Power, Agendas, and Conflict: A Political Analysis of Institution-Level Policy Making in Intercollegiate Athletics

1. 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. Power Position Individual Power Position Individual Informal Network Coalitions Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Conflict Arena Public Private Conflict Arena Public Private Conceptual Framework Environment PoliticalProcess 1 Political Process 2 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. Power Position Individual Formal Network Athletics Administrators Central Administrators Coaches Faculty Informal Network Coalitions Policy Developers Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/ Beliefs Conflict Arena Public Private Primary Findings Environment Political Process 1

7. Primary Findings Environment Political Process 2 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. Power Position Individual Policy Development Written Policies Deals Precedent Informal Network Coalitions Agendas Rules/Policies Interests/Beliefs External & Internal Environmental Influences Perceived PoliticalProcess 2 Political Process 1 Power Position Individual Formal Network Athletics Administrators Central Administrators 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 PoliticalProcess 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