SPORT
& SOCIETY
JOURNAL
of
Volume 1, Number 4
The Senior Woman Administrator Designation in the
NCAA
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
First published in 2010 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.CommonGroundPublishing.com.
© 2010 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2010 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground
Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps.
All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact
<cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com>.
ISSN: 2152-7857
Publisher Site: http://www.SportandSocietyJournal.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT AND SOCIETY is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published.
Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system
Jennifer Lee Hoffman, University of Washington, Washington, USA
Abstract: In the United States, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the largest governing organization for intercollegiate athletics. All NCAA member institutions must designate the highest-ranking woman in athletic administration as the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA). The SWA role is “intended to encourage and promote the involvement” of women in decision-making, enhance the representation women’s experiences and perspectives, and support women’s interests in intercollegiate athletics (NCAA, n.d.). This theory focus paper uses a feminist poststructural policy analysis of the NCAA’s SWA policy. First this paper introduces the historical background of women’s leadership in higher education and Title IX policy that frame the context of the SWA designation. Next, previous research related to the SWA is discussed, revealing inconsistency in this policy’s impact on women in leadership and governance of athletics. From the presentation of the historical framework and previous research this paper concludes with an analysis of the SWA designation using a feminist poststructural lens and offers recommendations for policy reform.
Keywords: Women, Athletic Administrators, Feminist Perspectives
I
N THE UNITEDStates, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is the largest governing organization for intercollegiate athletics. Approximately half of all schools and colleges that sponsor intercollegiate athletics are members of the NCAA. This is the only governing organization that singles out a speciic leadership role for women. All NCAA member institutions must designate the highest-ranking woman in ath-letic administration as the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) (National Collegiate Athath-letic Association, [NCAA], n.d., a). The SWA role is “intended to encourage and promote the involvement” of women in decision making, enhance the representation women’s experiences and perspectives, and support women’s interests in intercollegiate athletics (NCAA, n.d., a).The NCAA created the SWA role in 1981 after forcing the closure of the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) and their sponsorship of women’s champion-ships (Cahn, 1995; Carpenter & Acosta, 2001; Festle, 1996; Hult, 1994; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998). Originally named the Primary Woman Administrator (PWA) the title and responsib-ility was assigned to the individual man or woman responsible for overseeing women’s athletics at each institution after the NCAA took over the AIAW (Cahn, 1995; Carpenter & Acosta, 2001; Sack & Staurowsky, 1998). Then renamed to the current title in 1989, the SWA role was assigned only to women as a strategy to integrate women in the governance of women’s athletics at the institutional, conference, and national level within the previously all-male NCAA (Sweet & Morrison, 2006; see also Stallman, Kovalchik, Tiell, & Goff, 2006).
The International Journal of Sport and Society
Since its inception, the role has continued to change and evolve. After the NCAA clariied the SWA designation as a women-only role, legal concerns over discrimination in hiring practices prompted further clariication. The SWA designation was changed to the highest ranking woman rather than a position within the department (Copeland, 2005). Yet the NCAA’s SWA policy stirs debate.
Designating the SWA designation has had beneits and unintended consequences for in-fusing women in to the leadership and governance of the NCAA and its member institution athletic departments. There are very low numbers of women serving in leadership roles among NCAA member institutions. For all NCAA institutions combined, only 19.3% of schools have a woman athletic director. At 13.2% of all NCAA member schools there is no woman in athletic administration, despite the requirement for an SWA (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010). Acosta and Carpenter also reported that among all NCAA member institutions there is an average of 3.78 administrators per institution, but only 1.32 women (Acosta & Carpenter, 2010).
The low number of women overall in athletic administration is further compounded by the SWA role. An unintended result of this policy is that it pinches the pipeline at the senior level of administration to one woman at most institutions (Author, under review). Even by the NCAA’s own account, “The SWA provides a female voice at the table, many times the only female voice, by providing a diverse, different view – a different perspective” (Copeland, 2005). “The question is, how do you culturally encourage and infuse the value of women – and the role that women play – in leadership positions within the Association? And then balance that with the legal problem of, you just can’t lat advertise for a woman administrat-or?” (see Belgiovine in Copeland, 2005). Yet the problem of the SWA goes well beyond the legal limitations of a gender-speciic job description. The NCAA’s SWA policy reinforces the “token woman – the isolated individual functioning with, but never fully accepted by, the male enclave” in intercollegiate athletics (Glazer & Slater, 1987, p. 71).
Although some women have leveraged the SWA role to achieve senior leadership and athletic director positions, athletic departments remain a male-dominated area of the academy. Not every woman serving as the SWA has beneited from the role (Hosick, 2005). Among the governance and decision making responsibilities for this designation is oversight and advocacy for gender equity and women’s athletics within the department. For some women this responsibility has been met with resistance. In some cases it rises to hostility, harassment, even retaliation. In October 2007, Diane Milutinovich, former associate athletic director and senior woman administrator was awarded 3.5 million dollars in a settlement with Fresno State University. She sued after retaliation for advocating for equal treatment of women’s athletics.
History of the SWA
Congress passed Title IX in 1972, ushering in changes across the landscape of higher educa-tion, including intercollegiate athletics. However, it was not until 1979 that the Department of Education and Welfare promulgated guidelines for institutions with regard to athletic de-partments. In the years after Title IX passed, the women’s governing organization, the AIAW, and the NCAA were at odds over Title IX and who would control women’s athletics. By 1981, the NCAA began offering championships and created the Primary Woman Adminis-trator (PWA) designation, as an “inducement to gain votes” from women leaders in the AIAW for NCAA sponsorship of women’s championships (Hult, 1994, p. 99). After the AIAW suspended operations, the NCAA - who had fought vigorously against Title IX for women’s athletics - assumed control of women’s intercollegiate competition.
Most institutions were merging their previously separate men’s and women’s athletic de-partments into one program in the wake of Title IX and the NCAA takeover of the AIAW. Universities began shifting organizational structures and combining athletic department ar-rangements. This resulted in the men’s program director assuming the athletic director role and the women’s program director, demoted to a title of associate or assistant athletic director within the athletic department.
The early PWA role helped usher in the representation of women in the governance of the NCAA (Hosick, 2005; NCAA, 2005), by guaranteeing a place for women on the NCAA Council and other committees to women (Hult, 1994). The PWA also created a NCAA vote for women on legislation that took place at the annual convention (Crowley, 2006). After the implementation of the PWA, “a token number of women entered the NCAA hierarchy” (Hult, 1994, p. 99). In 1989 the title changed to Senior Woman Administrator - or SWA – and was further clariied to designate the SWA as a role speciically for women. Later, concerns over potential legal issues associated with the SWA designation, prompted review and clariied it even further to a role rather than a job title or description (Copeland, 2005; Hosick, 2005).
Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta collected the irst data on career experiences and job patterns of SWAs in 1992. Their research found that most SWAs in the study had not con-templated a job change or sought other positions (Carpenter & Acosta, 1992). Furthermore, when asked what would encourage women to pursue another job, higher salary, matching authority with responsibility, and “don’t ask me to wear more than one hat” were reported (Carpenter & Acosta, 1992, p. 4). The NCAA surveyed the SWAs in 1994 and found confu-sion and inconsistency about the SWA title and responsibilities (Watson, 1994). Only 18 percent of the respondents indicated that they had decision making authority. A 1999 survey of SWAs by Swearingen found that the “SWA was in ‘name only’ with no assigned duties” (1999, p. 37).
involves monitoring implementation of the gender-equity plan and advocating for women in the athletic department (Sweet & Morrison, 2006; see also Stallman, et al., 2006).
The designation of the SWA within NCAA governance has created a complex set of conlicting roles that women in senior athletic administration must navigate at the institutional level (Author, under review). The advocacy responsibility and perception, oversight of stu-dent-athlete welfare, and the responsibility for Title IX oversight inhibit the individual efforts of women leaders to advance in intercollegiate athletic administration. However, simply doing away with the role is not something the women in athletic administration see as a solution for infusing more women into the leadership pipeline or structures (Author, under review).
Previous Research on the SWA Role
Previous research explains this policy in the context of the SWA within the NCAA member schools. The NCAA is the only governing body with an SWA policy. The NCAA is divided into three broad member categories. Currently there are 1,055 NCAA member institutions and they are divided among three competitive divisions. There are 335 Division I members, 288 Division II members, and 432 Division III members (NCAA, n.d., a). These member categories are designated by philosophical orientations as well as speciic departmental cri-teria. Division I is characterized by large, highly visible athletic programs with football and basketball games that garner attention from a wide spectator audience. Athletes participating at the Division I level are eligible for athletic scholarships. Division II athletic programs are more modest in their overall spectator audience interest, but like Division I scholarships are allowable for athletic participation. Division III programs are the smallest in scope and do not offer athletic scholarships to students. Yet, the NCAA membership only represents 52% of the approximately 2100 colleges and universities in the U.S. that sponsor intercollegiate athletic competition. The other 48% of colleges and universities with athletic programs belong to other governing organizations that have no SWA designation.
The previous research on the SWA role focuses on the challenges and beneits of this policy within the NCAA member institution types, including some of the unintended out-comes, and the pipeline of potential women in intercollegiate athletics. Still, the complexities of this role are not fully understood. For example, it is not clear whether the SWA role is a terminal career position or prepares women leaders for career advancement (Hatield 2003; Hatield, Hatield, & Drummond, 2009).
The inluence of the SWA policy on promoting the decision making authority of women in the athletic department is not clear from the previous literature. The areas of decision making authority in athletics are presented in the next four sections. They are 1) decision making authority, 2) inancial decision making, 3) gender equity decision making, and 4) perceptions in decision making.
Decision Making Authority
that most SWAs have “only advisory authority for most functions” (Clausen & Lehr, 2002, p. 223), such as being consulted or informed rather than responsibility for approval for de-cisions. Conversely, when asked about areas of appropriate responsibility, authority, decision making, and leadership, Hatield (2003) reported that Division I SWAs had moderate levels of satisfaction with their responsibilities, job, authority, and their ability to mentor others in the department.
Among Division I athletic programs SWAs have decision making authority to a greater degree than their peers at Division II and III member institutions (Clausen & Lehr, 2002). This is likely due to SWAs in Division I having administrative titles rather than coaching roles, as is often the case with Division II and III. This is also consistent with Tiell’s (2004) indings about the Divison II SWA role where 56 percent of the respondents did not have an administration title (i.e. Assistant or Associate Athletic Director). The greater incidence of decision making among Division I SWAs is also thought to be due in part to the special-ization inherent to those athletic departments in areas such as compliance, media relations, inance, and advising (Clausen & Lehr, 2002).
Financial Decision Making
SWAs in all Divisions have indicated that they would like more involvement in inancial decisions. Grappendorf et al. (2008) examined the perceptions of SWAs regarding their participation in this area of decision making within intercollegiate athletics. SWAs from all three NCAA Divisions indicated that they “were often not involved in various areas of in-ancial decision making” and many “wanted more participation in inin-ancial decision making” (p. 40).
Pent, Grappendorf and Henderson (2007) studied the actual versus desired levels of parti-cipation in inancial decision making of SWAs in all three NCAA Division categories and found that they desire more inancial decision making than they are currently involved with. However, Hatield (2003) found that less than half of SWAs surveyed in Division I thought that their primary function should be in inancial areas such as budgeting (40%), marketing women’s athletics (33.1%) and fundraising for women’s athletics (24.8%) (see also Hatield, Hatield & Drummond, 2009). This is in contrast to the Pent, Grappendorf, and Henderson (2007) study that found these were areas SWAs indicated a desire formoredecision making opportunities.
Gender Equity Decision Making
equity, and 75.2 percent indicated serving as role model. Over half of SWAs also indicated that mentoring should be a primary function of the SWA (Hatield, 2003; Hatield, Hatield & Drummond, 2009).
Perceptions in SWA Decision Making
Tiell (2004) examined differences in perceptions of the SWA role and tasks between athletic directors, who are mostly men, and SWAs at Division II institutions. Among the indings, athletic directors and SWAs are in agreement about jobs and duties performed by SWAs for men’s issues and gender-neutral roles, but their beliefs about the roles related to decision making and women’s issues were not consistent. Additionally, athletic directors believed SWAs are more involved in “group work participation, athletic program governance, and decision making” than the SWAs reported in the survey (Tiell, 2004, p. 204).
There are also differences in perceptions about decision making between athletic directors and SWAs at the Division III level in later research (NCAA, 2005). In particular, the differ-ences were in the areas of budget and inance, fund-raising, and personnel decision making (NCAA, 2005). This was also true of differences between SWAs and athletic directors with regard to how much SWA perform roles “related to core management team participation” (Tiell & Dixson, 2008, p. 339).
The lack of clarity about the SWA and decision making authority underscores the com-plexities of this role. The SWA role in the context of leadership in intercollegiate athletics raises several dilemmas about the SWA role and decision making authority. These dilemmas provide the foundation for interrogating the NCAA’s SWA policy from a feminist critical poststructural perspective.
A Feminist Critical Poststructural Perspective of the SWA
The inconsistency in the previous literature about the decision making authority of SWAs and the complexity illustrated by this policy warrants further analysis. Critical theories illus-trate how “the relationship between power and culture and the ideologies, knowledges, and languages” reproduce systems of power and exclude people in the very contexts where policies are instituted to promote equity (Bensimon & Marshall, 1997, p. 5). There are many critical analysis traditions that could be used to draw out the underlying inequities related to the SWA role (Apple, 2010). Merging a feminist critical policy analysis with a poststruc-tural view is a useful lens for unpacking how this role creates problems for the advancement of women and why decision making authority of SWAs is unclear.
One of the key challenges brought forth by Bensimon & Marshall (2003) is how to transform higher education institutions. Speciically, they note that a goal of feminist critical policy analysis is to transform institutions. Simply “adding” women has little impact on the structures and practices of higher education institutions. Furthermore, examining policies from conventional methods overlooks gendered assumptions embedded in policies (Bensimon & Marshall, 2003).
The SWA policy is one that cannot transform the male gendered leadership of intercollegi-ate athletics because it was creintercollegi-ated as a result of the ight for control of women’s sports between the all-men’s governing organization (the NCAA) and the all-women’s organization (the AIAW). In the end, the NCAA took over the governance of women’s college sport and dismantled the infrastructure of women’s leadership. A feminist critical poststructural ana-lysis of the SWA illustrates how the role created by this policy is built with the master’s tools and from within the master’s house (Lorde, 1984 as cited in Bensimon & Marshall, 2003). Simply adding a role for women within the NCAA and among member institutions is merely an artifact of the dominant power structure. The result is an unintended perpetuation of inequity between women and men within the leadership of NCAA member institutions. A feminist critical perspective helps explain why the decision making and perceptions re-garding decision making authority of SWAs are described with such inconsistency in the previous literature. The SWA role is gendered in ways that disadvantage women and do little to transform the leadership structure. This results in wide variability in the effectiveness of SWAs in decision making because the role lacks power within control of intercollegiate sports.
Secondly, the SWA is a policy that remains gendered, both in formal and informal, duties and practices. Examining the discourse related to the duties and practices of the SWA role and the ways in which this policy relects and creates gendered disparities draws a poststruc-tural frame into the analysis. “Poststrucpoststruc-tural perspectives position policies as dynamic and productive” (Allan, 2008). The migration of the role from PWA to SWA and the legal challenges to institutionalizing a position just for women illustrate the dynamic nature of this policy. A poststructural analysis of the discourse surrounding this policy further exem-pliies how this role is limited in its reach to transform institutions, except in a few isolated settings.
Suggestions for Future Policy Development
To increase the authority of women leaders in intercollegiate athletics administration, several simultaneous initiatives that distribute the burden for gender equity decision making and integrate more women in other areas of decision making authority in intercollegiate athletics leadership are needed. Programming that focuses on networking, mentorship, workshops, and executive training place too much of the burden on women to prepare for leadership in athletic administration in the decision making areas. This training must be paired with NCAA and departmental efforts that promote the participation of more women in the decision making work of the department. Two suggestions are offered for policy reform of the Senior Woman Administrator role.
First, acknowledge the role as a gendered construct that reinforces the dominant power structure and disentangle the SWA role from women’s leadership. Recognize it as a terminal role as Hatield (2003) suggests and provide incentives from the NCAA for institutions to provide more opportunity for the involvement of more women in decision making, particularly at the upper levels of athletic administration. Integrate 3-4 or perhaps more women from the assistant and associate ranks in departmental decision making, preparing all of them for senior level administration. This reduces the burden for decision making on the only woman at the upper levels of administration and increases the likelihood that more women will gain access to the senior associate level.
Secondly, distribute the work of monitoring and reporting related to equity in a unit within the athletic department or other campus units, rather than left to the oversight of one person. Despite the NCAA suggestion for collaboration for all areas of decision making among the senior team, the SWA is viewed as primary position for gender equity oversight. As a result the responsibility for Title IX monitoring falls largely on the SWA.
Therefore, the author suggests distributing the day-to-day oversight of gender equity compliance among the department staff and several levels of campus level oversight of ath-letics, representation at the conference, and NCAA committees. Much like the model in compliance, equity should be housed under a separate unit or combined within the compliance staff within the athletic department and coordinated with other campus ofices. For example, the NCAA should require regular institutional reporting from the Equal Opportunity Ofice, Ofice of Institutional Research, and department level equity staff.
For women currently serving in Senior Associate level administration, they should remain there as well as contribute their effort and experience to the equity staff. Previous mergers and reorganizations in the NCAA governance and among institutions have shown that the expected reaction will be to demote women to the Equity Director role. Protections should be in place and monitoring by the equity staff to ensure that their duties remain squarely on senior level department business but distribute the oversight of gender equity across several units and personnel in the department.
Making changes to the SWA role will likely meet resistance and raise legitimate concerns. Creating an equity staff within compliance will add the burden of more personnel and report-ing on budgets already stretched. However, the complexity of college athletics continues to grow and women in leadership positions have not matched the gains made by women student-athletes. To reverse the trend that eliminated women from athletics leadership, governance, and decision making, new strategies that focus on generating the critical mass of women are needed.
References
Acosta, R. V., & Carpenter, L. J. (2010).Women in intercollegiate sport: A longitudinal, national study - Thirty three year update, 1977-2008.Retrieved from http://www.acostacarpenter.org Allan, E. J. (2008).Policy discourses, gender, and education: Constructing women’s studies. New
York: Routledge.
Apple, M. (2010). Putting “critical” back into education research.Educational Researcher,39(2), 152-162.
Bensimon, E. M., & Marshall, C. (1997). Policy analysis for post-secondary education: Feminist and Critical perspectives. In C. Marshall (Ed.),Feminist Critical Policy Analysis II: A Perspective from Post-Secondary Education(pp. 1-21). London: The Falmer Press.
Bensimon, E. M., & Marshall, C. (2003). Like it or not: Feminist critical policy analysis matters.The Journal of Higher Education,74(3), 337-349.
Cahn, S. K. (1995).Coming on strong: Gender and sexuality in twentieth-century women’s sport. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, L.J., & Acosta, R. V. (1992).Job stasis: Relections of immobility and resistance to job change among senior woman athletic personnel. Unpublished manuscript.
Carpenter, L. J., & Acosta, R. V. (2001). “Let her swim, climb mountain peaks”: Self-sacriice and success in expanding athletic programs for women. InWomen Administrators in Higher Education: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives(pp. 207-229). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Clausen, C. L., & Lehr, C. (2002). Decision making authority of senior woman administrators. Inter-national Journal of Sport Management,3(3), 215-228.
Copeland, J. (2005). Association takes steps to improve understanding of ‘SWA.’NCAA News. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ncaa+news+online/2005/as- sociation-wide/association+takes+steps+to+improve+understanding+of+_swa_+-+8-15-05+ncaa+news
Crowley, J. N. (2006).In the arena: The NCAA’s irst century. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Publications. Retrieved from http://www.ncaapublications.com/ProductsTileView
.as-px?t=arena&c=&s=0&p=0&y=0&index=xml&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Festle, M. J. (1996).Playing nice: Politics and apologies in women’s sports. New York: Columbia University Press.
Grappendorf, H., Pent, A., Burton, L., & Henderson, A. (2008). Gender role stereotyping: A qualitative analysis of senior women administrators’ perceptions regarding inancial decision making.
Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics,1, 26-45.
Glazer, P. M., & Slater, M. (1987).Unequal colleagues: The entrance of women into the professions, 1890-1940. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hatield, L. M., Hatield, L. C., & Drummond, J. L. (2009). The perceived role of senior women ad-ministrators in NCAA Division I institutions.The Sport Journal,12(3). Retrieved from http://www.thesportjournal.org/article/perceived-role-senior-women-administrators-ncaa-division-i-institutions
Hosick, M. (2005). Senior class: Research raises new questions about role of woman administrators.
NCAA News. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+news/ ncaa+news+online/2005/association-wide/senior+class+-+8-15-05+ncaa+news
Hult, J. S. (1994). The story of women’s athletics: Manipulating a dream, 1890-1985. In D. M. Costa & S. R. Guthrie (Eds.),Women and sport: Interdisciplinary perspectives(pp. 83-106). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (2005). SWAs perceive lack of involvement in inance, personnel.NCAA News.Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/ncaa+
news/ncaa+news+online/2005/association-wide/swas+perceive+lack+of+involvement+in+in-ance%2C+personnel+-+8-15-05+ncaa+news.
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d., [a]).Senior Woman Administrator.Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/About+The+NCAA/Diversity+and+Inclu-sion/Gender+Equity+and+Title+IX/SWA
National Collegiate Athletic Association. (n.d., [b]).Composition & Sport Sponsorship of the NCAA. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/NCAA/About%20
The%20NCAA/Membership/membership_breakdown.html
Pent, A., Grappendorf, H., & Henderson, A. (2007). Do they want more?: An analysis of NCAA senior woman administrators’ participation in inancial decision making.Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education,1(2), 157-174.
Sack, A. L., & Staruowsky, E. J. (1998).College athletes for hire: The evolution and legacy of the NCAA’s amateur myth. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Swearingen, T. (1999). Examination of the senior woman administrator role in college athletic depart-ments. (Master’s Thesis, Boston College, 1999).Masters Abstracts International, 37(4), 1125.
Sweet, J. & Morrison, K. (2006).Current Status of the SWA within the NCAA. Presented at the NCAA Convention, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ ncaa/about+the+ncaa/diversity+and+inclusion/gender+equity+and+title+ix/swa
Stallman, R., Kovalchik, M., Tiell, B., & Goff, A., (2006). Paper presented at Live NCAA Web Cast, Washington, DC.Clariication of the senior woman administrator designation.
Tiell, B. (2004).Career paths, roles, and tasks of senior woman administrators in intercollegiate athletics. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3132761)
Tiell, B., & Dixon, M. A. (2008). Roles and tasks of the Senior Woman Administrator (SWA) in inter-collegiate athletics: A role congruity perspective.Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education, 2(3), 339-361.
About the Author
Dr. Jennifer Lee Hoffman
EDITORS
Keith Gilbert, University of East London, UK.
Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA.
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Mojca Doupona, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mark Hargreaves, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, USA.
Jack Jedwab, Association for Canadian Studies, Montreal, Canada.
Sid Katz, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Richard Lichen, Beijing Sports University, Beijing, China.
Abdul Hafidz bin Haji Omar, University Technology Malaysia, Malaysia.
Otto J. Schantz, University of Koblenz, Landau, Germany.
Karin Volkwein-Caplan, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, West Chester, USA.
www.Arts-Journal.com www.Book-Journal.com
www.Climate-Journal.com www.ConstructedEnvironment.com
www.Design-Journal.com www.Diversity-Journal.com
www.GlobalStudiesJournal.com www.Humanities-Journal.com
www.OnTheImage.com www.Learning-Journal.com
www.Management-Journal.com www.Museum-Journal.com
www.ReligionInSociety.com www.Science-Society.com
http://www.SocialSciences-Journal.com www.SpacesAndFlows.com
www.SportAndSociety.com www.Sustainability-Journal.com
www.Technology-Journal.com www.ULJournal.com
