Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Janet M. Holdsworth, Ph.D. University of Minnesota April 2009
Power, Agendas, and Conflict: A Political Analysis of Institution-Level Policy Making in Intercollegiate Athletics Janet M. Holdsworth, Ph.D. University of Minnesota April 2009
2
Background Political organization theory
Higher education institutions as political organizations Policy arena: Intercollegiate athletics
3
Research Question What are the roles of the formal and informal aspects of the political process in institution-level policy development in intercollegiate athletics?
4
Conceptual Framework Environment Power Position Individual Agendas
Political Process 1 Political Process 2 Power Position Individual Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Conflict Arena Public Private Power Position Individual Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Conflict Arena Public Private Informal Network Coalitions Formal Network Athletics Administrators Central Administrators Coaches Faculty Policy Development Written Policy Deals Precedent
5
Research Design Qualitative methodology Sample
Semi-structured interviews Data analysis
6
Primary Findings Position Interests/ Beliefs Political Process 1
Environment Political Process 1 Formal Network Athletics Administrators Central Administrators Coaches Faculty Informal Network Coalitions Policy Developers Power Position Individual Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Conflict Arena Public Private
7
Primary Findings Private Political Process 2 Coalitions Environment
Power Position Individual Informal Network Policy Developers Choice of Conflict Arenas Private Policy Development Written Policies Deals Precedent Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/Beliefs Informal Network Coalitions Conflict Arena Public Private
8
Secondary Findings Title IX compliance Leadership issues
9
External & Internal Environmental Influences
Perceived Political Process 2 Power Position Individual Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/Beliefs Informal Network Coalitions Policy Development Written Policies Deals Precedent Political Process 1 Power Position Individual Formal Network Athletics Administrators Central Coaches Faculty Public Choice of Conflict Arena Private Informal Network Policy Developers Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/Beliefs Power Position Individual Policy Development Written Policies Deals Precedent Informal Network Coalitions Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/Beliefs Political Process 2
10
Significance & Implications
“There is an old saying among college presidents that the modern university might be viewed as a fragile academic enterprise, delicately balanced between the medical center at one end of the campus and the athletic department at the other. The former can threaten the institution financially; the latter puts at risk the university’s integrity, reputation, and academic priorities.” (Duderstadt, 2000, p. vii) Research Policy Practice
Similar presentations
