were careful to commit to
being responsible for this acceptance or even forcing it
on other white men. Mike supported a similar ethos of
being open-minded while expressing his own inability
to affect change:
Basically, just be open to everything. I feel like I’m
pretty open, I don’t really discriminate or anything,
that’s what I feel anyway. I don’t have a position
where I’m hiring anyone or doing anything, so I
can’t make it better, but I can [choose to not]
discriminate or just be open to everybody of differ-
ent creeds and religions and sexual orientation.
Implicit in Mike’s statement may be the idea that
white men in the sport industry can only affect change on
a systemic level if they are in a position of leadership, but
that they have to resort to being open and accepting until
they reach a level with more positional authority. This
notion reflects the purpose of the larger national study, as
well as the focus groups conducted at SSU. If white
college men sense the need for increased diversity and
social justice in society and their future professions, and
if they are aware of their potential to reshape society
once in positions of authority, we as college educators
must reach and teach them now to pave the way for them
to become diversity and social justice advocates. White
college men are not incapable of embracing diversity or
developing a capacity for advocacy, but they may be
hesitant or unaware to take the first step.
Discussion
The findings from this study point to three conclusions
about the participants. First, they seemed to feel a sense
of resignation about furthering diversity initiatives in
sport. Comments like “this is just the way it is”or “not
too much is going to change”speak to privilege and
acceptance. These men understood something should
change, but they were unable to articulate what role they
played in this change. This fits what Kimmel (2013) has
referred to as the masculinity paradox; heterosexual
white men benefit from unearned privilege, but they do
not often feel privileged or powerful. Nor can they
96 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

articulate ways to change this conundrum. The SSU
participants acknowledged that increasing diversity in
sport industry would be of benefit, confirming the work
of Brooks et al. (2013). The men perceived hypermas-
culine (e.g., locker room culture, male ego, disrespect for
women) and professional barriers (e.g., owners who are
stuck in old ways, racism) as too formidable to engender
immediate change (Anderson, 2009;Cunningham,
2007;Smith & Hatterly, 2011). According to the parti-
cipants, masculine dominance by male and mostly white
owners prevent members of diverse identities from
gaining opportunities (Walker & Sartore-Baldwin,
2013;Wright et al., 2014). The participants made state-
ments fitting the tenets of homologous reproduction
(Kanter, 1977), perceiving executives to reproduce sport
organizations by hiring from a mostly white male clien-
tele. The participants also subconsciously perpetuated
sport’s hegemonic culture by conforming to it
(Donaldson, 1993), and their race and gender privileges
hindered them to articulate their responsibility in dis-
rupting it (Cabrera, 2012;Feagin, 2013;Kimmel, 2013;
Parks & Robertson, 2002).
Second, the participants painted a narrow picture of
diversity in sport; to them, diversity meant women and
African Americans. Sexual orientation, ethnicity, or
other salient identities did not surface in discussions.
Some participants held stereotypical or discriminatory
notions about diverse peers in sport management or
diverse colleagues in the sport industry, specifically
women. The participants’meritocratic ideals about how
the best person for the job should be awarded the
position stem from similar notions about perceived
equity in sports. Despite these idealistic perceptions,
participants appeared to indicate that men were the better
fit for most roles in sport management (Anderson, 2009;
Whisenant et al., 2002). This finding underlines the
hegemonic and homologous culture in which men are
raised, through which men conceptualize their roles in
society, and by which they promote themselves over
others (Walker & Sartore-Baldwin, 2013;Wright et al.,
2014). Perceiving men are always the best fit for leader-
ship positions in sport perpetuates its masculine domi-
nance (Anderson, 2002,2009), and the privilege men are
bestowed keeps them from questioning their hegemonic
viewpoints. We do not claim that all participants
who had male-dominant notions about human differ-
ences are sexist or racist; however, their conceptu-
alizations of a fixed system and their own membership
in and benefit from it hold critical implications for
college educators. If the SSU participants are similar
white male students in other sport management pro-
grams, educators should appropriately challenge this
population to question the system of sport, their role in
it, and support them in becoming more active proponents
of diversity and social justice. If we will not, hetero-
sexual white men may become sport industry leaders
who also perpetuate sexism or one-sided hiring practices
(Burton et al., 2011;Coakley, 2015;Wright et al., 2014)
or who continue to marginalize, even subconsciously,
members of less dominant social groups (Anderson,
2002;Cunningham & Sagas, 2005;Pedersen &
Whisenant, 2005).
Third, the participants had not thought about, nor
could they articulate or commit to having individual or
collective responsibility to make sport management or
the sport industry more diverse. The majority of parti-
cipants acknowledged they should be open and accept-
ing of difference, but assigned the responsibility to affect
true change to individuals already in leadership posi-
tions. This finding supports the need for continuous
education and training on issues of privilege and op-
pression, diversity, and social justice for students from
dominant social groups (Cabrera, 2012;Edwards, 2006;
Heinze, 2008). White men must begin to see themselves
as part of the systemic culture of oppression and of the
solution to end social inequities, specifically in white,
male-dominated realms like sport. Feagin (2013) called
for the need to “activate more routinely, the deep-lying
human propensity to interpersonal empathy, especially
for white Americans ...Amajordifficulty lies in
breaking down the major barriers that systemic racism
regularly presents to generating cross-racial empathy”
(p. 211).
Recommendations for Sport
Management Programs
Name White Male Privilege in Sport
We recommend that sport management departments
across the country name the privilege that stems from
a white, male-dominated field and commit to recruiting
and retaining faculty and students from marginalized
identities, including but not limited to race, ethnicity,
gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, and
ability (Hancock & Hums, 2011). By introducing, sup-
porting, and sustaining marginalized identities and
voices in sport management classrooms, members from
majority groups will learn more about their own privi-
leges. The participants of this study noticed that white
men who may be racist and who perpetuate white male
hegemony dominate sport. This is a suitable point of
departure for classroom discussions that identify and
interrogate white male privilege in sport and to begin
disrupting it.
To have necessary discussions with white male
sport management students, instructors need specific
tools. Faculty who identify with privileged race, gen-
der, and sexual orientation characteristics are encour-
aged to engage in critical self-work to interrogate
their own privilege and in what ways this privilege
manifests in interactions with colleagues and students,
in meeting rooms and classrooms (Ortiz & Patton,
2012). No longer can we request that our colleagues
from marginalized identities educate privileged lear-
ners on diversity and social justice issues. We suggest
that instructors with privileged identities commit to
professional development in diversity and social
What’s My Responsibility? 97
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

justice, including reading professional literature, at-
tending workshops or conferences, and conversing
regularly with colleagues who are different from them.
To engender more faculty development in sport
management, departmental and college leaders, most
notably department chairs and deans, must institutional-
ize the values of diversity, inclusion, equity, and social
justice. This should include encouraging, incentivizing,
and rewarding instructors who engage in naming and
addressing privilege and oppression in the classroom and
on campus, through their teaching, research, and service.
Grants, course releases, or professional development
funds could incentivize faculty monetarily to engage in
social justice issues.
Focus groups conducted by a researcher who iden-
tified as a white, heterosexual man seemed a natural
setting for participants to be open about the topic of
social justice and diversity. Although individuals of any
race, gender, or sexual orientation can engage college
men in dialog, the primary responsibility of developing
social justice advocacy in heterosexual white men
should rest on college educators who identify as mem-
bers of similarly privileged social groups (Heinze, 2008;
Svoboda & Vianden, 2015).
Infuse Diversity in Sport Management
Curricula
More than any other activity in college, courses in the
major program of study provide a captive audience
of students. In fact, in the larger study, “Require
DiversityintheMajor”emerged as a consistent theme
from the focus groups with white men. Participants at
all institutions, including at SSU, stressed the fact that
to educate white heterosexual men on topics of diver-
sity and social justice, departments should simply
require specific diversity coursework in the major to
make students captive to discussions on diversity and
social justice. Previous research has demonstrated that
white men strongly benefit from this kind of content
(Sax, 2008).
Sport management program leaders should encour-
age faculty to infuse diversity and social justice content
into each course. Such content can feature human and
cultural differences, human privilege and systems of
oppression, gender, race, and sexual orientation differ-
ences in the sport industry, as well as political, economic,
or social disparities in sport or sport management. Should
instructors strugglewith this broad infusion in all courses,
our recommendation is to develop and teach at least one
specific diversity course in sport management. Research
findstremendousbenefits for students who engage in
diversity coursework (Banks, 2009) and who have dis-
cussions with peers with different salient identities. Often
termed intergroup dialog (Alimo, 2012) or cross-privilege
dialog (Walls, Roll, Sprague, & Griffin, 2010), this kind
of pedagogy appropriately challenges heterosexual white
men to interrogate their privilege and makes them feel part
of, not apart from, diversity education.
Inspire Responsibility in Heterosexual
White Men
Most participants could not communicate an immediate
commitment to advocate for diversity and social justice
in their major or in the sport industry. These men, based
on their social capital and privileges in this society, will
one day hold the leadership roles in the sport industry in
which they could affect social change. Given this con-
text, it is imperative that sport management faculty
appropriately inspire heterosexual white men to express
their own privileges and their understanding of the
roles they play in an ever-changing diverse world
(Grappendorf & Lough, 2006).
A variety of teaching strategies exist to appropri-
ately but effectively challenge heterosexual learners with
primarily privileged identities. Curry-Stevens (2007) has
developed a 10-step model for transforming such lear-
ners. This includes acknowledging structural systemic
oppression, recognizing the self as oppressed (in hetero-
sexual white men, this usually emerges as disadvantages
due to class standing, ability, or minoritized religious
background), and building solidarity among learners in
the classroom by focusing on universal ways in which all
college students are oppressed (e.g., incurring debt in
college). Once learners have recognized oppression,
locating one’s own universal privilege (e.g., being in
college, age, religion, ability), its benefits, and how
privilege implicates the self in the oppression of others
are the next steps of the model (Curry-Stevens, 2007).
A few men in the current study recognized this privilege,
which translates to professional opportunities for men in
the sport industry. However, all men in sport manage-
ment should be encouraged to recognize how their
privileges have the potential of keeping peers with
marginalized identities without opportunity to advance.
Although participants could not commit to openly ad-
vocating for increased diversity, their sense for the need
to remain open minded and to continue to learn gives
hope about future conversations about accepting respon-
sibility for social change succeeding.
Heinze (2008) discusses that privileged learners must
first acknowledge benefits of being white (and male and
heterosexual). This can be accomplished in any course,
but specifically in male- or white-dominated classrooms.
Heinze’s(2008) strategies include helping students iden-
tify that privilege and oppression exist on continua, not in
binaries. One is not either privileged or oppressed, racist
or not racist; gradations of these attitudes and behaviors
exist that need to be named and explored. In addition,
rather than considering themselves experts, professors
should model that they are also exploring issues of
privilege and oppression using their own examples that
show they continue to learn. Heterosexual white male
professors in sport management should validate the vul-
nerabilities of white male students in classrooms when
discussing diversity and social justice topics. Too often,
educators with privileged identities distance themselves
from comments made by privileged students and correct
98 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

or condescend, rather than validate and engage. Educators
who, at times forcefully, put heterosexual white male
students in their place in a diversity or social justice course
(we call this “using the hammer”) ensure that privileged
learners likely will not participate inthat course again, and
faculty will have lost the opportunity for student learning
and development.
Limitations and Suggestions for
Further Research
Although this study is among a few to advance new
knowledge on the perceptions of white college men
about diversity in sport management and the sport
industry, it has some limitations. First, the perceptions
reflected in the results are those of 22 undergraduate men
at one specific Southern public master’s institution with
one doctoral program. Hence, readers should approach
the transferability of results to other institutional or
regional contexts with caution. Second, the participants
represented about 10% of male undergraduates in sport
management at SSU. This means that other conceptua-
lizations of diversity or social justice exist in the depart-
ment; yet, corresponding voices do not emerge from this
study. Third, because students were offered incentives, it
is possible that they did not reveal their true feelings on
sensitive issues such as homophobia, racism, or sexism.
Despite the limitations, the findings provide a rich
snapshot of experiences of the participants relative to
diversity and social justice.
The research on white men’s thoughts about diver-
sity and social justice in sport is sparse. The field could
benefit from additional studies in different regional and
institutional contexts. The second iteration of data col-
lection at SSU included the study of perceptions of
diversity and social justice of traditionally marginalized
students; subsequent scholarship must raise their voices
to more completely understand the state of affairs in
sport management relative to climate, student success,
and diversity.
Conclusions
White heterosexual male undergraduates in sport man-
agement programs throughout the country are undoubt-
edly privileged, but they may not feel powerful to make
changes on their campuses, communities, or workplaces,
indicative of the paradox of masculinity (Kimmel,
2013). The participants of the present study had not
been challenged to articulate how they perceived the
level of the diversity in their field or industry. They had
also not thought about their own responsibility to be to
advocate for change. Sport management educators of all
identities should engage, challenge, and encourage more
white heterosexual college men to actively explore,
understand, and articulate privilege and oppression, and
how to begin to disrupt a hegemonic system like the
sport industry. The lion’s share of this work ought to be
done by educators who identify with privileged social
identities, like white heterosexual male faculty and staff.
This models the way for students and relieves marginal-
ized educators to be the primary educators on issues of
human difference. As stated by Cunningham (2014)in
his Ziegler Lecture, “We all have a stake in ensuring
sport is inclusive and socially just. We are all impacted,
be it directly or indirectly, by structures, systems, and
cultures that engender inequality”(p. 1). If we as edu-
cators are successful in engaging heterosexual white
men in this work, they will leave sport management
programs more adept at improving their profession, their
communities, and this society.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Charles Martin-Stanley II,
Kaylie Connaughty, and Brenda Skeete for their assistance
with transcription and data analysis. This study was sponsored
by a faculty research grant at the University of Wisconsin–
La Crosse.
References
Acosta, R.V., & Carpenter, L.J. (2014). Women in intercolle-
giate sport: A longitudinal national study thirty-seven year
update, 1977–2014. New York, NY: Brooklyn College.
Alimo, C.J. (2012). From dialogue to action: The impact of
cross-race intergroup dialogue on the development of
white college students as racial allies. Equity & Excellence
in Education, 45(1), 36–59. doi:10.1080/10665684.2012.
643182
Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes contesting hegemon-
ic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender &
Society, 16(6), 860–877. doi:10.1177/089124302237892
Anderson, E.D. (2009). The maintenance of masculinity
among the stakeholders of sport. Sport Management
Review, 12(1), 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2008.09.003
Banks, K.H. (2009). A qualitative investigation of white
students’perceptions of diversity. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 2(3), 149–155. doi:10.1037/
a0016292
Bower, G.G., & Hums, M.A. (2013). The impact of Title IX on
career opportunities in intercollegiate athletic administra-
tion. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 6(2), 213–230.
doi:10.1123/jis.6.2.213
Brooks, D.D., Harrison Jr., L., Norris, M., & Norwood, D.
(2013). Why we should care about diversity in kinesiology.
Kinesiology Review, 2,145–155. doi:10.1123/krj.2.3.145
Burton, L.J., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2011). Per-
ceptions of gender in athletic administration: Utilizing
role congruity theory to examine (potential) prejudice
against women. Journal of Sport Management, 25,
36–45. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.1.36
Cabrera, N.L. (2012). Working through whiteness: White,
male college students challenging racism. Review of
Higher Education, 35(3), 375–401. doi:10.1353/rhe.
2012.0020
What’s My Responsibility? 99
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practi-
cal guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK:
SAGE.
Coakley, J.J. (2015). Sport in society: Issues and controversies.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Cunningham, G.B. (2004). Strategies for transforming the
possible negative effects of group diversity. Quest,
56(4), 421–438. doi:10.1080/00336297.2004.10491835
Cunningham, G.B. (2007). Diversity in sport Organizations.
Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Cunningham, G.B. (2014). Interdependence, mutuality, and
collective action in sport. Journal of Sport Management,
28(1), 1–7. doi:10.1123/jsm.2013-0152
Cunningham, G.B., & Sagas, M. (2005). Access discrimi-
nation in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport &
Social Issues, 29(2), 148–163. doi:10.1177/
0193723504271706
Curry-Stevens, A. (2007). New forms of transformative edu-
cation pedagogy for the privileged. Journal of Trans-
formative Education, 5(1), 33–58. doi:10.1177/
1541344607299394
DiAngelo, R., & Sensoy, Ö. (2014). Getting slammed: White
depictions of cross-racial dialogues as arenas of violence.
Race, Ethnicity, & Education, 17(1), 104–128.
Doherty, A.J., & Chelladurai, P. (1999). Managing cultural
diversity in sport organizations: A theoretical perspective.
Journal of Sport Management, 13, 280–297. doi:10.1123/
jsm.13.4.280
Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity?
Theory and Society, 22(5), 643–657. doi:10.1007/
BF00993540
Edwards, K.E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity
development: A conceptual model. NASPA Journal,
43(4), 39–60.
Feagin, J.R. (2013). The white racial frame: Centuries of racial
framing and counter framing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Feagin, J.R., & O’Brien, E. (2003). White men on race: Power,
privilege, and the shaping of cultural consciousness.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ferber, A.L. (2007). The construction of black masculinity:
White supremacy now and then. Journal of Sport & Social
Issues, 31(1), 11–24. doi:10.1177/0193723506296829
Fern, E.F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Grappendorf, H., & Lough, N. (2006). An endangered species:
Characteristics and perspectives from female NCAA
Division I athletic directors of both separate and merged
athletic departments. The Sport Management and Related
Topics Journal, 2(2), 6–20.
Hancock, M.G., & Hums, M.A. (2011). If you build it, will they
come? Proceedings of the North American Society for
Sport Management Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference,
London, Ontario.
Heinze, P. (2008) “Let’s talk about race, baby”: How a white
professor teaches white students about white privilege and
racism. Multicultural Education, 16(1), 2–11.
Hollander, J.A. (2004). The social contexts of focus groups.
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 602–637.
doi:10.1177/0891241604266988
Hoover, E. (2013, January 10). Minority applicants to college
will rise significantly by 2020. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/
article/Wave-of-Diverse-College/136603
Jones, D.F., Brooks, D.D., & Mak, J.Y. (2008). Examining
sport management programs in the United States. Sports
Management Review, 11(1), 77–91. doi:10.1016/S1441-
3523(08)70104-9
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation
(Vol. 5049). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kian, E.M., Vincent, J., & Mondello, M. (2008). Masculine
hegemonic hoops: An analysis of media coverage of
March Madness. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(2),
223–242. doi:10.1123/ssj.25.2.223
Kimmel, M. (2002, December). Toward a pedagogy of the
oppressor. Tikkun Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.
fjaz.com/kimmel.html
Kimmel, M. (2013). Angry white men: American masculinity
at the end of an era. New York, NY: Nation Books.
King, B. (2009). New lessons to learn: Sport management
programs evolve to meet demand, economic realities.
Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal, 40,24–30.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lapchick, R., Costa, P., Sherrod, T., & Anjorin, R. (2012). The
2012 Racial and Gender Report Card: National Football
League. Orlando, FL: UCF Institute for Diversity and
Ethics in Sport. Retrieved from http://www.tidesport.org/
RGRC/2012/2012NFLRGRC.pdf
Lapchick, R., Fox, J., Guiao, A., & Simpson, M. (2015). The
2015 Racial and Gender Report Card: College Sport.
Orlando, FL: UCF Institute for Diversity and Ethics in
Sport. Retrieved from http://nebula.wsimg.com/308fbfef
97c47edb705ff195306a2d50?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8
FB782449D2A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Lapchick, R., & Salas, D. (2015). The 2015 Racial and Gender
Report Card: Major League Baseball. Orlando, FL: UCF
Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport. Retrieved from
http://nebula.wsimg.com/35d775f4b01264c377a96da7
f616a3b8?AccessKeyId=DAC3A56D8FB782449D2A&
disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Lovett, D.J., & Lowry, C.D. (1994). “Good old boys”and
“good old girls”clubs: Myth or reality? Journal of Sport
Management, 8(1), 27–35. doi:10.1123/jsm.8.1.27
Messner, M.A. (1992). Power at play: Sport and the problem
of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2014). Bringing the
institution into focus—Annual results 2014. Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research.
Niehuis, S. (2005). Helping white students explore white
privilege outside the classroom. North American Journal
of Psychology, 7(3), 481–492.
100 Vianden and Gregg
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017

North American Society for Sport Management. (2015). Sport
management programs: United States. Retrieved from
http://nassm.com/Programs/AcademicPrograms/United_
States
Ortiz, A.M., & Patton, L.D. (2012). Awareness of self. In
J. Arminio, V. Torres, & R.L. Pope (Eds.). Why aren’twe
there yet? Taking personal responsibility for creating an
inclusive campus (pp. 9–32). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Parks, J.B., & Roberton, M.A. (2002). The gender gap in
student attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language: Im-
plications for sport management education. Journal of
Sport Management, 16(3), 190–208. doi:10.1123/jsm.
16.3.190
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Pedersen, P.M., & Whisenant, W.A. (2005). Successful when
given the opportunity: Investigating gender representation
and success rates of interscholastic athletic directors.
Physical Educator, 62(4), 178–186.
Picca, L.H., & Feagin, J.R. (2007). Two-Faced racism: Whites
in the backstage and frontstage. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Regan, M., & Cunningham, G. (2012). Analysis of homolo-
gous reproduction in community college athletics. Jour-
nal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 6(2),
161–172. doi:10.1179/ssa.2012.6.2.161
Reid, J. (2016, May 20). Rethinking the NFL’s Rooney Rule
for more diversity at the top. Five Thirty Eight. Retrieved
from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rethinking-the-
nfls-rooney-rule-for-more-diversity-at-the-top/
Sax, L.J. (2008). The gender gap in college: Maximizing
the developmental potential or women and men. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Smith, E., & Hatterly, A. (2011). Race relations theories:
Implications for sport management. Journal of Sport
Management, 25, 107–117. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.2.107
Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Lim-
itations and possibilities. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 3(2), 103–119. doi:10.1080/
136455700405172
Solow, B.L., Solow, J.L., & Walker, T.B. (2011). Moving on
up: The Rooney rule and minority hiring in the NFL.
Labour Economics, 18(3), 332–337. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.
2010.11.010
Svoboda, V., & Vianden, J. (2015). Challenging straight white
college men (STR8WCM) to develop positive social
justice advocacy. ACPA Developments, 12(4). Retrieved
from http://www.myacpa.org/article/challenging-straight-
white-college-men-str8wcm-develop-positive-social-justice-
advocacy?utm_source=ACPA+Communications+
List&utm_campaign=942f927fe5-141216_winter_
developments12_16_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_
term=0_e83904aedd-942f927fe5-83836393
Tavernise, S. (2012, May 17). Whites account for under half of
births in U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-
under-half-of-births-in-us.html?_r=0
Taylor, E.A., & Hardin, R.L. (2016). Female NCAA Division I
athletic directors: Experiences and challenges. Women in
Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 24(1), 14–25. doi:10.
1123/wspaj.2014-0038
Vianden, J., Kuykendall, J., Mock, R., & Korb, R. (2012).
Exploring messages African American men receive about
attending a predominantly White university. New York
Journal of Student Affairs, 12(2), 23–39
Walker, N.A., & Sartore-Baldwin, M.L. (2013). Hegemonic
masculinity and the institutionalized bias toward women
in men’s collegiate basketball: What do men think?
Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 303–315. doi:10.
1123/jsm.27.4.303
Waller, S.N., Costen, W.M., & Wozencroft, A.J. (2011). If we
admit them, will they stay? SCHOLE: A Journal of
Leisure Studies & Recreation Education, 26(1), 30–48.
Walls, N.E., Roll, S., Sprague, L., & Griffin, R. (2010).
Teaching about privilege: A model combining intergroup
dialogue and single identity caucusing. Understanding
and Dismantling Privilege, 1(1). Retrieved from http://
www.wpcjournal.com/article/view/6262
Whisenant, W.A., Pedersen, P.M., & Obenour, B.L. (2002).
Success and gender: Determining the rate of advancement
for intercollegiate athletic directors. Sex Roles, 47(9–10),
485–491.
Wright, C., Geurin-Eagleman, A., & Pedersen, P.M. (2014).
Examining leadership in intercollegiate athletics: A con-
tent analysis of NCAA Division I Athletic Directors.
Sport Management International Journal, 7(2), 35–52.
Yakaboski, T. (2010). Going at it alone: Single-mother
undergraduate’s experiences. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 47(4), 463–481. doi:10.2202/
1949-6605.6185
What’s My Responsibility? 101
SMEJ Vol. 11, No. 2, 2017