601
ARTICLE
Journal of Sport Management, 2015, 29, 601 -618
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/JSM.2014-0296
© 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Gashaw Abeza is with the School of Human Kinetics, University
of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Norm O’Reilly is with
the Department of Sports Administration, College of Business,
Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. Benoit Séguin is with the School
of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada. Ornella Nzindukiyimana is with Western University,
London, Ontario, Canada. Address author correspondence to
Norm O’Reilly at [email protected].
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research:
A Critical Review
Gashaw Abeza
University of Ottawa
Norm O’Reilly
Ohio University
Benoit Séguin
University of Ottawa
Ornella Nzindukiyimana
Western University
This work critically assesses the history and current state of social media scholarship in sport management
research. Methodologically, the study is based on a comprehensive census review of the current body of
literature in the area of social media. The review identies 123 social media articles in sport management
research that were mined from a cross-disciplinary examination of 29 scholarly journals from January 2008
(earliest found) to June 2014. The work identies the topic areas, the platforms, the theories, and the research
methods that have received the (most/least) attention of the social media research community, and provides
suggestions for future research.
In today’s fast-paced technologically driven world,
social media platforms are rapidly and constantly evolv-
ing in their scope and extent of use, signicantly affect-
ing everyday lives of people across the globe (Rowe &
Hutchins, 2014). This transformation is noticeable in the
global sporting culture, where the scope, penetration, and
magnitude of social media reach has been tremendous
(Pedersen, 2014). Although the development of social
media is still unfolding, its popularity and acceptance
by athletes, coaches, managers, teams, leagues, fans,
events, and sport governing bodies is widespread
(Hutchins, 2014). In light of its growing complexity and
increasing omnipresence, social and behavioral scientists
are intrigued by the dynamics of the interrelationship
between sport and social media (Hutchins, 2014; Ped-
ersen, 2014). Though the scholarship is still relatively
recent (Billings & Hardin, 2014), scholars are examining
social media in various sport settings and gaining insights
into its manifestations, characteristics, usage trends, and
so on. Indeed, a range of research topics associated with
social media have been investigated in diverse elds of
sport management research (Pedersen, 2013), including
sport communication, sport events management, sport
marketing, sport law, and sport governance.
While published research is growing signicantly
(Pedersen, 2014), there is a lack of formal articulation
and an absence of empirical evidence on the current state
and historical evolution of the social media scholarship in
sport management research. Hence, this study attempted
to ll the gap by examining the body of knowledge (i.e.,
research areas, theories, and methods) and historical
trends (i.e., chronological changes in research focus/
interest) of the social media scholarship in sport man-
agement research. The following four research questions
guided this study: (i) what social media topic areas have
received attention in sport management research?; (ii)
which social media platforms have received the (most/
least) attention in sport management research?; (iii) what
theories have been used, advanced, and developed in
social media scholarship in sport management research?;
and (iv) what is the prevalence and the nature of research
methods employed in social media scholarship in sport
management research?
602 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
In conducting a comprehensive critical self-exam-
ination of the current state and historical evolution of a
scholarship, a research community is able to document
and identify research advancements (Abeza, O’Reilly, &
Nadeau, 2014), gain insight into what the research com-
munity has, and has not, studied (Costa, 2005), and reveal
strengths and areas in need of improvements (Pitts, 2001).
Such self-reective studies have the benets of clarify-
ing assumptions (Chalip, 2006; Costa, 2005), informing
journal editors about increasing attention to areas with
little or no research coverage, and guiding scholars in
locating research (Abeza et al., 2014). In that way, these
studies contribute to shaping future directions for the
scholarship, thus playing a part in the advancement of
scholarly inquiry (Chalip, 2006; Costa, 2005).
Background and Overview
of the Literature
Social media takes many different forms, and popular
examples include social networking sites such as Face-
book, Twitter, Google+, and Tumblr; content-sharing sites
such as YouTube, Flickr, Pinterest, and Instagram; and
blogs. The term social media means various things to dif-
ferent people (McNary & Hardin, 2013). As Kaplan and
Haenlein (2010) explained, there is a limited understand-
ing of what the term precisely means; the term still has
no universally agreed-upon academic denition (Abeza,
O’Reilly, & Reid, 2013). Nevertheless, most denitions
can be encompassed under the denition provided by
Kaplan and Haenlein (2010): “A group of Internet-based
applications that build on the ideological and technologi-
cal foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation
and exchange of User Generated Content” (p. 61).
The term Web 2.0 is also used interchangeably
with the term social media in most literature (Askool
& Nakata, 2011), although the two are not entirely the
same. The term Web 2.0 refers to the technologies used
to enable and facilitate online platforms on which col-
laborative and user-friendly social media communications
occur. The ve major types of Web 2.0 technologies are
blogs, social networks, content communities, forums and
bulletin boards, and content aggregators (Constantinides
& Fountain, 2008). Web 2.0 is considered a derivative
of the original Web (i.e., Internet websites, Web 1.0),
which largely carries a one-way message supplied by
publishers on a static page (Drury, 2008). Web 2.0 refers
to the second generation of Internet-based applications
(Miller & Lammas, 2010), reecting the fact that users
are not passive viewers anymore, and content is no longer
generated only by an individual publisher. Instead, users
engage in participatory and collaborative content genera-
tion (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). In Web 2.0, social media
users are all involved in sharing, linking, collaborating,
and producing online content using text, photo, audio, and
video (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Yet, for many, the term
Web 2.0 is a catchall term for a few well-known sites such
as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and Twitter. For others
(e.g., Constantinides & Fountain, 2008), the denition
is broader and includes Web 2.0-enabled blogs, and for
a few others still (e.g., Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, 2012),
it includes collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia) and
gaming applications (e.g., World of Warcraft).
A related term that requires clarication is new
media, a catchall phrase used for a range of applications
from the Internet and e-commerce to the Blogosphere,
video games, and virtual reality (Leonard, 2009). It is
commonly used in relation to “old” media forms (e.g.,
print newspapers and magazines), and includes stream-
ing audio and video, e-mail and chat rooms, DVD and
CD-ROM, and integration of digital data with the tele-
phone (e.g., mobile phone, Internet, digital cameras)
(Lievrouw, 2014). New media is broader than social
media, and social media is one segment of the new media.
In this work, social media is considered to be a part of the
social aspects of Web 2.0 applications including, but not
limited to, users’ participation, openness, conversation,
community, and connectedness.
Social Media Scholarship
in Sport Management Research
The eld of sport management captures a variety of
subdisciplines and is studied in a wide variety of con-
texts (Doherty, 2013; Pitts, 2001). The eld includes
subdisciplines such as sport marketing, nance, legal
aspects, governance, communication, organizational
behavior and theory, sport for development, tourism,
facility management, and event management (Andrew,
Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2011; Doherty, 2013; Pitts, 2001).
Social media is, by nature, a communication platform,
and the preponderance of studies on the topic have been
conducted within the subdisciplines of sport communica-
tion (e.g., Emmons & Butler, 2013; Sanderson, 2013) and
sport marketing (e.g., Walsh, Clavio, Lovell, & Blaszka,
2013; Williams & Chinn, 2010). However, the study of
the dynamic interrelationship between sport and social
media has a cross-disciplinary nature (Pedersen, 2013),
and is studied through the lens of and in the context of
the different subdisciplines of sport management, such
as sport law (e.g., Cornish & Larkin, 2014; Wendt &
Young, 2011), sport governance (e.g., Van Namen, 2011),
organizational management (e.g., Alonso & O’Shea,
2012b), sport, race and gender (e.g., Antunovic & Hardin,
2012; Cleland, 2013), and sport event management (e.g.,
McGillivray, 2014).
Therefore, taking into consideration the multidisci-
plinary nature of the eld of sport management (Costa,
2005; Doherty, 2013) and the dynamic interrelationship
between sport and social media (Hutchins, 2014; Peder-
sen, 2014), a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) was
constructed. The framework outlines the “big picture”
of the social media scholarship in sport management
research by connecting and compartmentalizing the inter-
relationships among the different segments, contexts, and
areas of sport management research. It is believed that the
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 603
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
framework helps to chart the historical trends, navigate
the body of knowledge of social media scholarship, and
overall, helps to comprehend the scholarship in a more
simplied manner. As depicted in the framework, the
study of the dynamic interrelationship between sport
and social media has a cross-disciplinary nature where
the useowners (e.g., athletes, teams, league, journal-
ists) communicate content (i.e., text, audio, video, and
pictures) to achieve their individual objectives by con-
necting to audiences/social media users (e.g., fans and
individual users—friends and followers) on various Web
2.0 platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, YouTube), and
vice versa. We use the term useowner to differentiate a
corporation that owns the social media platform (e.g.,
Twitter Inc.) from the owner of a social media site who
has control of its use (e.g., @KingJames, LeBron James’
Twitter account).
This interrelationship has an overarching societal,
cultural, economic, political, and technological impact
on today’s society and, in the case of our area of study,
the contemporary sport industry. Hence, the parts, reach,
scope, and landscape of the study of social media can
be visualized—and by extension, its scholarship can
be examined—through the lenses of its segments (i.e.,
useowners, content, prosumers), contexts (i.e., social,
political, economic, political, technological aspects), and
eld of studies (e.g., sport communication, sport market-
ing, sport events management, sport governance, sport
law). Guided by this conceptual framework, we sought
to produce empirical evidence on the trends and state of
the body of knowledge of the social media scholarship
in sport management research.
Method
Data Collection
A cross-disciplinary census review of the social media
academic literature published in sport management jour-
nals from 2008 (the earliest found) to June 2014 was con-
ducted. Five sport-related online search databases were
used, including Academic Search (Ebsco Publishing),
Google Scholar, Scopus (Elsevier), SportDiscus (SIRC),
and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). The search for
journal articles was based on 12 keyword descriptors:
Figure 1 — A guiding framework in examining the social media (SM) scholarship in sport management research.
604 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
social media, Web 2.0, new media, online, internet,
social network sites, Facebook, Twitter, 140 characters,
Blog, YouTube, and message boards. The keywords were
identied through brainstorming and a concept map, and
the use of truncation variant words. Synonyms (e.g., new
media, digital media), plural/singular forms (e.g., social
network, social networks), spelling variations (e.g., blog,
Weblog), and acronyms (e.g., SM for “social media”)
were used. The databases were queried for the keywords
in the title, abstract and the keyword list. In addition,
a search was conducted on 30 select journals in sport
management as identied by Andrew et al. (2011). In
total, 123 social media articles were identied, of which
96 were empirical research papers (this count excludes
interviews) sourced from 29 journals. We also excluded
commentaries except for two landmark commentaries that
have inuenced the scholarship (based on the number of
citations they received in successive articles): Leonard
(2009) and Williams and Chinn (2010).
While other publications provide a great deal of
information (e.g., practitioner publications and reports,
textbooks and edited volumes, master’s and doctoral
dissertations, conference papers), they were not selected
for inclusion, as only peer-reviewed academic journals
were considered. Scholarly journals are believed to be the
prime locations where knowledge is constantly updated,
tested, and challenged (Mumby & Stohl, 1996), and col-
lectively stored and disseminated (Rooney, McKenna, &
Barker, 2011).
Data Analysis
Two researchers/coders independently carried out the
classication of the identied research streams, research
methods, platforms, and theories of the 96 empirical
research articles. A codebook and denitions were devel-
oped to help guide the process and a pilot undertaken.
Both an inductive approach (in coding the research
streams) and a deductive approach (in coding the plat-
forms, theories, and methods) were used.
Inductive Approach. The two coders conducted an
independent pilot coding on 18 randomly selected sample
articles, three from each of six author-selected topic areas
in social media and sport management, namely, crisis
communication, legal issues, tool of marketing, consumer
behavior, social issues, and journalism. The emergent
streams from the pilot were compared, and differences
were discussed until an agreement was reached and an
adjustment made. Next, the two coders independently
read through the full length of each of the 96 articles and
conducted the classication of the identied research
streams. In the coding process, the topics addressed in
the research streams are interrelated and some of the
articles, at times, address several topics, meaning that
they may fall into two or more of the research streams.
Given this and per Cornwell and Maignan (1998), the
two coders discussed their coding and the articles were
assigned to a stream based on their main emphasis or
principal contribution. Upon completion of the coding,
one coder identied 16 streams and the other one 11
streams, which were later discussed and agreed upon to
be grouped as streams and substreams (e.g., the stream
= dening constructs; substreams = dimensions of use,
constructs of acceptance, platforms attribute). The two
researchers’ agreement scores ranged from 87% to 91%
on the six research streams.
Deductive Approach. The coding sheet for the
platforms, theories, and methods was developed through
a deductive process by first identifying a working
denition for each item. For example, the codebook used
for the method section was developed by identifying the
commonly used denitions of qualitative, quantitative,
mixed methods and multimethods from the work of
Creswell (2014). Two independent coders conducted
a pilot test of the reliability of the coding sheet. An
intercoder reliability analysis using the kappa statistic
was performed (per Neuendorf, 2002) that determined
consistency among raters on each of platforms (κ =
.807), theories (κ =.846), and methods (κ = .943). These
scores indicate an acceptable level of intercoder reliability
(i.e., coefcients of .80 or greater (see Lombard, Snyder-
Duch, & Bracken, 2002)). The nal classications were
reviewed by two additional researchers/coders and
revised accordingly.
Results
Topic Areas Covered in Social Media
Scholarship in Sport Management
Research
The 96 articles gathered were grouped into one of six
emergent streams of research (see Figure 2), represent-
ing the topics most commonly addressed in the related
literature. Some of the streams are relatively developed
with a considerable body of knowledge, whereas others
consist of only a few studies. The streams include nature
of social media, dening constructs, social media sites
as tools, legal and ethical considerations, industry appli-
cations, and issues and impacts. They are based on the
ndings reported in these studies. Appendix Table 1
lists the 96 articles by research streams. An analysis of
the different contextual settings where the social media
articles are found reveals that papers were related to sport
organizations (30.2%), sport consumers (29.1%), athletes
(19.8%), and journalism/media (18.8%).
As Table 1 indicates, publication of research on
social media in sport management started in 2008 and
began to increase in 2010, continuing ever since. The pro-
portion of research work with respect to the understanding
of the nature of social media increased during the rst
four years of the scholarship and then started steadily
declining over the past two years, which is believed to
be a natural development in the life cycle of new and
emerging scholarships (Hardin, 2014).
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 605
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Research Streams
The Nature of Social Media. Given the relative
newness of research on social media, the majority of the
literature sought to gain an understanding of (i) the use
of social media, (ii) users and their characteristics, and
(iii) adoption of the platforms. As can be seen in Table
1, 11 of the 15 published works during the early age of
the scholarship—2008 to 2010—were conducted to gain
an understanding of the nature of social media. This
continued until June 2014, as this research stream accounts
for over one-third (37.5%) of the literature published.
Figure 2 — Summary of the research streams. Note. SM = social media.
Table 1 Distribution of Research Papers by Research Stream
Research
Stream 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
a
Total
Nature of social
media
2 2 7 9 8 6 2 (36) 37.5%
Dening
constructs
— — 1 1 4 3 4 (13) 13.5%
Social media as
a tool
— 1 — 4 6 9 3 (23) 24%
Legal and ethical
considerations
— — — 4 — 3 1 (8) 8.3%
Industry
applications
1 — — — 1 2 3 (7) 7.3%
Issues and
impacts
— — 1 — — 8 — (9) 9.4%
Total (3) 3.1% (3) 3.1% (9) 9.4% (18) 18.8% (19) 19.8% (31) 32.3% (13) 13.5% (96) 100%
a
Publications in 2014 are only to June 2014 (i.e., 6 months).
606 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Understanding the Use of Social Media. A number
of articles explored and described social media as a
new communication medium by focusing on a specic
user group or context. For example, Hambrick and
Mahoney (2011) examined how professional athletes
used Twitter for promotional purposes. Similar studies
sought to understand how social media has been used
by fans (Sanderson, 2013), student-athletes (Browning
& Sanderson, 2012), professional athletes (Hambrick,
Frederick, & Sanderson, 2013; Hambrick, Simmons,
Greenhalgh, & Greenwell, 2010), and sport organizations
(Zimmerman, Clavio, & Lim, 2011), as well as in areas
such as marketing (Pegoraro & Jinnah, 2012), public
relations (Stoldt & Vermillion, 2013), and journalism
(Sheffer & Schultz, 2010).
Characteristics of Social Media Users. These papers
seek to gain an understanding of social media and
examine user characteristics. For example, one group of
scholars (Clavio, 2008; Clavio, Burch, & Frederick, 2012;
Clavio & Kian, 2010) investigated the characteristics of
users and usage proles of social media, examining user
characteristics, their demography, and their usage prole.
Adoption of Social Media Platforms. These researchers
investigate the preference for and acceptance of social
media platforms. O’Shea and Alonso (2011) examined
the ways in which three professional clubs are leveraging
traditional marketing approaches while adapting to social
media to an increasingly media-driven consumer base.
Similarly, Kassing and Sanderson (2010) examined how
fans experienced a major sporting event through the
content shared by cyclists using Twitter.
Defining Constructs. In this research stream, the
underlying constructs of users’ motivation, behavior,
attitude, and gratication in using social media were
investigated. In addition, useowners’ objectives in
adopting social media were examined. Most articles
in this stream addressed (i) the reasons why users are
using social media, and (ii) the constructs of acceptance
of social media. As can be seen in Table 1, this stream
of research is ranked third (13.5%) in terms of research
attention.
Dimensions of Use. Researchers attempted to identify
the reasons why (e.g., the motivations, behavior, and
attitude) audiences are using social media platforms.
For example, Frederick, Clavio, Burch, and Zimmerman
(2012) examined fans’ uses and gratification on a
mixed-martial-arts blog, and found six dimensions
of gratication: evaluation, community, information
gathering, knowledge demonstration, argumentation,
and diversion. Similarly, Clavio and Walsh (2013)
examined college sport fans’ dimensions of gratication
for social media use. In a related study, Stavros, Meng,
Westberg, and Farrelly (2014) explored the motivations
underpinning the desire of fans to communicate on the
Facebook sites of several NBA teams. Other researchers
have studied the dimensions of use in a different context.
For example, McCarthy (2014) studied the motivations,
behaviors, and media attitudes of fan sports bloggers.
Constructs of Acceptance and Platforms
Attributes.
Several researchers have attempted
to investigate the constructs for the acceptance of
social media. For example, Mahan (2011) examined
predictors of consumer preferences for social media
and Pronschinske, Groza, and Walker (2012) examined
the Facebook attributes that attract the most fans based
on four professional teams. Witkemper, Lim, and
Waldburger (2012) examined the motives and constraints
that influence individuals’ adoption of Twitter as a
medium to follow their favorite athletes.
Social Media as a Tool. Under this research stream,
the use and services of social media as communication
platforms and marketing tools were examined. This
stream accounts for the second largest portion (24%) of
the social media scholarship (see Table 1).
Social Media as a Communication Tool. Various
sociocultural discussions are communicated through
social media, and these have been examined by a
number of studies. Topics explored include fandom and
advocacy for women’s sports in blog posts (Antunovic &
Hardin, 2012), crisis communication on Twitter (Brown
& Billings, 2013; Brown, Brown, & Billings, 2013),
portrayal of women in sports blogs (Clavio & Eagleman,
2011), fans’ views on racism on message boards (Cleland,
2013), professional athletes’ self-presentation on Twitter
(Lebel & Danylchuk, 2012), framing self on Twitter
(Coche, 2014), and fans’ creation and maintenance of
social capital on Facebook (Phua, 2012).
Social Media as a Marketing Tool. Other studies
examined sport organizations’ use of social media as
a marketing communication tool. Examples include
Eagleman’s (2013) investigation of national sport
organizations’ use of social media as a marketing
communication tool, and Dittmore, McCarthy, McEvoy,
and Clavio’s (2013) examination of intercollegiate
athletic administrators’ perceived utility of Twitter as a
form of marketing or communication. Other examples
include Hambrick and Kang’s (2014) exploration of
professional sports organizations’ use of Pinterest as a
communications and relationship-marketing tool, and
Wallace, Wilson, and Miloch’s (2011) examination
of college sport organizations’ use of Facebook for
marketing and communications.
Legal and Ethical Considerations. Under the fourth-
largest research stream, various legal and ethical issues
associated with social media use and its implications
were investigated. Although only a few articles addressed
legal and ethical issues, two distinct categories can be
identied: (i) legal considerations in using social media,
and (ii) student-athletes and social media use policies.
This research stream covers 8.3% of the published work.
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 607
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Legal Considerations in Using Social Media. Studies
that discussed the legal issues related to social media
covered topics such as potential legal issues related to
social media use (Cornish & Larkin, 2014; Wendt &
Young, 2011), and athletes’ product endorsement on
social media (Brison, Baker, & Byon, 2013; McKelvey
& Masteralexis, 2013).
Student-Athletes and Social Media Use Policies.
Under this category, researchers (Sanderson, 2011; Sand-
erson & Browning, 2013) examined the messages that
student-athletes receive from athletic department ofcials
and coaches about social media use. Van Namen (2011)
explored the need for coaches, athletic departments, and
university administrators to monitor and regulate student-
athletes’ use of social media without facing potential legal
exposure for infringement of constitutionally protected
free speech rights. The studies provided insight into social
media use policy in college sport.
Industry Applications. Although many sport
organizations have embraced social media platforms
with the aim of delivering their products and services
competitively, a small proportion of the published
research (7.3%), as noted in Table 1, is about the industry
application of social media. These seven studies are
grouped into one subcategory: social media marketing
strategy.
Social Media Marketing Strategy. The strategic
use of social media and its integration into an overall
communication strategy have been addressed by authors
such as Armstrong, Delia, and Giardina (2014), who
analyzed the social media marketing strategies of the
Los Angeles Kings; Boehmer and Lacy (2014), who
investigated the implementation of an interactive social-
customer relationship-management strategy on Facebook;
and Bayne and Cianfrone (2013), who examined social
media marketing effectiveness on college students in a
campus recreation setting. Further, Miranda, Chamorro,
Rubio, and Rodriguez (2014) employed the Facebook
Assessment Index to compare, assess, and rank Facebook
sites of top European and North American professional
teams.
Issues and Impacts. Articles under this research
stream considered the impacts and issues related to social
media use and their implications, such as impact on sport
brand and journalism practice, and the opportunities,
constraints, and challenges of social media as a
communication and marketing tool. This research stream
accounts for 9.4% of the scholarship and the studies are
classied as (i) impact of social media use on journalism
practice and (ii) issues and impacts of social media in
marketing practices.
Impact of Social Media on Journalism Practice. In
the topic area of journalism practice, Gibbs and Haynes
(2013) attempted to explain how the practices and norms
related to the role of sport media relations are changing as
a result of Twitter. McEnnis (2013) examined what citizen
journalism on Twitter has meant for the professional
identity and working practices of British sport journalists,
and Reed and Hansen (2013) examined how American
sport journalists’ (particularly those who cover elite
sports) perception of gatekeeping has changed since they
began using social media for news-gathering purposes.
Schultz and Sheffer (2010) assessed what changes Twitter
has caused in journalism news work.
Issues and Impacts of Social Media in Marketing
Practices.
A small number of researchers addressed
the impact and issues of social media on the practice
of marketing. For example, Walsh, Clavio, Lovell, and
Blaszka (2013) studied the impact of social media use on
sport brands, and O’Shea and Alonso (2013) examined
how an Australian professional sports organization
addressed the potentials and constraints of social media
usage, while Abeza et al. (2013) explored the use,
opportunities, and challenges of social media in meeting
relationship marketing goals.
Contribution of Research Papers
by Academic Journals
Of the 29 journals that featured the 96 articles, only 2
journals (International Journal of Sport Communication
[IJSC] and Sociology of Sport Journal) published social
media research papers in sport management in the period
2008–2010. In 2011, 9 other journals joined them, and,
since, both the number of journals publishing social
media articles and the number of published social media
research papers have increased. A signicant increase in
the number of journals from 2010 (10 journals) to 2013
(18 journals) was observed. Table 2 reveals that 80.2%
of the articles are published by 10 of the 29 journals,
led by IJSC (40.6%). Further, Communication & Sport
published 8 social media articles in just over a year of its
existence. The other three journals that published social
media articles relatively frequently include International
Journal of Sport Management and Marketing (7), Journal
of Sports Media (6), and Sport Marketing Quarterly (5).
As reported in Table 2, social media publication in
sport management research has a short history that is
characterized by a rapidly increasing body of literature.
Platforms That Received the (Most/Least)
Attention in the Research Community
The social media platform that received the most atten-
tion is Twitter (41.7%), followed by Facebook (12.5%),
and Blogs (10.4%). These three platforms take the main
share (64.6%) of the social media sport management
research. Studies that covered a combination of Facebook
and Twitter, a combination of other platforms, or social
media in general account for 28.12% of the published
works. Other platforms that received scholars’ attention
include message boards (3 articles), YouTube (2 articles),
608 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Table 2 Distribution of Research Papers by Journal and Period
No. Journal 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
a
Total
1 Intl. Journal of Sport Communication 3 1 9 4 10 7 5 39
2 Communication & Sport 4 4 8
3 Intl. Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 5 2 7
4 Journal of Sports Media 1 2 2 1 6
5 Sport Marketing Quarterly 2 2 1 5
6 Sociology of Sport Journal 2 1 3
7 Sport Management Review 2 1 3
8 Journal of Sport Administration & Supervision 1 1 2
9 Mississippi Sports Law Review 2 2
10 Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics 1 1 2
11 Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport 1 1
12 Journal of Sport Management 1 1
13 Computers in Human Behavior 1 1
14 Information, Communication & Society 1 1
15 Intl. Journal of Integrated Marketing Communications 1 1
16 Intl. Journal of Motorsport Management 1 1
17 Intl. Journal of Networking and Virtual Organizations 1 1
18 Intl. Journal of Sports Science and Coaching 1 1
19 Intl. Journal of Web Based Communities 1 1
20 Journal of Brand Strategy 1 1
21 Journal of Sport & Social Issues 1 1
22 Journalism Practice 1 1
23 Leisure Studies 1 1
24 Mass Communication and Society 1 1
25 Public Relations Review 1 1
26 Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 1 1
27 Recreational Sports Journal 1 1
28 Soccer & Society 1 1
29 Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal 1 1
Total 3 3 9 18 19 31 13 96
a
Publications in 2014 are only to June 2014 (i.e., 6 months).
Pinterest (1 article), and Weibo (1 article). When an article
looked at two or more platforms together, such as Twit-
ter, Facebook, and LinkedIn (see Cornish and Larkin,
2014), the article is classied under the umbrella name
social media.
Theories in Social Media Scholarship
in Sport Management Research
The article review identied 26 theories and theoretical
models used or referenced in 52 of the 96 articles origi-
nating from a variety of disciplines such as sociology,
marketing, psychology, information technology, mass
media, and crisis communication (see Appendix Table
2). Uses and gratications, and relationship marketing
theories are the most cited theories (being used in 10
and 7 studies, respectively). Parasocial interaction and
agenda setting have been used in four studies, while
media framing, social identity theories, and image/reputa-
tion repair typology were each used in three studies. The
theory of self-presentation, the technology acceptance
model, and gatekeeping theory have each been used in
two social media studies each. The remaining 15 theories
and models have each been used once.
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 609
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
The 52 studies that made reference to the 26 identi-
ed theories were classied into Bryant and Miron’s
(2004) 11 groupings of theory utilization: (i) mere refer-
ences, (ii) using as theoretical framework, (iii) compari-
son of two or more theories, (iv) critique of a theory or of
theories, (v) proposing a theory, (vi) supporting a theory,
(vii) testing a new theory, (viii) integrating theories, (ix)
expanding a theory, (x) new application, and (xi) praising
of a theory or of theories. The classication is presented
as Table 3, which reports that 69.8% used their theories
as a framework for the study and 9.4% of the articles
expanded the theories or models referenced. Other uses
of theory reported are mere references to the theories
(7.5%), supporting theories (3.8%), and new application
of theories into social media studies (3.8%). Integration of
theories also accounted for 3.8% (e.g., Frederick, Lim, et
al. [2012] integrated/combined uses and gratication and
parasocial interaction in their study), and discussion of a
theory/praising (e.g., Williams and Chinn [2010]: rela-
tionship marketing) accounted for 1.9%. Those aspects
typically considered to be the primary components of
theory construction (Bryant & Miron, 2004), such as
proposing a theory, testing a new theory, critique of a
theory, and comparison of theories are absent in social
media scholarship in sport management research.
Research Methods in Social Media
Scholarship in Sport Management
Research
Research and Data-Gathering Methods. The
proportion of the research methodologies/methods used
in social media articles in sport management research
is presented in Table 4. The table reports that the
quantitative method (51.1%) is the most used method
in social media scholarship, followed by qualitative
methods (43.2%). Over the 6.5-year period analyzed, the
use of qualitative methods is increasing. The use of both
mixed- and multimethod research approaches is limited.
Table 5 reports on the data collection methods in
social media sport management research, where content
analyses (50.5%) and surveys (29.7%) far exceeded any
other method of data gathering during the 6.5-year period
analyzed. Interviews ranked third (16.5%) followed by
experimental methods (2.2%). Field notes were used in
only one study.
Discussion and Directions
for Future Research
Social media has attracted signicant sport management
research interest since 2008, a trend consistent with the
popularity of social media platforms in the sport industry.
While the reviewed articles provided insights into the
features, use, benets, opportunities, impacts, and chal-
lenges of social media, this study nds that there are broad
areas in need of attention. The results can be summarized
as follows: (a) the social media literature provides a solid
foundation for an understanding of social media in sport
management research, (b) a signicant concentration of
the sport management research is on the topic of two
social media platforms—Twitter and Facebook, (c) the
Table 3 References to Theories
Utilization of Theories No. of Studies
Theoretical framework for the study (36) 69.8%
Expanding a theory (5) 9.4%
Mere references (4) 7.5%
Supporting a theory (2) 3.8%
New application (2) 3.8%
Integrating/combining theories (2) 3.8%
Praising/detail discussion (1) 1.9%
Proposing a theory —
Testing a new theory —
Comparison of two or more theories —
Critique of a theory or of theories —
(52) 100%
Table 4 Research Methods in Social Media Scholarship
Methodology 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
a
Total
Quantitative 2 — 4 9 11 12 7 (45) 51.1%
Qualitative 1 2 3 5 9 15 3 (38) 43.2%
Multimethod — — 1 — — 2 — (3) 3.4%
Mixed Method — — — — 1 1 (2) 2.3%
Total 3 2 8 14 20 30 11 88
b
a
Publications in 2014 are only to June 2014 (i.e., 6 months).
b
The total number is less than the 96 articles reviewed because some articles in elds like law and sociology
publish more of analytical/descriptive papers and did not employ a specic traditional research method.
610 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
utilization of theories is still in the early stages, (d) there
is a limited scope and range in the research methods
adopted and data collection instruments employed, and
(e) there is a lack of a framework that provides a sum-
mary of the current literature and provides direction for
future research.
In summary, the relative newness of the social media
scholarship in sport management is observed in the trends
of emerging research streams, in the application of refer-
enced theories, and in the scope of the research methods
employed. This “state” is in line with the logical steps in
the life cycle of an emerging area of scholarship (Hardin,
2014). Importantly, this stage of the scholarship and its
associated developmental reality should not be seen as
disadvantages. In fact, to the contrary, once the research
community becomes aware of the state of the scholar-
ship and is provided with a framework, it will be in a
position to take the next step(s) toward developing more
sophisticated research questions, covering broader topics,
advancing the utilization of theories, and expanding the
research methods employed. Specically, the literature
produced to date provides the starting point toward the
continued development of the eld (see Hardin, 2014),
and provides the future research directions. Further, the
reported lack of social media research among scholars
in key areas of sport management—such as nance,
governance, organizational behavior, development, tour-
ism, facility management, and event management—is a
deterrent to the growth of research in the area. This must
be addressed in sport management doctoral programs in
these areas, with students being provided with the tools
necessary to conduct social media research in nance,
event management and the other identied areas.
Results support that the overall impact and sig-
nicance of social media in the contemporary sport
industry has remained unexplored in a number of the
subdisciplines of sport management. In particular, the
focus has been on sport marketing and sport commu-
nications. Intuitively, this is expected given the roots of
social media as a communication form that marketers
can easily incorporate into their activities. Thus, for the
eld to move forward, the onus falls to the marketing and
communications scholars to build theory, expand empiri-
cal analyses, and provide strong frameworks for the sport
management scholars in the other subdisciplines. Since
social media is, by nature, a communication platform,
the focus on sport marketing and communication to date
makes sense. However, the study of the dynamic inter-
relationship between sport and social media has a cross-
disciplinary nature (Pedersen, 2013) and with the body
of literature to date, attention to the other subdisciplines
of sport management is needed. As can be seen from the
emergent research streams, the studies produced to date in
three of the subelds of sport management have already
laid substantial foundation for future advancements.
These include sport marketing, sport communication
and sport law. In sport law, for instance, various legal
issues that arise from uses and misuses of social media
have been explored in the work of Brison et al. (2013),
McKelvey and Masteralexis, (2013), Cornish and Larkin
(2014), Van Namen (2011), Wendt and Young (2011), and
Sanderson (2011).
In the topic area of crisis communication, the works
of Sanderson (2013), Hambrick et al. (2013), Brown
et al. (2013), and Brown and Billings (2013) serve as
groundwork for future studies. In the three subdisciplines
themselves, however, a number of research opportunities
await research attention. In sport marketing, for example,
there exists limited research on the impact, role, and
signicance of social media as a platform for advertis-
ing, sales, direct marketing, sponsorship, branding, and
ambush marketing. In sponsorship, for instance, social
media has a natural appeal as an activation tool for both
the sponsor and the sponsee. Resulting from its instant
global reach, ease of networking, and ease of collabora-
tion, social media has become a powerful marketing tool
Table 5 Proportions of Data-Gathering Methods
Data Gathering Method 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
a
Total
Content Analysis
b
1 2 5 7 9 14 8
c
(46) 50.5%
Survey/Questionnaire 2 — 2 4 9 7 3
c
(27) 29.7%
Interview — — — 3 3 8 1
c
(15) 16.5%
Experimental — — 1 — — 1 — (2) 2.2%
Observation/Field Notes — — — — — — 1 (1) 1.1%
Total 3 2 8 14 21
b
30 13
c
91
c
a
Publications in 2014 are only until June 2014 (i.e., 6 months).
b
Content analysis: quantitative content analysis = 18; qualitative content analysis = 25 (content analysis = 13, thematic analysis = 5, textual analysis
= 3, discourse analysis = 2, social network analysis = 2). Note. Whereas content analysis is an analytical approach in research methods, here it is
used to refer to a secondary source data that was gathered from social media sites and analyzed to produce themes or quantitative data. Content is
also considered to include text, photo, and video. Therefore, for the purpose of this work, analytical approaches such as textual analysis, thematic
analysis, and discourse analysis are grouped under content analysis.
c
It should have been reported as 88. However, as the summary in Table 4 indicates, one mixed method study (i.e., Gibbs, O’Reilly, & Brunette, 2014)
used three methods (interviews, content analysis, and survey).
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 611
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
(Kotler, 2011), particularly for those seeking to market in
multiple countries. Therefore, investigating how sponsors
and sponsees are reacting to the ever-changing nature
of sporting landscapes resulting from social media will
inform both scholars and practitioners.
In the very early days of the social media scholarship,
Leonard (2009) argued that there was a need:
. . . to react to the ever changing nature of sporting
landscapes resulting from innovation and technologi-
cal changes, not simply categorizing metamorpho-
sis as indicative of the new media era of sport but
reecting on the impact and signicance of these
transformations. (p. 12)
This recommendation is still very relevant today, and
research needs to keep pace with these changes. Indeed,
as opposed to the current approach that considers all audi-
ences/users of social media as identical, future research
should progress to identify, differentiate, and take into
account differences in the behavior of social media users
and their level of involvement. Today’s social media users
dedicate substantial time to producing and consuming
multimedia content, and are found to be the foremost
players in all categories of Web 2.0 applications. This is
why the terms prosumer and user-generated content are
often used to underline the fact that today’s users are not
only consumers, but also the prime content contributors.
These users exhibit different levels of commitment and
participation on social media platforms, ranging from
passive visitor to committed contributor.
Various researchers (e.g., Harridge-March &
Quinton, 2009; Kozinets, 2006; Riegner, 2007) have
attempted to develop different classications of social
media users. For example, Harridge-March and Quinton
(2009) proposed that social media users could be clas-
sied by their level of involvement, namely as lurkers,
newbies/tourists, minglers, and evangelists/devotees. In
a similar manner, audiences (i.e., friends on Facebook
or followers on Twitter) of a social media site are not
all necessarily supporters of the useowners/social media
site owners, and not all ofine fans of a useowner are
necessarily users of social media (Abeza et al., 2013).
For these reasons, future studies need to factor in the
differences in behavior exhibited by social media users
and differences by that users’ level of involvement should
be accounted for. In particular, inuential users should
be given specic research attention. Related exemplary
studies in this area include Clavio and Walsh (2013) and
Stavros et al. (2014).
With respect to the results reported on platforms,
while it can be justied why the majority of research
focused on Twitter and Facebook, research on the other
platforms will serve to inform both scholars and practi-
tioners. In this regard, the studies on YouTube (Mahoney,
Hambrick, Svensson, & Zimmerman, 2013; Zimmer-
man et al. 2011), Pinterest (Hambrick & Kang, 2014)
and Weibo (Liu & Berkowitz, 2013) are exemplary. A
number of researchers (Frederick, Lim, Clavio, Pedersen,
& Burch, 2014; Pronschinske et al., 2012; Walsh et al.,
2013; Witkemper et al., 2012) recommend research be
conducted across multiple platforms.
Concerning theories, the majority of research (75%)
use theories specically as a tool to frame their studies.
Although theory development helps a scholarship build
its identity and increase its self-reliance (Abeza et al.,
2014), there is a dearth in studies that propose a theory,
test a new theory, critique a theory, or compare different
theories. This requires research attention as very few
studies were found that support existing theories, apply
theories from other areas of study in social media setting,
and integrate different theories. Although proposing,
testing, critiquing and comparing theories is not common
in an emerging area of scholarship, results suggest that
this is now a challenge for the social media research
community, as the scholarship continues to advance.
Hence, sport management researchers in social media are
encouraged to compare, critique, integrate theories, test
and apply theories from other elds into the context of
social media, and begin developing new theories. More-
over, as Slack (1998) stated, scholars not only need to
use existing theories to study sport but also to use sport
to test and extend existing theories.
And nally, with regards to research methods, a
small range of data collection methods are being used in
social media scholarship in sport management research:
content analysis, online surveys, and interviews. Results
on research methods employed in social media sport
management studies differ from what are known to be
the most common sources of data collection in qualitative
research (i.e., document and archival analysis, direct and
participant observation, focus groups, interviews) (Yin,
2014) and in quantitative research (i.e., experiments,
questionnaires) (Creswell, 2014). Thus, a more diverse
set of methods is encouraged.
While a thematic analysis of various sports stake-
holders’ social media use has value, and while such
studies have importance and, therefore, should be pursued
(Sanderson, 2014), the size of samples and number of
cases are areas that should be improved. For instance,
some of the interviews were based on single cases, when
multiple cases could have been employed. In fact, con-
trary to much of the existing literature, a single case or
unit of analysis should only be justiable when the case
(e.g., an athlete, an organization, a coach, an incident)
is either a representative, critical, extreme or unique, or
when it is typical or revelatory (Yin, 2014). This recom-
mendation is supported by previous authors (e.g., Alonso
& O’Shea, 2012b, Hambrick & Sanderson, 2013) who
contend that researchers would be well served to consider
multiple cases in their sampling.
In addition, as Pedersen (2014) stated, scholars should
address some of the research questions using relatively
challenging methods such as ethnography and experi-
mental study (when appropriate). It is also pertinent (and
recommended) for scholars to consider longitudinal stud-
ies. In this regard, after noting the shifting nature of social
media, a number of authors (see Hambrick & Mahoney,
612 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
2011; Mahan, Seo, Jordan, & Funk, 2014; Pronschinske
et al. 2012; Sanderson & Hambrick, 2012; Stoldt & Ver-
million, 2013) have suggested that a longitudinal study be
conducted over time to gain a deeper understanding as to
whether various stakeholders in the sport industry (e.g.,
celebrity athletes, sport organizations, sport consumers,
journalists) can develop increasingly sophisticated ways to
use social media. Further, it is worth noting that advances
in data mining and analytics software programs have
made possible the ability to sort, retrieve, collect, compile
and analyze a vast volume of data in a shorter period of
time. There are number of software programs that can be
used for data gathering (e.g., NCapture, DiscoverText,
SiteSucker, Netlytic) and as content analysis tools (e.g.,
Leximancer, NVivo). These software programs enable
scholars to address the problem of analyzing a small
number of content, and to enhance intercoder reliability
(Sotiriadou, Brouwers, & Le, 2014). Critical reviews
similar to the one at hand are encouraged on a periodical
basis, and it is hoped that future work will address and
take into consideration those recommendations.
Finally, although this research set out to provide a
thorough, critical review of the available literature on
social media in sport management research, the study
has limitations. First, the topics addressed in the research
are limited to those discussed in the literature and do not
necessarily include all facets of social media that warrant
scholarly inquiry. For example, as noted, sponsorship acti-
vation is an area where research on social media would be
of high value. Second, only literature accessible through
electronic databases is considered, where some articles
may have been missed in the keyword search.
References
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Nadeau, J. (2014). Sport commu-
nication: A multi-dimensional assessment of the eld’s
development. International Journal of Sport Communica-
tion, 7(3), 289–316. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2014-0034
Abeza, G., O’Reilly, N., & Reid, I. (2013). Relationship mar-
keting and social media in sport. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 6(2), 120–142.
Alonso, A.D., & O’Shea, M. (2012a). “You are invisible”: Mar-
keting professional sports in the technology era. Journal
of Sports Media, 7(2), 1–21. doi:10.1353/jsm.2012.0016
Alonso, A.D., & O’Shea, M. (2012b). Moderating virtual
sport consumer forums: Exploring the role of the vol-
unteer moderator. International Journal of Networking
and Virtual Organisations, 11(2), 173–187. doi:10.1504/
IJNVO.2012.048332
Andrew, D.P., Pedersen, P.M., & McEvoy, C.D. (2011).
Research methods and design in sport management.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Antunovic, D., & Hardin, M. (2012). Activism in women’s
sports blogs: Fandom and feminist potential. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 5(3), 305–322.
Armstrong, C.G., Delia, E.B., & Giardina, M.D. (2014).
Embracing the social in social media an analysis of the
social media marketing strategies of the Los Angeles
Kings. Communication & Sport. Advance online publica-
tion. doi:10.1177/2167479514532914
Askool, S., & Nakata, K. (2011). A conceptual model for
acceptance of social CRM systems based on a scoping
study. AI & Society, 26(3), 205–220. doi:10.1007/s00146-
010-0311-5
Bayne, K.S., & Cianfrone, B.A. (2013). The effectiveness of
social media marketing: The impact of Facebook status
updates on a campus recreation event. Recreational Sports
Journal, 37(2), 147–159.
Billings, A.C., & Hardin, M. (Eds.). (2014). Routledge hand-
book of sport and new media. New York, NY: Routledge.
Blaszka, M., Burch, L.M., Frederick, E.L., Clavio, G., & Walsh,
P. (2012). #WorldSeries: An empirical examination of a
Twitter hashtag during a major sporting event. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 435–453.
http://journals.humankinetics.com/ijsc-back-issues/ijsc-
volume-5-issue-4-december
Boehmer, J., & Lacy, S. (2014). Sport news on Facebook: The
Relationship between interactivity and readers’ browsing
behavior. International Journal of Sport Communication,
7(1), 1–15. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2013-0112
Brison, N., Baker, T., & Byon, K. (2013). Tweets and crumpets:
Examining U.K. and U.S. regulation of athlete endorse-
ments and social media marketing. Journal of Legal
Aspects of Sport, 23, 55–71.
Brown, N.A., & Billings, A.C. (2013). Sports fans as crisis
communicators on social media websites. Public Relations
Review, 39(1), 74–81. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.09.012
Brown, N.A., Brown, K.A., & Billings, A.C. (2013). “May
No Act of Ours Bring Shame”: Fan-enacted crisis com-
munication surrounding the Penn State sex abuse scandal.
Communication & Sport. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2167479513514387
Browning, B., & Sanderson, J. (2012). The positives and nega-
tives of Twitter: Exploring how student-athletes use Twitter
and respond to critical tweets. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 5(4), 503–521.
Bryant, J., & Miron, D. (2004). Theory and research in mass
communication. Journal of Communication, 54(4),
662–704. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02650.x
Burch, L.M., Frederick, E.L., Zimmerman, M.H., & Clavio,
G.E. (2011). Agenda-setting and La Copa Mundial:
Marketing through agenda-setting on soccer blogs during
the 2010 World Cup. International Journal of Sport Man-
agement and Marketing, 10(3/4), 213–231. doi:10.1504/
IJsocial mediaM.2011.044791
Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management
discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 1–21.
Clavio, G. (2008). Demographics and usage proles of users
of college sport message boards. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 1(4), 434–443.
Clavio, G. (2011). Social media and the college football audience.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 4, 309–325.
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 613
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Clavio, G., Burch, L.M., & Frederick, E.L. (2012). Networked
fandom: Applying systems theory to sport Twitter analy-
sis. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4),
522–538.
Clavio, G., Walsh, P., & Vooris, R. (2013). The utilization of
Twitter by drivers in a major racing series. International
Journal of Motorsport Management, 2(1), Article 2.
Clavio, G., & Eagleman, A.N. (2011). Gender and sexually
suggestive images in sports blogs. Journal of Sport Man-
agement, 7, 295–304.
Clavio, G., & Kian, T.M. (2010). Uses and gratications of a
retired female athlete’s Twitter followers. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 485–500.
Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2013). Dimensions of social
media utilization among college sport fans. Com-
munication & Sport. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2167479513480355.
Cleland, J. (2013). Racism, football fans, and online mes-
sage boards: How social media has added a new
dimension to racist discourse in English football.
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 38, 415–431.
doi:10.1177/0193723513499922
Coche, R. (2014). How golfers and tennis players frame
themselves: A content analysis of Twitter prole pictures.
Journal of Sports Media, 9(1), 95–121. doi:10.1353/
jsm.2014.0003
Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. (2008). Web 2.0: Concep-
tual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct
Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 231–244.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350098
Cornish, A.N., II, & Larkin, B. (2014). Social media’s changing
legal landscape provides cautionary tales of “Pinterest” to
sport marketers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 23(1), 47–49.
Cornwell, T.B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review
of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27(1),
1–21. doi:10.1080/00913367.1998.10673539
Costa, C. (2005). The status and future of sport management:
A Delphi study. Journal of Sport Management, 19(2),
117–142.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Cunningham, N., & Bright, L.F. (2012). The tweet is in your
court: Measuring attitude towards athlete endorsements in
social media. International Journal of Integrated Market-
ing Communications, 4(2), 73–87.
Dart, J.J. (2009). Blogging the 2006 FIFA World Cup Finals.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 26(1), 107–126.
Deprez, A., Mechant, P., & Hoebeke, T. (2013). Social media
and Flemish sports reporters: A multimethod analysis of
Twitter use as journalistic tool. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 6(2), 107–119.
Dittmore, S.W., McCarthy, S.T., McEvoy, C., & Clavio, G.
(2013). Perceived utility of ofcial university athletic
Twitter accounts: The opinions of college athletic admin-
istrators. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 6,
286–305.
Dittmore, S.W., Stoldt, G.C., & Greenwell, T.C. (2008). Use of
an organizational weblog in relationship building: The case
of a Major League Baseball team. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 1(3), 384–397.
Doherty, A. (2013). “It takes a village:” Interdisciplinary
research for sport management. Journal of Sport Manage-
ment, 27(1), 1–10.
Drury, G. (2008). Opinion piece: Social media—Should mar-
keters engage and how can it be done effectively? Journal
of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3),
274–277. doi:10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350096
Eagleman, A.N. (2013). Acceptance, motivations, and usage
of social media as a marketing communications tool
amongst employees of sport national governing bodies.
Sport Management Review, 16(4), 488–497. doi:10.1016/j.
smr.2013.03.004
Emmons, B., & Butler, S. (2013). Institutional constraints and
changing routines: Sports journalists tweet the Daytona
500. Journal of Sports Media, 8(1), 163–187. doi:10.1353/
jsm.2013.0004
Frederick, E.L., Burch, L.M., & Blaszka, M. (2013). A
shift in set: Examining the presence of agenda set-
ting on Twitter during the 2012 London Olympics.
Communication & Sport. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2167479513508393
Frederick, E.L., Clavio, G.E., Burch, L.M., & Zimmerman,
M.H. (2012). Characteristics of users of a mixed-martial-
arts blog: A case study of demographics and usage trends.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(1),
109–125.
Frederick, E.L., Lim, C.H., Clavio, G., & Walsh, P. (2012).
Why we follow: An examination of parasocial interaction
and fan motivations for following athlete archetypes on
Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication,
5(4), 481–502.
Frederick, E., Lim, C.H., Clavio, G., Pedersen, P.M., & Burch,
L.M. (2014). Choosing between the one-way or two-way
street: An exploration of relationship promotion by profes-
sional athletes on Twitter. Communication & Sport, 2(1),
80–99. doi:10.1177/2167479512466387
Gibbs, C., & Haynes, R. (2013). A phenomenological investiga-
tion into how Twitter has changed the nature of sport media
relations. International Journal of Sport Communication,
6(4), 394–408.
Gibbs, C., O’Reilly, N., & Brunette, M. (2014). Professional
team sport and Twitter: Gratications sought and obtained
by followers. International Journal of Sport Communica-
tion, 7(2), 188–213. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2014-0005
Hambrick, M.E. (2012). Six degrees of information: Using
social network analysis to explore the spread of informa-
tion within sport social networks. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 5(1), 16–34.
Hambrick, M.E., & Kang, S.J. (2014). Pin it: Exploring
how professional sports organizations use Pinterest
as a communications and relationship-marketing tool.
Communication & Sport. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2167479513518044
614 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Hambrick, M.E., & Mahoney, T.Q. (2011). ‘It’s incredible—
trust me’: Exploring the role of celebrity athletes as mar-
keters in online social networks. International Journal
of Sport Management and Marketing, 10(3/4), 161–179.
doi:10.1504/IJsocial mediaM.2011.044794
Hambrick, M.E., & Sanderson, J. (2013). Gaining primacy in the
digital network: Using social network analysis to examine
sports journalists’ coverage of the Penn State football
scandal via Twitter. Journal of Sports Media, 8(1), 1–18.
doi:10.1353/jsm.2013.0003
Hambrick, M.E., Frederick, E.L., & Sanderson, J. (2013).
From yellow to blue: Exploring Lance Armstrong’s image
repair strategies across traditional and social media.
Communication & Sport. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/2167479513506982
Hambrick, M.E., Simmons, J.M., Greenhalgh, G.P., & Green-
well, T.C. (2010). Understanding professional athletes’
use of Twitter: A content analysis of athlete tweets. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Communication, 3(4), 454–471.
Hardin, M. (2014). Moving beyond description putting Twitter
in (theoretical) context. Communication & Sport, 2(2),
113–116. doi:10.1177/2167479514527425
Harridge-March, S., & Quinton, S. (2009). Virtual snakes and
ladders: Social networks and the relationship market-
ing loyalty ladder. Marketing Review, 9(2), 171–181.
doi:10.1362/146934709X442692
Havard, C.T., Eddy, T., Reams, L., Stewart, R.L., & Ahmad,
T. (2012). Perceptions and general knowledge of online
social networking activity of university student-athletes
and non-student-athletes. Journal of Sport Administration
& Supervision, 4(1), 14–31.
Hopkins, J.L. (2013). Engaging Australian Rules Football fans
with social media: A case study. International Journal
of Sport Management and Marketing, 13(1/2), 104–121.
doi:10.1504/IJsocial mediaM.2013.055197
Hull, K. (2014). A hole in one (hundred forty characters): A case
study examining PGA Tour golfers’ twitter use during the
Masters. International Journal of Sport Communication,
7(2), 245–260. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2013-0130
Hull, K., & Lewis, N.P. (2014). Why Twitter displaces broadcast
sports media: A model. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 7(1), 16–33. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2013-
0093
Hutchins, B. (2011). The acceleration of media sport culture:
Twitter, telepresence and online messaging. Information
Communication and Society, 14(2), 237–257. doi:10.108
0/1369118X.2010.508534
Hutchins, B. (2014). Twitter follow the money and look
beyond sports. Communication & Sport, 2(2), 122–126.
doi:10.1177/2167479514527430
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite!
The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business
Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kaplan, A.M., & Haenlein, M. (2012). Social media: Back
to the roots and back to the future. Journal of Sys-
tems and Information Technology, 14(2), 101–104.
doi:10.1108/13287261211232126
Kassing, J.W., & Sanderson, J. (2010). Fan-athlete interaction
and Twitter tweeting through the Giro: A case study. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Communication, 3(1), 113–128.
Kian, E.M., Burden, J.W., Jr., & Shaw, S.D. (2011). Internet
sport bloggers: Who are these people and where do they
come from? Journal of Sport Administration & Supervi-
sion, 3(1), 30–43.
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing marketing to manage the environ-
mental imperative. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 132–135.
doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.132
Kozinets, R.V. (2006). Click to connect: Netnography and
tribal advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(3),
279–288. doi:10.2501/S0021849906060338
Kwak, D.H., Kim, Y.K., & Zimmerman, M.H. (2010). User-
versus mainstream-media-generated content: Media
source, message valence, and team identication and
sport consumers’ response. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3(4), 402–421.
Lebel, K., & Danylchuk, K. (2012). How Tweet it is: A gendered
analysis of professional tennis players’ self-presentation
on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication,
5(4), 461–480.
Leonard, D.J. (2009). New media and global sporting cultures:
Moving beyond the clichés and binaries. Sociology of Sport
Journal, 26(1), 1–16.
Lievrouw, L. (2014). Alternative and activist new media.
Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Liu, Z., & Berkowitz, D. (2013). “Love sport, even when it
breaks your heart again”: Ritualizing consumerism in
sports on Weibo. International Journal of Sport Com-
munication, 6(3), 258–273.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C.C. (2002). Con-
tent analysis in mass communication: Assessment and
reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication
Research, 28(4), 587–604. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.
tb00826.x
Mahan, J.E., III. (2011). Examining the predictors of consumer
response to sport marketing via digital social media. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Management and Marketing,
9(3), 254–267.
Mahan, J.E., III, Seo, W.J., Jordan, J.S., & Funk, D. (2014).
Exploring the impact of social networking sites on running
involvement, running behavior, and social life satisfaction.
Sport Management Review; Advance online publication.
Mahoney, T.Q., Hambrick, M.E., Svensson, P.G., & Zimmer-
man, M.H. (2013). Examining emergent niche sports’
YouTube exposure through the lens of the psychological
continuum model. International Journal of Sport Man-
agement and Marketing, 13(3/4), 218–238. doi:10.1504/
IJsocial mediaM.2013.059717
Mangold, W.G., & Faulds, D.J. (2009). Social media: The new
hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons,
52(4), 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.03.002
McCarthy, B. (2014). A sports journalism of their own: An
investigation into the motivations, behaviours, and media
attitudes of fan sports bloggers. Communication & Sport,
2(1), 65–79. doi:10.1177/2167479512469943
Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research 615
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
McEnnis, S. (2013). Raising our game: Effects of citizen jour-
nalism on Twitter for professional identity and working
practices of British sport journalists. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 6(4), 423–433.
McGillivray, D. (2014). Digital cultures, acceleration and mega
sporting event narratives. Leisure Studies, 33(1), 96–109.
doi:10.1080/02614367.2013.841747
McKelvey, S., & Masteralexis, J.T. (2013). New FTC guides
impact use of social media for companies and athlete
endorsers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22, 59–62.
McKelvey, S., & Masteralexis, J.T. (2011). This tweet sponsored
by . . . : The application of the new FTC guides to the social
media world of professional athletes. Virginia Sports and
Entertainment Law Journal, 11(1), 222–246.
McNary, E., & Hardin, M. (2013). Subjectivity in 140 charac-
ters: The use of social media by marginalised groups. In
P.M. Pedersen (Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport com-
munication (pp. 238–247). New York, NY: Routledge.
Miller, R., & Lammas, N. (2010). Social media and its impli-
cations for viral marketing. Asia Pacic Public Relations
Journal, 11, 1–9.
Miranda, F.J., Chamorro, A., Rubio, S., & Rodriguez, O.
(2014). Professional sports teams on social networks: A
comparative study employing the Facebook Assessment
Index. International Journal of Sport Communication,
7(1), 74–89. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2013-0097
Mumby, D.K., & Stohl, C. (1996). Disciplining orga-
nizational communication studies. Manage-
ment Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 50–72.
doi:10.1177/0893318996010001004
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Norman, M. (2012). Saturday night’s alright for tweeting:
Cultural citizenship, collective discussion, and the new
media consumption/production of Hockey Day in Canada.
Sociology of Sport Journal, 29(3), 306–324.
O’Shea, M., & Alonso, A.D. (2011). Opportunity or obstacle?
A preliminary study of professional sport organisations
in the age of social media. International Journal of Sport
Management and Marketing, 10(3-4), 196–212.
O’Shea, M., & Alonso, A.D. (2013). Fan moderation of profes-
sional sports organisations’ social media content: Strategic
brilliance or pending disaster? International Journal of
Web Based Communities, 9(4), 554–570. doi:10.1504/
IJWBC.2013.057219
Pedersen, P.M. (2013). Reections on communication and sport:
On strategic communication and management. Communica-
tion and Sport, 1, 55–67. doi:10.1177/2167479512466655
Pedersen, P.M. (2014). A commentary on social media
research from the perspective of a sport communication
journal editor. Communication & Sport, 2(2), 138–142.
doi:10.1177/2167479514527428
Pegoraro, A. (2010). Look who’s talking—Athletes on Twitter:
A case study. International Journal of Sport Communica-
tion, 3(4), 501–514.
Pegoraro, A., & Jinnah, N. (2012). Tweet ’em and reap ’em: The
impact of professional athletes’ use of Twitter on current
and potential sponsorship opportunities. Journal of Brand
Strategy, 1(1), 85–97.
Phua, J. (2012). Use of social networking sites by sports
fans: Implications for the creation and maintenance of
social capital. Journal of Sports Media, 7(1), 109–132.
doi:10.1353/jsm.2012.0006
Pitts, B.G. (2001). Sport management at the millennium: A
dening moment. Journal of Sport Management, 15(1),
1–9.
Price, J., Farrington, N., & Hall, L. (2013). Changing the game?
The impact of Twitter on relationships between football
clubs, supporters and the sports media. Soccer & Society,
14(4), 446–461. doi:10.1080/14660970.2013.810431
Pronschinske, M., Groza, M.D., & Walker, M. (2012). Attract-
ing Facebook ‘fans’: The importance of authenticity and
engagement as a social networking strategy for profes-
sional sport teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21(4),
221–231.
Reed, S. (2011). Sports journalists’ use of social media and its
effects on professionalism. Journal of Sports Media, 6(2),
43–64. doi:10.1353/jsm.2011.0007
Reed, S. (2013). American sports writers’ social media use and
its inuence on professionalism. Journalism Practice, 7(5),
555–571. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.739325
Reed, S., & Hansen, K.A. (2013). Social media’s inuence on
American sport journalists’ perception of gatekeeping.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 6(4),
373–383.
Riegner, C. (2007). Word of mouth on the web: The impact
of Web 2.0 on consumer purchase decisions. Journal
of Advertising Research, 47(4), 436–447. doi:10.2501/
S0021849907070456
Rooney, D., McKenna, B., & Barker, J.R. (2011). History of
ideas in management communication quarterly. Man-
agement Communication Quarterly, 25(4), 583–611.
doi:10.1177/0893318911405623
Rowe, D., & Hutchins, B. (2014). Globalisation and online
audiences. In A.C. Billings & M. Hardin (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of sport and new media (pp. 7–18). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Ruihley, B.J., & Hardin, R.L. (2011). Message boards and the
fantasy sport experience. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 4(2), 233–252.
Sanderson, J. (2008). “You are the type of person that children
should look up to as a hero”: Parasocial interaction on
38pitches.com. International Journal of Sport Communi-
cation, 1(3), 337–360.
Sanderson, J. (2009). Professional athletes’ shrinking privacy
boundaries: Fans, information and communication tech-
nologies, and athlete monitoring. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 2(2), 240–256.
Sanderson, J. (2010). Framing Tiger’s troubles: Comparing
traditional and social media. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3(4), 438–453.
Sanderson, J. (2011). To tweet or not to tweet: Exploring divi-
sion I athletic departments’ social-media policies. Inter-
national Journal of Sport Communication, 4(4), 492–513.
616 Abeza et al.
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Sanderson, J. (2013). From loving the hero to despising the
villain: Sports fans, Facebook, and social identity threats.
Mass Communication & Society, 16(4), 487–509. doi:10
.1080/15205436.2012.730650
Sanderson, J. (2014). What do we do with Twitter?. Communica-
tion & Sport, 2, 127–131. doi:10.1177/2167479514527429
Sanderson, J., & Browning, B. (2013). Training versus moni-
toring: A qualitative examination of athletic department
practices regarding student-athletes and Twitter. Qualita-
tive Research Reports in Communication, 14(1), 105–111.
doi:10.1080/17459435.2013.835348
Sanderson, J., & Hambrick, M.E. (2012). Covering the scandal
in 140 characters: A case study of Twitter’s role in cover-
age of the Penn State saga. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 5(3), 384–402.
Schultz, B., & Sheffer, M.L. (2010). An exploratory study of
how Twitter is affecting sports journalism. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 3(2), 226–239.
Sheffer, M.L., & Schultz, B. (2010). Paradigm shift or passing
fad? Twitter and sports journalism. International Journal
of Sport Communication, 3(4), 472–484.
Slack, T. (1998). Is there anything unique about sport manage-
ment? European Journal for Sport Management, 5(2),
21–29.
Smith, L.R., & Smith, K.D. (2012). Identity in Twitter’s hashtag
culture: A sport-media-consumption case study. Interna-
tional Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4), 539–557.
Sotiriadou, P., Brouwers, J., & Le, T.A. (2014). Choosing a
qualitative data analysis tool: A comparison of NVivo and
Leximancer. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(2), 218–234.
doi:10.1080/11745398.2014.902292
Stavros, C., Meng, M.D., Westberg, K., & Farrelly, F. (2014).
Understanding fan motivation for interacting on social
media. Sport Management Review, 17(4), 455–469.
doi:10.1016/j.smr.2013.11.004
Stoldt, G.C., & Vermillion, M. (2013). The organizational roles
of college athletics communicators: Relationship to the use
and perceptions of social media. International Journal of
Sport Communication, 6(2), 185–202.
Van Namen, K.K. (2011). “Like” it or not: An argument for the
college coach’s right to regulate social media. Mississippi
Sports Law Review, 1(1), 205–244.
Wallace, L., Wilson, J., & Miloch, K. (2011). Sporting Face-
book: A content analysis of NCAA organizational sport
pages and Big 12 Conference athletic department pages.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 4(4),
422–444.
Walsh, P., Clavio, G., Lovell, M.D., & Blaszka, M. (2013). Differ-
ences in event brand personality between social media users
and non-users. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 22(4), 214–223.
Wang, X. (2013). Applying the integrative model of behavioral
prediction and attitude functions in the context of social
media use while viewing mediated sports. Computers
in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1538–1545. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2013.01.031
Waters, R.D., Burke, K.A., Jackson, Z.H., & Buning, J.D.
(2011). Using stewardship to cultivate fandom online:
Comparing how National Football League teams use their
web sites and Facebook to engage their fans. International
Journal of Sport Communication, 4(2), 163–177.
Wendt, J.T., & Young, P.C. (2011). Reputational risk and social
media. Mississippi Sports Law Review, 1(1), 97–125.
Williams, J., & Chinn, S.J. (2010). Meeting relationship-
marketing goals through social media: A conceptual
model for sport marketers. International Journal of Sport
Communication, 3(4), 422–437.
Witkemper, C., Lim, C.H., & Waldburger, A. (2012). Social
media and sports marketing: Examining the motivations
and constraints of Twitter users. Sport Marketing Quar-
terly, 21(3), 170–183.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Zimmerman, M.H., Clavio, G.E., & Lim, C.H. (2011).
Set the agenda like Beckham: A professional sports
league’s use of YouTube to disseminate messages to
its users. International Journal of Sport Management
and Marketing, 10(3/4), 180–195. doi:10.1504/IJsocial
mediaM.2011.044789
617
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Appendix
Appendix Table 1 Overview and Distribution of the Social Media Literature by Research Streams
Category Corresponding Studies
The Nature of Social Media Blaszka, Burch, Frederick, Clavio, & Walsh (2012); Browning & Sanderson
(2012); Clavio (2008); Clavio (2011); Clavio & Kian (2010); Clavio, Burch, &
Frederick (2012); Clavio, Walsh & Vooris (2013); Deprez, Mechant, & Hoebeke,
(2013); Frederick, Lim, Clavio, & Walsh (2012); Frederick, Lim, Clavio, Ped-
ersen, & Burch (2014); Hambrick, Frederick, & Sanderson (2013); Hambrick
& Mahoney (2011); Hambrick, Simmons, Greenhalgh, & Greenwell, (2010);
Havard, Eddy, Reams, Stewart, & Ahmad (2012); Hull (2014); Hutchins (2011);
Kassing & Sanderson (2010); Kian, Burden, Shaw (2011); Leonard (2009); Liu,
Z., & Berkowitz, D. (2013); O’Shea & Alonso (2011); Pegoraro (2010); Pego-
raro & Jinnah (2012); Reed (2011); Ruihley & Hardin (2011); Sanderson (2008);
Sanderson (2009); Sanderson (2010); Sanderson (2013); Sanderson & Hambrick
(2012); Sheffer & Schultz (2010); Smith & Smith (2012); Stoldt & Vermillion,
(2013); Williams & Chinn (2010); Zimmerman, Clavio, & Lim (2011)
• Understanding use of social media
• Characteristics of social media users
• Adoption of social media
Dening Constructs Clavio & Walsh (2013); Cunningham & Bright (2012); Frederick, Clavio, Burch,
& Zimmerman (2012); Gibbs, O’Reilly & Brunette (2014); Hull & Lewis (2014);
Kwak, Kim, & Zimmerman (2010); Mahan (2011); Mahan, Seo, Jordan, & Funk
(2014); McCarthy, B. (2014); Pronschinske, Groza, & Walker (2012); Stavros,
Meng, Westberg, & Farrelly (2013); Wang (2013); Witkemper, Lim, & Waldburger
(2012)
• Dimensions of use
• Constructs of acceptance
• Platforms attribute
Tools/Platform/Services, social media as Alonso & O’Shea (2012a); Antunovic & Hardin (2012); Brown & Billings (2013);
Brown, Brown, & Billings (2013); Burch, Frederick, Zimmerman, & Clavio
(2011); Clavio & Eagleman (2011); Cleland (2013); Coche (2014); Dart (2009);
Dittmore, McCarthy, McEvoy, & Clavio (2013); Eagleman (2013); Frederick,
Burch, & Blaszka (2013); Hambrick (2012); Hambrick & Kang (2014); Hambrick
& Sanderson (2013); Hopkins (2013); Lebel & Danylchuk (2012); Mahoney,
Hambrick, Svensson, & Zimmerman (2013); McGillivray (2014); Norman (2012);
Phua (2012); Wallace, Wilson & Miloch (2011); Waters, Burke, Jackson, &
Buning (2011)
• Marketing communication tool
• Communication tool for fans
Legal and Ethical Considerations Brison, Baker & Byon (2013); Cornish & Larkin (2014); McKelvey & Mas-
teralexis (2011); McKelvey & Masteralexis, (2013); Sanderson (2011); Sanderson
& Browning, (2013); Van Namen (2011); Wendt & Young (2011)
• Legal issues in using social media
• Social media policies in student-athletes use
Industry Applications Alonso & O’Shea (2012b); Armstrong, Delia, & Giardina (2014); Bayne & Cian-
frone (2013); Boehmer & Lacy (2014); Dittmore, Stoldt, & Greenwell (2008);
Miranda, Chamorro, Rubio, & Rodriguez (2014); Price, Farrington, & Hall (2013)
• Social media marketing strategy
Issues and Impacts Abeza, O’Reilly, & Reid (2013); Emmons & Butler (2013); Gibbs & Haynes
(2013); McEnnis (2013); O’Shea & Alonso (2013); Reed (2013); Reed & Hansen
(2013); Schultz & Sheffer (2010); Walsh, Clavio, Lovell, & Blaszka (2013)
• Impact of social media on journalism practice
• Impact of social media on marketing practice
618
JSM Vol. 29, No. 6, 2015
Appendix Table 2 Theories and Theoretical Frameworks and Models Used in Social Media Scholarship in Sport Management Research
No. Theories and Models Number of Studies Examples of Studies in Which the Theories Applied
1. Uses and gratications 10 Clavio & Kian (2010)
2. Relationship-marketing theory/approach 7 Abeza, O’Reilly, & Reid (2013)
3. Parasocial interaction 4 Sanderson (2008); Kassing & Sanderson (2010)
4. Agenda setting 4 Burch, Frederick, Zimmerman, & Clavio (2011)
5. Image/reputation repair typology (Benoit & Coombs) 3 Brown, Brown, & Billings (2013)
6. Media framing theory 3 Sanderson (2010)
7. Social identity theory 3 Smith & Smith (2012)
8. Technology acceptance model (TAM) 2 Eagleman (2013); Mahan (2011)
9. Self-presentation 2 Lebel & Danylchuk (2012); Hull (2014)
10. Gatekeeping theory 2 Reed & Hansen (2013)
11. Psychological continuum model (PCM) 1 Mahoney, Hambrick, Svensson, & Zimmerman (2013)
12. Integrative model of behavioral prediction and attitude functions 1 Wang (2013)
13. One-way and two-way models of communication 1 Dittmore, Stoldt, & Greenwell (2008)
14. Technological determinism 1 Schultz & Sheffer (2010)
15. Stewardship 1 Waters, Burke, Jackson, & Buning (2011)
16. Communication privacy management theory 1 Sanderson (2011)
17. Feminist theory 1 Antunovic & Hardin (2012)
18. Dialogical self theory 1 Browning & Sanderson (2012)
19. Systems theory 1 Clavio, Burch, & Frederick (2012)
20. Theory of planned behavior 1 Clavio (2011)
21. Broom roles typology 1 Stoldt & Vermillion, (2013)
22. Homophily 1 Hull & Lewis (2014)
23. Technological determinism 1 Schultz & Sheffer (2010)
24. Press-agentry-publicity model of public relations 1 Gibbs & Haynes (2013)
25. Cognitive dissonance theory 1 Kwak, Kim, & Zimmerman (2010)
26. Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) 1 Kwak, Kim, & Zimmerman (2010)
CopyrightofJournalofSportManagementisthepropertyofHumanKineticsPublishers,Inc.
anditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithout
thecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,or
emailarticlesforindividualuse.
