Intercollegiate Athletic Administration: Preparation Patterns

Abstract

Over the past decade the field of athletics has experienced rapid growth and change, underscoring the need for updating knowledges about effective administration of these programs. The main purpose of this study was to ascertain the job responsibilities and essential characteristics of intercollegiate athletic directors (ADs) and to solicit their recommendations for a graduate program of study in athletic administration. The study was primarily exploratory, much of the data being descriptive in nature. A random sample of 320 ADs (163 men and 157 women) participated in the study. Rankings of job responsibilities were significantly affected by the competitive level (division) of the program administered, but not by the gender of the AD or whether the AD headed an NCAA or AIAW program. The implication is that courses of study should reflect the responsibilities in varying competitive divisions while incorporating common areas of responsibilities that apply to all programs. Regardless of the gender of the AD or of the program division, graduate course work experiences given the highest ratings were those of communication skills, business-related skills, and public relations followed by knowledges and skills unique to athletic administration. There were significant gender differences, but no division differences in both the percentage of ADs who had certain coaching, competitive, and administrative background experiences, and in the ADs' ratings of how beneficial these experiences were. Although the overall results of the study did show some differences in competencies favoring male ADs, the differences were not such as to support the almost total stereotyping of male ADs in head positions of combined programs. The need to redirect efforts toward improving opportunities for women to gain access to top management positions appears warranted.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.