International Journal of Sport Management Volume 8, 2007, 21-31 21
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
Is Sport Management Research Diverse?
A Five-Year analysis of Dissertations
Stephen W. Dittmore
Daniel F. Mahony
Damon P.S. Andrew
Sean Phelps
Introduction
port management as an aca-
demic discipline has experienced
tremendous growth in the last 15-
20 years with the present number of
universities offering some academic
study of sport management exceeding
200 (Parkhouse & Pitts, 2005). How-
ever, the number of qualified faculty
members available to teach in these
programs has not kept up with the
growth of the programs (Mahony, Mon-
dello, Hums & Judd, 2004). Mahony and
colleagues found, on average, 70 faculty
positions are advertised each year
seeking sport management expertise
but only 15 new doctoral graduates en-
ter the marketplace each year. This un-
derproduction of qualified faculty, during
a time of growth in the programs, raises
questions about the potential to advance
research in the discipline forward.
Sport management researchers have
occasionally critiqued the scope and di-
rection of research in their field. These
scholars generally question the lack of
diversity in settings in which the re-
search takes place (e.g. Paton, 1987,
Pitts, 2001); the lack of diversity in sub-
jects (e.g. Olafson, 1990); the lack of
diversity in methodology (e.g. Slack,
1996); and the lack of diversity in topic
areas (e.g. Slack, 1998). When at-
tempting to define the scope of sport
management, the Sport Management
Program Review Council (SMPRC)
standards provide a contextual guide.
SMPRC standards identify minimum
content areas specific to undergraduate,
masters and doctoral programs neces-
sary for university programs to receive
approval. While the SMPRC standards
allow room for variance among pro-
grams based on their individual
strengths, core content areas remain
consistent.
However, the question remains
whether the SMPRC standards are rep-
resentative of the research in the field,
or whether research continues to be
narrow in terms of content areas and
settings. The purpose of this study is to
examine the diversity of recent doctoral
dissertation topics in sport management.
The findings of this study will determine
S
22 Sport Management Research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
if recent doctoral graduates in the field
are heeding the calls for more diverse
research or if graduates are merely ex-
panding the existing body of research.
The implications of this study may offer
some insight into whether sport man-
agement doctoral students are creating
new methods of studying the field,
thereby expanding the academic disci-
pline, or whether sport management re-
search is mired in repeating the same
research areas of emphasis.
Previous Research
Paton (1987) initiated the discussion
about sport management research in
the debut issue of the Journal of Sport
Management when he identified two fu-
ture challenges for sport management
research. The first challenge concerned
the type of research warned that while a
theoretical base is necessary, the re-
search must be “sensible and useful” (p.
30). The second challenge related to the
focus of the research, warning that more
attention needed to be directed toward
increasingly diverse organizations. Pitts
(2001) discussed the lack of contextual
diversity in research, pointing out the
heavy emphasis on college athletics and
a few professional sports.
Olafson (1990) also noted deficiencies
in both the methods and analyses in
sport management research as com-
pared with organizational studies in the
business literature, emphasizing the
heavy use of survey methods in sport
management. Olafson (1990) also high-
lighted the homogeneity of selected
subjects and settings in this research,
noting that 94% used individuals and
87% used the public sector.
Slack (1996) called for research in
sport management to be broadened in
order to move the field forward and
identified organizational strategy, tech-
nology and politics as areas of possible
expansion. Later, Slack (1998) openly
questioned whether there was anything
unique about sport management, la-
menting the restriction of research to a
“narrow range of organizations and an
equally narrow range of management
topics” (p. 24).
Recently Costa (2005) conducted a
Delphi study of expert sport manage-
ment researchers. She concluded a lack
of consensus among the experts as to
the diversity of research in sport man-
agement, indicating no resolution to
Paton’s (1987) and Olafson’s (1990)
concerns about broadening research.
Costa (2005) stated, “What we address
determines whom we do and do not
serve, as well was what we seek to
achieve. The question, then, is whether
we conceive ourselves as broadly rele-
vant or narrowly so” (p. 133).
Current SMPRC standards identify
nine undergraduate content areas: so-
cio-cultural dimensions in sport; man-
agement and leadership in sport; ethics
in sport management; marketing in
sport; communication in sport; budget
and finance in sport; legal aspects of
sport; economics in sport; and govern-
ance in sport. Eight masters content ar-
eas are necessary for program ap-
proval: socio-cultural context of sport;
management and leadership in sport;
ethics in sport management; marketing
Sport Management Research 23
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
in sport; public relations in sport; finan-
cial management in sport; legal aspects
of sport and research in sport. SMPRC
further identified 10 areas of specializa-
tion for sport management theory in a
doctoral program: sport marketing; or-
ganizational theory in sport; sport gov-
ernance; sport finance; sport venue and
event management; sport public rela-
tions; sport law; sport economics; hu-
man resource management in sport;
and other (Sport Management Program
Review Council, 2000).
It is unclear whether the diversity of
specializations in sport management re-
search actually exists. For example, a
cursory review of research in sport
management would seem to suggest a
heavy emphasis on some areas (e.g.
sport marketing), with little attention paid
to other areas.
Soucie and Doherty (1996) conducted
the first quantitative study to examine
doctoral dissertations in sport manage-
ment. Their inductive analysis of dis-
sertation abstracts from 1949-1993 (N =
582) found 17 percent focused on ad-
ministrative practices, policies and pro-
cedures in sport management, 14 per-
cent analyzed career patterns and com-
petencies of sport administrators and 13
percent each focused on current sport
management academic programs and
leadership traits of sport administrators.
Together, those four areas accounted
for 57 percent of all sport management
dissertations.
Barber, Parkhouse and Tedrick (2001)
found similar results in their review of
topics published in the Journal of Sport
Management from 1991-1995. The
authors observed four content areas
(personal management, curriculum, or-
ganizational structure and gender/race
issues) accounted for two-thirds of all
published articles.
As the quantity of sport management
research and the number of programs
offering sport management degrees has
increased during the last 15-20 years,
the question of faculty quality comes
into play. Do enough qualified faculty
members exist to effectively instruct
students in the growing diversity of sport
management research?
Mahony and Pitts (1998) noted the
adoption of the NASPE-NASSM Sport
Management Program Standards
(SMPRC) in 1993 was a significant step
toward developing a “minimum body of
knowledge necessary for a quality sport
management curriculum” (p.261). These
authors observed the standard regard-
ing a minimum number of program fac-
ulty has led to more specialized faculty
in sport management to the point that
faculty “can completely ignore certain
content areas” (p. 262). This raises the
question regarding what happens if the
majority of new faculty members focus
on the same area of research. Who will
become the experts on those areas
which are ignored? How will programs
justify meeting the SMPRC standards if
their faculty are limited in knowledge of
those areas?
Because identifying a research focus
is a critical element in most doctoral
programs and the dissertation often in-
dicates the research focus of the doc-
toral graduate, an examination of dis-
sertation topics would be very useful in
24 Sport Management Research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
determining the breadth of research in
the field. Therefore, the purpose of this
study is to determine if sport manage-
ment doctoral programs are preparing
future members of the professoriate by
producing graduates with diverse re-
search interests identified in the SMPRC
guidelines. This article builds on Soucie
and Doherty’s (1996) inductive analysis
of doctoral dissertations published be-
tween 1949-1993, but differs because
the present study attempts to compare
selected dissertation topics to SMPRC
standards.
Methodology
The researchers identified 17 North
American universities with doctoral pro-
grams in sport management. Previous
research on doctoral programs by Ma-
hony, Mondello, Hums and Judd (2004),
which was based on lists identified by
NASSM and Stier (2001), guided the
identification of universities. An exami-
nation of the doctoral program listings
on the NASSM website in September
2004 augmented the list.
The researchers conducted electronic
searches in September and October
2004 of the Digital Dissertations data-
base to obtain dissertation titles. Sepa-
rate searches were conducted for dis-
sertations completed at each of the 17
institutions by keyword “sport” and “ath-
letics.” Each university’s corresponding
list was emailed to the institution’s doc-
toral program director for verification.
Fourteen of the 17 universities re-
sponded to the request and a final com-
prehensive list of dissertations was as-
sembled (N = 144) which included all 17
institutions. Further database searches
were conducted for the three nonre-
sponding institutions as a means of in-
suring a complete list of completed dis-
sertations. The number of dissertations
(n = 15) completed at these schools rep-
resented slightly more than 10% of the
overall population.
Dissertation titles were entered into a
master spreadsheet and sorted into al-
phabetical order. No additional informa-
tion such as institution or author’s name
was included. Four researchers from
different universities working independ-
ently coded each of the 144 disserta-
tions into one of the 10 SMPRC doctoral
program areas of specialization.
A potential limitation of the coding
process was the possibility that certain
dissertations might overlap into multiple
content areas. For example, a disserta-
tion which examined satisfaction as-
pects of visitors at a specific sport event
might be coded as event management
or marketing. After the initial coding,
only 20 dissertations had no clear con-
sensus, creating an interrater reliability
of 86.1%, within the reliability guidelines
of at least 70% advised by Borg and
Gall (1983). Through consultation of
dissertation abstracts, additional infor-
mation was acquired to help code the
remaining 20 dissertations.
Dissertations in the “other” category
were further classified into four specialty
areas: other-sociology; other-academic
programs; other-health; and other-psy-
chology. The division of the other cate-
gory into four specialties created 13
Sport Management Research 25
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
possible content areas in which a dis-
sertation was coded.
Results
All 13 of the possible content areas
had at least two dissertations coded ex-
cept for Sport Economics which did not
have any dissertations. Most (75.7%) of
the dissertations completed between
1999 and 2003 were coded into one of
four content areas: sport marketing,
human resource management in sport,
other-sociology and organizational the-
ory in Sport. Table 1 shows a detailed
breakdown of the dissertation frequen-
cies by SMPRC content standard.
Two separate chi square analyses
were run to determine statistical signify-
cance. The first analysis showed a sig
nificant difference [χ
2
= 122; df = 8; p <
.001] between the number of disserta-
tions completed and the nine main
SMPRC standards. This result indicates
there is not an even split of dissertation
topics among the SMPRC standards.
Dissertations coded “other” were ex-
cluded from this analysis as the intent in
the analysis was to focus on existing
SMPRC standards and current re-
search.
The second analysis showed a signifi-
cant difference [χ
2
= 20.47; df = 11; p <
.05] between gender and the 12 content
areas (sport economics was excluded
from this analysis as there were no dis-
sertations found in that content area).
Males accounted for 61% of disserta-
Table 1
Dissertation Content Area Frequencies by Gender (N=144)
Content Area
Male
Female
Unknown
Total
Sport Marketing
27
7
4
38 (26.39%)
Human Resource Management in Sport
13
13
3
29 (20.14%)
Other-Sociology
10
15
0
25 (17.35%)
Organizational Theory in Sport
8
7
2
17 (11.81%)
Other-Academic Programs
6
2
0
8 (5.56%)
Sport Governance
3
3
0
6 (4.17%)
Sport Finance
6
0
0
6 (4.17%)
Sport Law
2
2
0
4 (2.78%)
Sport Venue and Event Management
2
0
1
3 (2.08%)
Sport Public Relations
3
0
0
3 (2.08%)
Other-Health
1
2
0
3 (2.08%)
Other-Psychology
1
1
0
2 (1.39%)
Sport Economics
0
0
0
0 (0.00%)
TOTAL
82
52
10
144
Note: 10 dissertations without identifiable gender were considered missing data.
26 Sport Management Research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
tions completed during the period and
were much more inclined to pursue dis-
sertation content in business related ar-
eas such as sport marketing (27 males,
seven females) and sport finance (six
males, zero females). Males also out-
numbered women in dissertations com-
pleted in other-academic programs (six
males, two females). Females outnum-
bered males in the other-sociology con-
tent area (15 females, 10 males). Re-
maining content areas were almost
evenly distributed by gender. Disserta-
tions coded “other” were included in this
analysis to gain a greater understanding
of research interests by gender. Table 1
shows a detailed breakdown of disser-
tation frequencies by gender.
Dissertation frequencies by university
were tabulated, though no chi square
analysis was run due to the number of
empty cells. Table 2 presents a detailed
breakdown of the four most frequent
dissertation content areas (sport mar-
keting, human resource management in
sport, other-sociology, and organiza-
tional theory in sport) by university.
Table 2
Most Frequent Dissertation Content Areas by Institution (N=144)
Other
Univ
Mktg
HRM
Soc
OT
Areas
Total
University A
0
0
0
3
1
4
University B
0
0
0
1
0
1
University C
4
3
0
1
0
8
University D
4
5
5
3
7
24
University E
2
0
1
0
1
4
University F
1
1
0
0
1
3
University G
1
0
4
0
1
6
University H
4
0
2
0
0
6
University I
1
1
2
0
4
8
University J
2
0
2
1
2
7
University K
6
2
1
4
4
17
University L
7
7
3
2
2
21
University M
0
1
1
1
1
4
University N
0
1
0
0
0
1
University O
0
2
0
0
1
3
University P
6
6
4
1
9
26
University Q
0
0
0
0
1
1
TOTAL
38
29
25
17
35
144
Note: Mktg = Sport Marketing; HRM = Human Resource Management in Sport;
Sport Management Research 27
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
Discussion and Implications
Several themes emerge from the re-
sults. First, it appears sport manage-
ment dissertations are heavily focused
in a few areas and a majority of the
SMPRC content areas are not topical
foci of recent dissertations. Of those
heavily researched areas, one (other-
sociology) is not specifically identified in
the SMPRC doctoral program stan-
dards. In fact, six of the areas (govern-
ance, finance, law, venue and event
management, public relations, and eco-
nomics) accounted for less than 5% of
the dissertations each. Similar to Soucie
and Doherty (1996), there were few dis-
sertations in many of the areas that
have been defined as part of the sport
management discipline. However, when
compared to the prior study, the top four
areas in the current study represent an
even higher percentage of the disserta-
tions (75.7% vs. 57%). This suggests a
trend toward more clustering in a few
areas, as opposed to increased expan-
sion into new areas. In other words, the
growth in sport management as a disci-
pline may only be increasing the litera-
ture in a few of the areas, while others
are not growing.
Second, sport marketing is clearly the
dominant content area, serving as the
focus of greater than one in four disser-
tations completed in the field. Moreover,
this represents a major change when
compared to past research (Barber et
al., 2001; Soucie & Doherty, 1996),
which did not identify sport marketing as
one of the four major areas for research.
This finding raises the question: Why
have other academic areas of sport
management not grown at the rate of
sport marketing? While Mahony and
Pitts (1998) discussed the growth of re-
search in sport marketing, they did not
examine why this has occurred. While it
is mere speculation at this point, there
are some possibilities. It is possible that
this may be related to the interests of
some of the doctoral advisors at the
doctoral programs. Since a student of-
ten choose topics that are in their advi-
sor’s area of expertise, an increase in
marketing focused advisors could have
lead to this shift. It is also possible that
this has been influenced by the interest
from new publication outlets in sport
marketing (e.g., Sport Marketing Quar-
terly, International Journal of Sport Mar-
keting and Sponsorship) and the formal
establishment of the Sport Marketing
Association and its annual conference in
2003. Another possibility is the availabil-
ity of subjects to sample for research. It
is relatively easy for an academic re-
searcher to access consumers as they
enter a stadium or arena to conduct
marketing research. Finally, it may be
related to the interest that practitioners
have in sport marketing research.
Third, there has been a decline in fo-
cus on sport management curriculum
and academic programs. Prior studies
found that this was one of the four most
common areas (Barber et al., 2001;
Soucie & Doherty, 1996). Even among
those classified as “other-academic pro-
grams,” few were focused on sport
management programs. At first glance,
this is not a surprising result. As an aca-
demic field is in its infancy, it is logical
28 Sport Management Research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
that people would focus attention on
determining the appropriate curriculum
for the programs. However, as there be-
comes more agreement on the “appro-
priate” curriculum, it is also logical that
researchers would begin to focus on this
topic less.
Fourth, there were a number of dis-
sertations that did not fit well into any of
the SMPRC standard areas. Most im-
portantly, one of the areas, sociology,
was among the three most popular ar-
eas. Sport sociology has often been
seen as a unique discipline. Sport soci-
ologists have their own journal (e.g.,
Sociology of Sport Journal) and own or-
ganization and conference (i.e., National
American Society for Sport Sociology).
However, despite the focus on sociology
by many sport management doctoral
students, sociology is not identified as
an SMPRC specialization for doctoral
students. However, it is listed as a con-
tent area in the undergraduate and
graduate standards. This contradiction
raises questions about the scope of
sport management research, the exper-
tise in sport management doctoral pro-
grams, and the future directions of the
field. For example, it is difficult to argue
that sport economics is part of the larger
discipline of sport management if there
is very little research there, while sport
sociology is outside of the field when a
large amount of research is done in this
area.
Fifth, if we assume successful com-
pletion of a dissertation leads to being
an “expert” in a given field, the current
study raises some questions about
where sport management programs are
finding “experts” to teach undergraduate
and graduate courses in SMPRC con-
tent areas in which there low percent-
ages of completed dissertations (i.e.
public relations/communication, govern-
ance, economics, finance). While
Weese (2002) and Mahony et al. (2004)
primarily focused on the lack of qualified
sport management faculty to fill the
available positions, the findings in this
study suggest the problems may be
even greater. It is difficult enough given
the supply and demand of faculty in this
area to find sport management faculty in
general, but if a university is also con-
cerned with having people qualified to
teach the different subject matters, a
successful faculty search could be even
more unlikely.
While we can merely speculate on
how universities fill positions with quali-
fied faculty, there do appear to be some
possibilities for how faculty are identi-
fied. One, it is likely that many faculty
are forced to develop more than one
area of expertise in order to handle their
teaching assignments. While some may
only be asked to teach courses in one
area (e.g., sport marketing), most will
teach in multiple areas. While such a
task may be manageable for faculty
members asked to teach undergraduate
courses outside their specialization, the
task becomes significantly more chal-
lenging for courses at the graduate
level. If the doctoral programs under-
stand this issue and are preparing stu-
dents accordingly, this problem may not
be as big as it first appears. However,
there are certainly questions about the
capability of most people to become and
Sport Management Research 29
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
remain experts in multiple areas over
their entire careers as faculty. This issue
is particularly true when the areas are
not similar (i.e., it is easier to be an ex-
pert in both finance and economics than
in finance and public relations). Two,
some programs may be finding exper-
tise from individuals who are not coming
from sport management doctoral pro-
grams. This solution is especially true
for sport law, where many faculty may
be trained in law schools.
Sixth, there were significant differ-
ences between men and women in topic
areas of dissertations. Men were more
likely to complete dissertations in mar-
keting and finance, while women are
more likely to complete dissertations in
sociology. This difference has a number
of implications for gender related issues
in the field. For example, Mondello, Ma-
hony, Hums and Moorman (2002) found
that sport marketing was the most often
sought area of expertise in advertised
sport management faculty positions and
finance was also common. In contrast,
sociology was not among the most
commonly identified areas. Men would
appear to have a definite advantage in
the sport management faculty job mar-
ket.
Finally, a recent trend in sport man-
agement job openings has been a pref-
erence for expertise in sport finance.
Pedersen, Fielding, and Yoh (2006)
found the number of advertisements for
finance increased from 20% of all an-
nouncements in 2002-03 to 32% in
2004-05. Only six of the dissertations
were coded into finance, raising the
question of how universities are finding
qualified faculty members to teach in
this area. It may also mean that faculty
members who have experience teaching
sport finance are at a competitive ad-
vantage in the faculty job market.
Future Research and Conclusion
Future research should examine other
aspects of the dissertations to determine
the level of diversity in settings, subjects
and methodology. Future research could
also examine the articles published.
While the study could replicate the work
of Barber et al. (2001), it would appear
logical at this point to expand beyond
the Journal of Sport Management.
There has been a large growth in the
available publication outlets for faculty in
sport management and a future study
should attempt to include all of those
journals in the analysis.
Costa (2005) proposed what sport
management academicians address in-
dicates whom they do and do not serve.
The current study raises some ques-
tions about the field of sport manage-
ment and its current development. By
Costa’s definition, is the scope of sport
management to serve marketers, hu-
man resource managers and sociolo-
gists? If other areas are not the focus of
dissertations, is expertise being devel-
oped in other ways (e.g., doctoral pro-
gram education, multiple research foci
for faculty)? Is the development of re-
search in the field flourishing in some
areas while languishing in other areas?
Is it really possible for a field with so few
faculty in North America (Mahony et al.,
2004) to fully develop research in ten or
30 Sport Management Research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
more areas? In other words, is devel-
oping strong lines of research in a lim-
ited number of areas better for the field
than being spread too thin by trying to
cover all possibilities? What could or
should those of us in the field do differ-
ently? Sport management as an aca-
demic discipline is still very young, but
leaders in the field need to continually
assess its development and develop
strategies for its long term development.
References
Barber, E.H., Parkhouse, B.L. & Tedrick,
T. (2001). A critical review of the
methodology of published research
in the Journal of Sport Management
from 1991 through 1995 as meas-
ured by selected criteria. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport Management,
2, 216-236.
Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educa-
tion research: An introduction (4th
ed.). New York: Longman.
Costa, C.A. (2005). The status and fu-
ture of sport management: A Delphi
study. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 19, 117-142.
Mahony, D.F., Mondello, M., Hums,
M.A. & Judd, M. R. (2004). Are sport
management doctoral program
meeting the needs of the faculty job
market? Observations for today and
the future. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 18, 91-110.
Mahony, D.F. & Pitts, B.G. (1998).
Research outlets in sport marketing:
The need for increased speciali-
zation. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 12, 259-272.
Mondello, M., Mahony, D.F., Hums,
M.A. & Moorman, A.M. (2002). A
survey of search committee chair-
persons: Candidate qualifications
preferred for entry-level sport man-
agement faculty positions. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport Management,
3, 262-281.
North American Society for Sport Man-
agement. (2004). Universities. Re-
trieved September 4, 2004 from
http://www.nassm.com/index
Olafson, G.A. (1990). Research design
in sport management: What’s mis-
sing, what’s needed? Journal of
Sport Management, 4, 103-120.
Parkhouse, B.L. & Pitts, B.G. (2005).
History of sport management. In B.L.
Parkhouse (Ed.) The management
of sport: Its foundation and applica-
tion (4th ed.). (pp. 2-14). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Paton, G. (1987). Sport management
research—What progress has been
made? Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 1, 25-31.
Pederson, P.M., Fielding, L., & Yoh, T.
(2006). Investigating professorial job
announcements: A content analysis
of employment advertisements and
openings for sport management fac-
ulty positions. Paper presented at
the North American Society for Sport
Management annual conference,
May 30-June 3, 2006, Kansas City,
Mo.
Sport Management Research 31
Volume 8, #1, January 2007
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at
the millennium: A defining moment.
Journal of Sport Management, 15, 1-
9.
Slack, T. (1996). From the locker room
to the board room: Changing the
domain of sport management. Jour-
nal of Sport Management, 10, 97-
105.
Slack, T. (1998). Is there anything
unique about sport management?
European Journal of Sport Man-
agement, 5(2), 21-29.
Soucie, D. & Doherty, A. (1996). Past
endeavors and future perspectives
for sport management research.
Quest, 48, 486-500.
Sport Management Program Review
Council. (2000). Sport management
program standards and review pro-
tocol. Reston, VA: National Associa-
tion for Sport and Physical Educa-
tion.
Stier, W.F. (2001). The current status of
sport management and athletic
(sport) administration programs in
the 21st century at undergraduate
and graduate levels. International
Journal of Sport Management, 2, 60-
96.
Dr. Stephen Dittmore is on the faculty at East Stroudsburg University of
Pennsylvania; Dr. Daniel Mahony teaches at the University of Louisville. Dr.
Damon Andrew teaches at the University of Tennessee while Dr. Sean Phelps is
on the faculty at Auckland Institute of Technology.
